I received a wealth of feedback on the article about how to cook incels.
There were so many absolutely enthusiastic reviews—more than any of my other articles have ever gathered—that I’m bewildered. By all journalistic standards, the article is terrible because a hostile attitude toward the subject matter literally seeps through. On the other hand, standards are one thing, and reader sympathies are another!
But there was criticism too.
I’ll start with the simplest. A photo of a decision-maker’s secretary was used as a clear illustration of the fact that a woman’s success is roughly not determined by male appearance, and therefore, the entire high-minded incel theory simply crashes against practice. Perhaps the caption for the photo wasn’t clear enough, but generally, I wanted to pay a compliment to the subject of the photo. It didn’t work—oh well. Here, I am in an extremely advantageous position, where taking offense means raising suspicions of one’s own affiliation with the group being studied.
A huge number of extremely detailed recommendations were received regarding the nuances of using psychoactive substances. Among the unusual suggestions, cocaine is recommended to increase self-confidence. Well, that’s for the truly desperate; I wouldn’t prescribe that to just anyone. I’m glad my readers are experienced and well-educated people.
But the most serious complaint was the accusation of failing to fully explore the topic. I was reminded of my joint article with Bitarch about the targeted promotion of libertarianism, and people wondered why, in this case, I am admitting helplessness and writing some off-topic piece about individual salvation instead of putting together universal arguments for representatives of the group in question. My mistake. Here it comes.
Targeted promotion of libertarianism for incels
1. The state benefits from the destruction of the institution of the family because it wants the individual to depend only on the state and not be able to rely on their loved ones. But if the state becomes a nanny for the person, the person becomes infantile, and the woman does too. Instead of looking at truly important things, like a groom’s wealth or his prospects, she acts on the principle of “this one is handsome, I want him, and this one is ugly, get him out of my sight.” Without the state and its hyper-protection, a woman would have to behave more responsibly, and a man’s appearance would be far from the primary consideration when choosing.
2. The state caters to immigrants. In the US, these are sultry Latinos. In Europe—sultry Arabs and Blacks. In Russia—hot southern guys as well. This further increases the competition for women. Without the state, the local community would quickly kick out outsiders who do not respect local cultural norms.
3. Speaking of cultural norms. There is such a thing as panarchy. You can establish your own contractual jurisdiction, and it will have everything you need: fines for refusing sex, a ban on divorce, no prosecution for so-called marital rape, and so on. The only restriction is that joining the jurisdiction must be voluntary. Do you think too few girls will join your jurisdiction? Well, then choose the jurisdiction of some Puritans; there, submission to the husband and all that other stuff will be preached, and paying a tithe and attending church on Sundays is not such a high price for strict biblical family morality. But first, of course, you’ll have to push the state aside.
I was asked to share my thoughts on them and whether there is any way to convert this social group to libertarianism.
Incels (from involuntary celibate) are a very specific subculture consisting, roughly speaking, of those who don’t get laid. More accurately, those who are deeply offended by this fact, consider their situation hopeless, and intend to vent their anger on this cruel world. There are known mass murders committed by incels, and the perpetrators of these murders are highly regarded within the incel subculture.
The vast majority of incels are citizens of the US and EU. The Russian-speaking community is young and small, but clearly intends to quickly gather followers. The only difference I managed to find in the doctrines of Russian and Euro-American incels is that Euro-Americans consider it a virtue not to work and live on welfare, whereas Russians, due to underdeveloped social services, are deprived of this option, and are therefore slightly more human-like.
The political agenda of incels is quite simple. Correctly pointing out that sex is a scarce resource, these socialists then claim that there must be a fair distribution of this resource. Alphas, they say, can afford to change girls weekly, while omegas are left only to stand aside and be angry. Some blame a global female conspiracy, others “vagino-capitalism.”
They argue about exactly which methods should ensure the fair distribution of sex, but usually, all sorts of government bans are discussed. Indeed, who else, if not a conditional Zhirinovsky, would ensure every man has a woman?
So, what is to be done with them? How do we turn them into allies? About this, as Ekaterina Schulmann would say, read in our new book “Not at All.”
The only thing capable of protecting the world from the strengthening of organized groups of avengers for their trampled positive sexual rights is the broad deregulation of everything related to sex and biotechnology. More brothels with sex robots, full legalization of voluntary sex work, and all forms of marriage—and then the most sane incels will realize that to hell with free sex, they can provide themselves with paid sex, and perhaps of even higher quality. They will even look down on those who, in the old-fashioned way, settle for amateur fucking, while the “right guys” choose professional services, in the form of one-time pleasures or some kind of concubinage.
Finally, since incels see their miserable appearance as the key problem (unbelievably, but these guys largely believe they don’t get laid because they are ugly), progress in biotechnology should soon provide the ability to correct the genome, if not for oneself, then at least for offspring. And plastic surgery will continue to get cheaper.
Incels will not become libertarians, but thanks to the market, they will cease to be incels.
What can be offered to those who are not ready to wait for a mythical ancap and want results here and now? For example, he is an incel himself, or a close relative of his has happened to become an incel (I exclude the “friend” option—perhaps I am biased, but I have the impression that these hateful assholes simply don’t have friends).
Let’s start with the fact that the incel needs to be pulled out of the community. As long as a person is in an echo chamber, any external signals that do not confirm their already established position will simply not be perceived. It is unrealistic and counterproductive to forcibly deprive them of the possibility of communication, so only switching to another activity works. If a guy is busy, for example, working on an interesting project, he has no time to wallow in misery himself or communicate with other miserable wretches. Again, it is highly desirable that this replacement activity involves communication, rather than some autistic poking around in program code.
Next is the hardest part. Of course, appearance plays almost no role. What attracts people to a man is his self-confidence and charm. Breaking through this incel mindset of “it won’t work for me again, enough embarrassing myself, leave me alone, even trying is useless” is almost impossible. Trying to relax a grumpy asshole with alcohol is not worth it—under the influence, you’ll just get an aggressive asshole. Better to try weed and euphoretics. You need a small mixed-gender company, substances, and a minimal cultural program, whatever comes to mind, from playing “spin the bottle” to watching some light erotic comedy. No one is setting themselves up for sex in advance—why would they—it’s just about having a good time. Well, if even laughing together at stupid jokes combined with unbearable urges to hug doesn’t give him confidence, then hand him over to a psychoanalyst; my further advice is powerless here.
Now, when the incel begins to show at least some signs of recovery, you can then load him up with libertarianism. “Look, if you had lived on welfare, what kind of social circle would you have? The state puts a person on the needle of social security and turns them into an incel.” “Look how easy and simple it worked under substances, and no physical dependence, no withdrawals. But the state is ready to crush anyone who helps you with this under Article 228. Because the state needs incels; it’s a divide and conquer tactic.” “Look how many useful practices in the field of sex the state prohibits; even harmless swinger parties are seen as organizing brothels. It creates an artificial deficit so that you think with your balls instead of your head.”
Perhaps these same considerations could have been conveyed to him in his initial state. But then we would risk getting a potential terrorist angered at the state instead of a potential terrorist angered at the female sex. He’ll blow up a security guard in the FSB building, and then you’ll be dragged in for interrogations—do you really need that?
According to all incel manuals regarding appearance, this guy simply must be an incel. But he has no time; he is the secretary of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia.
For example, what if there were some relationships with “United Russia” in the past, or if non-libertarian laws were promoted? In general, what do you advise such people to do? Is damaging those in power through compromising materials or lawsuits the only format? And what if those in power were not comrades of any sort, and there is no compromising material on hand? Perhaps reversing the adopted bad laws would also work? Maybe something else?
Sergey Sushinsky
This is a very complex topic if viewed through the prism of holistic constructs like the “libertarian public,” but it becomes much simpler if one does not deviate from the principle of methodological subjectivism. It is impossible to please the public as a whole; it is impossible to stain your reputation in the eyes of absolutely everyone, and to an equal extent. To some, Stalin is a bloody tyrant; to some, the father of nations; and to some, a weakling who failed to crush the hydra of counter-revolution.
There are very intolerant libertarians, at least in their public rhetoric. Judging by your mention of compromising materials on government representatives in your question, you clearly meant, among other things, “how to curry favor with Mikhail Svetov if you are Dmitry Gudkov.” You can’t. Svetov is just as biased as many others, and will similarly fit the arguments to his pre-existing opinion. This works both negatively and positively; any conditional Svetov will inevitably have a “inner circle” that is forgiven more than outsiders. This is normal, in the sense that it is determined by our biology.
From the outside, of course, one can indeed imagine horrors. If these guys are so strict with a person whose father voted for bad laws and who did not disown him, then what will they say about a person who personally lobbied for bad laws?
In fact, however, people are quite inclined to respect those who act in accordance with their convictions, and when those convictions change, those who honestly admit it and declare their new agenda, providing a justification for why it appeared.
You believed smoking was an evil and lobbied for anti-tobacco laws. Now you believe smoking is an evil, but you consider anti-tobacco laws an even greater evil. This is a perfectly natural evolution of thought, and you naturally seek arguments now against the lobbying of anti-tobacco laws. You collaborated with United Russia, realized that it was not only futile but harmful, and now you seek ways to shake its monopoly. This is a far more understandable, consistent, and respectable position than having no position at all, or simply claiming that no one can be trusted and there is no point in trying.
Take Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly: he used to be involved in public politics, and now he has not only cooled toward it but considers the pursuit harmful. I believe he is wrong, but given the difference in experience, I fully admit that I might be the one who is wrong. We have noted our disagreement, and I hope that for him this will not be a reason to “cut me out of the movement,” as especially intolerant people like to do. If you encounter such people, simply understand that using simple oppositions saves a great deal of mental effort, and do not force them to strain themselves where they don’t need to. On the other hand, they can use their thinking to the fullest where it is more justified for them, and division of labor is great, even if it is the division of brain labor between separate tasks.
I am not a neurobiologist, and it is difficult for me to say what this brain is busy with now, but in any case, that is its private business
Yesterday’s spontaneous post about how Ukraine has finally waited for a libertarian president caused a number of comments from actual Ukrainian libertarians, such as, for example, Vladimir Zolotoryov. The comments boil down to the fact that there is nothing to rejoice about; Zelensky is as much a libertarian as Zolotoryov himself is a communist, so he will ruin everything no better than Balashov.
Indeed, Zelensky’s statements are quite contradictory: he simultaneously quotes Reagan, with his “government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem,” immediately proposes the concept of government as a service, and then promptly reports that it would be a good idea to imprison more people for tax evasion and introduce total income declaration. So, Zelensky is certainly not a convinced libertarian; he is an obvious populist trying to guess the demand of the target audience to gain maximum support.
What do I see as the merit of Zolotoryov, Balashov, Yurovsky, and even the—heaven forbid—late Sherstnyov? It is that they, and many other Ukrainians, broadcast the libertarian agenda so loudly and convincingly that the populist Zelensky believed: this is the people’s demand, and this is what I will latch onto. Zelensky, having no distinct program of his own, is an amplifier of someone else’s agenda. Yes, his microphone captures noise along with the signal, introduces its own distortions, and then delivers something close to a cacophony to the public. But he draws attention to the libertarian doctrine itself, and after that, interested people can already bend the ears of others and explain that taxes are theft, the state is a gangster, and this is how ancap works—take it and use it.
In Russia, however, Vladimir Popov asks an interesting question in his channel. Generally, the channel is mostly dedicated to weapons, and I love it dearly, but opinions on a wide variety of topics are found there. Vladimir asks: how is it that when Enteo says he is a libertarian, everyone brushes it off as something you’d expect from a fool. But when people say Zelensky is a libertarian, everyone rejoices wildly that Ukraine succeeded. What is the libertarianism of Zelensky, how does he differ from Enteo, and what did Ukraine succeed in?
Zelensky, unlike Enteo, does not practice direct aggressive violence, declares a desire to end the war, and defends the desire of Ukrainians to live their own private lives. And if the statement “Enteo is a libertarian” evokes nervous laughter and a response of “why don’t you call the Tsapkovs libertarians too,” here it is more of a shrug and a thoughtful “well, in some ways—yes.”
So, it makes sense for Ukrainian minarchists to express joy and start broadcasting something like “Hooray, Zelensky is a libertarian, which means he must lower taxes, reduce regulations, carry out decentralization, and privatize state enterprises. Show us the scoundrel who dares to hinder our beloved Mr. President in these libertarian endeavors, and we will cover them in shame.”
The same applies in Russia: if Putin says he is a libertarian, the reaction will be like it was for Enteo. If Navalny says he is a libertarian, it makes sense to express joy and bring the good news to the city and the world: finally, we have reached Navalny, he has become imbued with libertarianism, renounced the minimum wage and other leftism, and will now change the economic block of the program—forward, Navalny to the Duma, and so on.
Remember, a long time ago, I rejoiced along with you that a libertarian ran for president of Ukraine? In the elections, Gennady Balashov received some ridiculously low numbers of support, partly because his electorate went to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And, as it turned out, not in vain! A representative of Zelenskyy in the Rada just stated that his “Servant of the People” party will run in the parliamentary elections with a libertarian program.
Of course, judging by current polls, the chances of the libertarian party of Ukraine obtaining an absolute majority in the Rada are slim, and they will have to form a coalition, but slow and steady wins the race; this is already significantly more than one could have hoped for. I congratulate our neighbors on this stroke of luck; the cat that came out of the bag turned out to be exactly the right kind of cat.
As I understand it, the point is that in the article about the targeted offer of libertarianism, 14 groups were listed, including conservatives, who were told that the state is a poor ally against evil homosexuals, but homosexuals were not included, so it is unclear how to reach their hearts, and this point should be clarified. Very well, here it comes.
1. Any private discrimination pales in comparison to the horrors of state discrimination, not to mention such madness as court-ordered stoning or extrajudicial family executions to wash away the shame of the lineage.
2. Private attempts to use violence against you because of your non-violent sexual habits in a libertarian society can be resisted with weapons in hand, and most people will support you.
3. It is the conservatives in a libertarian society who will have to move to some separate territorial community if your very sight irritates them. You, however, will have every right to live wherever is most convenient and behave as you please, as long as you do not initiate violence.
4. But you will still have to tolerate all that “you just haven’t had a normal man/woman,” depending on whatever your gender is. So in that regard, it won’t get better, but it won’t get worse either.
If you have followed Donald Trump’s election campaign, you have likely heard of his method of tailoring the political program to each group of voters. Every person has points of vulnerability in their position, and by pressing them, one can win them over. Mikhail Svetov also advises using this approach in his lecture Propaganda Tools in the 21st Century.
Let us attempt to identify large electoral groups and work with their primary fears regarding the state. Our goal is to evoke in these people a hatred for the institution of the state as a territorial monopoly on violence and to interest them in the ideas of libertarianism.
Many people belong to several categories at once; accordingly, libertarianism can be promoted to them from multiple positions simultaneously (for example, parents with children who are also entrepreneurs).
Some regulations described in the article may be absent in the country of residence of our “libertarian candidate.” For example, Russian legislation lacks liability for criticizing LGBT, which exists in Switzerland, while it conversely imposes liability for the propaganda of non-traditional sex. Here, one should explain to the person that any state regulation has a property of “position inversion.” It does not matter which side the state is currently on regarding a specific issue; the very fact that this area is regulated means that tomorrow the regulation may change to the opposite, because for currently oppressed groups, the state may seem like a natural tool for fighting for their interests, and they will use it. In the middle of the 20th century, the state repressed Alan Turing for homosexuality, but a few decades pass, and in the same country, they repress critics of LGBT. In West Germany, until 1977, the state prohibited women from working without their husband’s permission, and now it punishes men even for complimenting a girl within the framework of anti-harassment legislation. Thus, it is important to make people understand: the complete absence of state regulation is better than state regulation in your favor.
Now, let’s go through the groups
Entrepreneurs
1. State regulation prevents entry into the market or creates severe obstacles to doing business. You have an idea, but you cannot implement it due to prohibitions from the state. The state forces you to obtain licenses for many types of business, which consumes a lot of time and resources. Constant inspections (fire, sanitary, labor inspectorate) interfere with business operations. Infrastructure monopolies (electricity, gas, etc.) make business uncompetitive. Even if the building is your property, you often have no right to install a suitable sign or paint the building the color you want without permission from the local authorities.
2. High taxes prevent the ability to develop the business. Everything goes to the state rather than to the development of your enterprise. This is especially relevant in Russia for businesses where the primary share of costs consists of salaries.
3. The labor code significantly complicates the hiring and firing of employees. If an employee does not bring you profit, you cannot simply fire them; they can force you to reinstate them in the position through the court. You have to find various workaround maneuvers, which also increases your costs. You have no right to allow an employee to work more than a certain number of hours, even if they want to. The ability to hire for a probationary period is limited.
4. As soon as your asset seems interesting to some enterprising security officer, they can initiate criminal prosecution against you and seize the business. To prevent such an outcome, funds must also be spent, and this cannot provide a full guarantee of safety.
5. Bribes, kickbacks, and other non-tax costs increase the cost of doing business, complicate accounting, and carry risks of criminal prosecution.
6. Copyright and patent laws prevent you from conducting business normally (patent trolls, channel blocking of video bloggers for quoting or using music and video without complex procedures for acquiring rights to them).
7. If a new breakthrough industry appears that is not yet regulated, by default, many government officials consider such activity prohibited, so the business community has to ask for the introduction of regulations just to be allowed to work somehow. This applies, for example, to the use of cryptocurrencies or the sharing economy (Uber, AirBnB, energy).
Youth
1. Due to the obstacles faced by business, youth experience difficulties finding employment, let alone starting their own business.
2. For guys, conscription slavery is relevant, which has no practical sense in conditions where large conscript armies are completely ineffective.
3. State regulation of education means that one must study according to unified programs that took a long time to coordinate and have since become obsolete. Many subjects serve the function of indoctrination instead of transmitting current knowledge and skills. The humiliated position of teachers prompts them to vent aggression on equally powerless students. Schooling is paid for through taxes; parents who wish to homeschool their children do not receive tax deductions for this, so very few can afford an alternative to school. As a result, classes are formed by compulsion, and people forcibly driven into a collective are always in a prison, with corresponding rules.
4. A number of professions imply the mandatory presence of a state-standard higher education diploma, so even after school, the choice of further education methods is artificially hindered by the state.
Users of medical services
1. State clinics and hospitals have no interest in providing quality services, as their existence is already paid for by taxes, and customer reviews have no influence on funding. Those who wish to receive paid treatment pay twice — for compulsory health insurance and for paid services.
2. The cost of medicines is greatly inflated due to state regulation of their market entry, patent privileges, import restrictions, and customs duties.
3. An unjustifiably high entry threshold into the profession due to requirements handed down from above creates a shortage of specialists.
Public sector employees
1. The state, acting as an employer, often imposes restrictions on workers that are not written in any employment contracts. Forced participation in pro-government rallies and election falsifications, self-censorship in expressing one’s political position — all of this is quite humiliating.
2. The state hinders private business from developing, which is exactly why a person has to seek a safe harbor in public sector positions, although the pay is low and the worker is not respected.
3. In public sector professions, one spends more time filling out papers than actually working: the utility of the work for society becomes near-zero, and one works only for the approval of the superiors.
Communists
1. The state, according to Marx, is an instrument of oppression in the hands of the ruling class. It is impossible to get rid of class oppression without getting rid of the state. Any ideas of nationalization are the transfer of the means of production from the people into the hands of the state, i.e., the ruling class of bureaucrats; therefore, on the contrary, one must demand the transfer of all means of production to the people.
2. In the nineties, there was a correct people’s privatization when members of labor collectives received shares, but the state retained control over the courts, police, and monetary emission, and over time either took property away from the people or depreciated it.
3. Bitcoin is the correct communist money. State slips of paper are issued in any quantity the state desires, while cryptocurrency is honestly backed by kilowatt-hours, in full accordance with the labor theory of value.
1. The state forces you to pay for abortions through taxes (thus taking indirect part in them), and in wealthier countries — for hormone therapy during gender reassignment surgeries for transgenders.
2. You are forbidden from refusing service to people (homosexuals, migrants, representatives of certain ethnicities and religions) with whom you do not wish to have any dealings (employment, renting housing, providing services), as your right to private discrimination is not recognized.
3. LGBT have already achieved a ban on their criticism in many Western states and will strive for this in Russia. Attempting to preserve existing state norms regarding the curtailment of their rights means waging a fruitless war; it is better to exclude such an unreliable ally as the state from the conflict before it stabs you in the back. Moreover, the conflict will resolve itself afterward.
4. In the nineties, there were sexual education lessons in school. Now — basics of religious cultures and secular ethics. Tomorrow they will invent some other mandatory requirement. You can never guess which lobbyist will be stronger; it would be more reliable to simply deregulate education so that everyone can choose which cultural norms their child will assimilate. Otherwise, we will reach a point where children undergo gender reassignment surgeries without your consent, as in Canada.
5. The state prohibits the possession of effective means of self-defense, and even on the path to acquiring permitted, low-effectiveness means, it has placed a heap of administrative hurdles. This not only deprives you of the right to self-defense but also undermines the defense capability of the entire country.
6. You are forbidden from killing an attacker, even if your life is in danger. Despite clarifications from the supreme court, real law enforcement practice is such that successful self-defense usually leads to a criminal case for exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense, which ends in long sentences. The state refused to adopt the Castle Doctrine, although the petition for its adoption gathered the necessary 100 thousand signatures on ROI.
7. Due to the peculiarities of how democracy functions, the state often gives in to various well-organized radical currents and groups. For example, under the influence of radical feminists, tomorrow you may be held accountable for harassment if you simply pay the bill for a woman at a restaurant. And under the influence of radical Islamists, you can already today be forced to apologize to Ramzan Akhmatovich.
Left-liberals, social democrats, supporters of social justice
1. The problem of corruption exists worldwide. Even in advanced countries like Sweden and Finland, corruption exists in large volumes; it is simply on a different level (large business) and very rarely becomes known. Soil for corruption arises wherever an official has the right to make a decision at their own discretion.
2. The state destroys “sanctioned” food products and prohibits entrepreneurs from distributing expired products for free (although they may be perfectly fit for human consumption). This is lobbying for the interests of owners of agro-holdings and food industry enterprises.
3. You hope in vain that a progressive income tax will help establish social justice: in countries with a progressive tax, wealth inequality remains very high. This happens because large business has many tricks to reduce the tax burden, and the primary weight of taxation still falls on the middle class. You do not have the opportunity to move your business offshore, classify restaurant dinners and business jet flights as representative or travel expenses, or secure state subsidies and benefits. You will be assured that robbery is useful because the rich will be robbed more, but no, it is you who will be robbed more.
4. The state spreads unscientific nonsense about the harm of marijuana, resulting in many harmless consumers sitting in prison and research on its medical use being stalled.
5. The minimum wage, the ban on discrimination during hiring, and other labor market regulations only increase unemployment, as they complicate obtaining a job for those whose labor would bring the employer less benefit at the same pay. People with disabilities, women with children, pre-retirees, and people without work experience simply will not be able to find employment, although they could do so if they had the opportunity to dump their prices on the labor market.
Pirates
Intellectual property protection laws hinder the free exchange of information and its accessibility to underprivileged strata of the population. They also limit the possibilities for creativity (due to the ban on creating derivative content) and scientific research (many scientists are unable to pay for access to collections of scientific articles and journals). Patents on medicines make them prohibitively expensive for low-income citizens, and many of them die from diseases that could be cured. So-called intellectual property is simply state privileges. You are trying to forbid the state from establishing such privileges, but why not consider the possibility of removing the state as such?
Copyright-lobbyists
Along with intellectual property protection, you will inevitably receive censorship of your content from the state. Moreover, the lion’s share of funds will still be appropriated by various intermediaries forcibly introduced by the state, such as RAO, while you will get pennies. Or you might even be forced, for example, to publish in a scientific journal at your own expense, but the journal will keep all rights to use the publication, and the state will fully support it. Would it not be better to practice non-violent methods of monetization instead of involving such an inconvenient intermediary as the state? The state will bring you more costs from a ruined reputation than you will gain benefits from how it protects your intellectual property.
Eco-activists
1. Environmental protection is of little concern to the state. An official is more likely to allow an oligarch friend to destroy the environment for a large bribe (or even for the prospect of increasing tax collections as a result of “economic growth”) than to give in to environmental activists.
2. Private ownership of forests, lakes, and hunting grounds will create a powerful incentive to protect the environment and engage in the breeding of endangered species of animals and plants. There is no need to fear that the owner will forbid you from walking in the forest, picking mushrooms, or having a picnic; they will more likely make efforts to ensure that people vacation specifically on their property and will try to provide them with decent service.
3. If a private company causes damage to nature and people suffer because of it, it can at least be sued, but when an ecological catastrophe is caused by the state, there is no one to hold accountable.
Parents with children
1. The state forbids you from choosing the style of upbringing that you consider more correct.
2. There is a mandatory educational program with many subjects that do not provide current knowledge and skills but simply serve as indoctrination. You can only manage additional education, which will finally take away the remnants of your child’s leisure time.
3. If you wish to provide your child with quality home education, no one will reimburse you for the taxes paid for the maintenance of state schools.
4. Child protective services can take your child (even forever, depriving you of parental rights) for quite harmless things — lack of renovation in the apartment, a child’s complaints that parents did not buy them a gift, an untidy appearance of the schoolchild, and so on. The quite sound idea that a child has a right to protection not only from strangers but also, if necessary, from parents, has resulted in the fact that often the family as a whole is repressed.
Unemployed
1. The state has over-regulated the labor market and burdened salaries with huge taxes, so an employer cannot afford to hire you officially, and if they break the law anyway and hire you “under the table,” it is more profitable to take an illegal migrant; they are cheaper and will not go to the labor inspectorate to complain. This corrupts employers and demotivates them from creating humane working conditions.
2. In return, you receive a pittance of a benefit from the state if you register as unemployed. You will be tossed the most illiquid vacancies from the state employment exchange, be slowly trained in courses with no guarantee of employment afterward, and be required to constantly prove that you are still unemployed; thus, if you get a temporary unofficial part-time job, you will have to hide this fact from the state to avoid losing your status.
Victims of repression and victimless crime laws
This is a very broad and diverse group. This includes political prisoners, those held accountable for the use of psychoactive substances, violators of various licensing restrictions, those accused of pedophilia for claiming that maturing happens differently for everyone and the age of consent is a harmful thing — and even those fined for crossing an empty street on a red light.
To them we explain: it is impossible to replace bad repressive laws with good ones; they can only be abolished, otherwise not you, but someone else will become their victim. If no private person suffered or was put in danger, then there is no need for punishment. If you yourself suffered or were put in danger due to your actions (for example, not wearing a seatbelt), then it is even more pointless to punish you additionally — you have already punished yourself. Therefore, one must demand from the state the abolition of all laws implying punishment for a victimless crime, and if it resists, this is an excellent reason to abolish the state: its very existence is already a punishment for innocent people.
Pensioners
This is the most difficult category of people for the promotion of libertarianism. But even pensioners can be interested in the dismantling of the state.
Every working resident of Russia contributes 22% of their earnings to the Pension Fund of Russia (PFR). In 2018, the average salary in Moscow was 80 thousand rubles, and the average pension was 19 thousand rubles. Suppose a person works from age 25 to 60 with some breaks, and as a result, pays contributions to the PFR for 30 years. If they had not paid insurance contributions to the PFR but instead saved them in their own bank account (for simplicity, let’s assume that the deposit interest rate equals inflation, meaning it can be ignored in calculations), they would accumulate 80,000 * 0.22 * 12 * 30 = 6.3 million rubles. As of 2018, the average life expectancy in the Russian Federation is 73 years. The remaining life expectancy after retirement is thus 13 years. Accordingly, if you were not the state, your annuity would be 6,300,000 / (13 * 12) = 40 thousand rubles. This amount represents the state’s real obligations to you.
How then to ensure the fulfillment of these obligations? It is necessary to demand the total privatization of state property. A program clear to any pensioner: “seize and divide.” Seize from the state, divide among those whom the state has robbed. And, of course, stop the robbery for the future, though that is a concern for the young, which, however, is also close and clear to pensioners. All that remains is to conduct a discussion on the methods: how to seize and divide so that everything is not stolen in the process.
The political program of libertarianism boils down to the consistent reduction of the role of the state, that is, deregulation and tax reduction.
If movement in this direction leads to an increase in the security and wealth of residents until the state is reduced to the role of a “night watchman,” and further curtailment of state functions causes the level of violence to rise and prosperity to decrease, then the minarchists are right and the ancaps are not, and there exists a minimum state optimum below which it cannot be reduced.
If the state optimum is not found, and every reduction of the state brings only benefit to the people, then the ancaps are right after all; the state is a harmful parasite and must be completely eradicated.
If an optimum is found, but not where the minarchists assume it to be, but, say, at the level of “night watchman plus a poorhouse,” then the social liberals are right, and the hardline libertarians, with their meager brains, have failed to grasp the full importance of competent centralized redistribution of resources.
And finally, if it turns out that sustainable results are impossible to achieve because different societies have their own optimum of state functions, then the panarchists are entirely right: people are too different to be treated with a one-size-fits-all approach. Some need more state, some less, some zero—let everyone receive according to their request.
But in order to achieve all these results, a willingness of people to experiment in building a society convenient for them is necessary. However, decades of violent socialist experiments have largely discredited the very idea of consistently building something new. Therefore, we now more often see sporadic attempts to improve something, followed by rollbacks. But just as a long peace has taught people not to take the danger of a major war seriously, a long period of ideolessness can return the taste for reforms to the people. Our task is to ensure that at that moment, the idea of specifically libertarian transformations is floating in the air.
There is one, but rather significant, incorrect assumption in the text. In both of the social models being considered, there is some kind of absolute impersonal external enforcer who imposes this model. In the Federation, it is forbidden to help without being asked, and some external force suppresses all such attempts; in the Union, it is forbidden to restrict another’s freedom even in the smallest way, and some external force, again, suppresses all such attempts.
But in reality, there is no external impersonal force; all rules are established and enforced by the people themselves. In the Federation of Freedom, a person can intrude upon someone else’s territory and free slaves there, and to those who want to challenge him for violating others’ borders, he can present what he discovered within those borders. In the Union of Freedom, a person can tie up an epileptic, and to the person who demands they be untied, demonstrate a video recording of the previous seizure.
Of course, common sense does not have to triumph in absolutely all cases; it is enough that there is no “external stupid lex” who doesn’t care about common sense, but only wants the law to prevail.
It is clear that Kukatas, speaking of hypothetical libertarian orders, effectively reduced everything to an analogy with the US Civil War, where one side defended the rights of states to establish their own laws, and the other defended the need for everyone to adhere to a single standard of freedom. Kukatas himself took the position of the conditional South in this conflict, which is, in fact, the main provocative message of the lecture.
I don’t know if Heinlein read Hayek, but in the book “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress,” he effectively describes through examples the emergence of spontaneous orders, specifically a court that does not rely on any laws handed down from above or precedents coming from the depths of centuries.
The essence of the procedure is as follows. The parties to the court turn to anyone who is willing to arbitrate between them and whom they would like to see as a judge in their case. There are those who make judicial practice their profession, those who supplement this with other activities, and those who may suddenly find themselves invited to judge.
An interesting feature of the judicial proceedings is that the judge takes an equal amount of money from each party before the start of the hearing, based solely on the size of the claim. The more that is at stake in the conflict, the more the judge risks their reputation, and the more money they charge for it.
If either party wishes, the judge may call in any number of volunteers as jurors. The task of the jurors is to deliver a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty,” and for their work, they receive a fixed payment set by the judge. To be honest, this tradition seems to me a rudiment from Earth, and in the described society, it looks like a tacked-on addition.
After the case has been examined on its merits, the jurors, if there are any, deliver a verdict, and the judge announces the sentence, stating who owes how much to whom.
The point of the entire ritual is to defuse conflicts and prevent vendettas. Instead of a court, one can agree to a judicial duel, where, again, there will be a referee and possibly seconds.
Of course, I like the described system, especially since it strongly resembles how I myself described the proposed judicial proceedings under ancap. I am asked about courts often—this is already the fifteenth question—but everything can be easily found via the corresponding hashtag.
'/%3E%3C/svg%3E){kind=small}
