Тег: Libertarianism

Hi! Please tell me, how can I explain libertarianism to children? :) If possible, simple “on-the-fingers” examples would be super.

анонимный вопрос

The task is indeed quite non-trivial, and here is why.

Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations. Anarcho-capitalism makes the boundary conditions stricter, specifying that the dominant commodity-money relations must also be voluntary.

Communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are gift relations, and reputation takes the place of money.

It is easy to see that family is communism, and usually, there is no scent of anarcho-capitalism there. Meanwhile, the task is to tell the children in the family about the values of ancap, and make it so that these values appear attractive to them.

The problem is not even just in telling them, but in the fact that in childhood, the instructions that are reinforced by personal example and are applicable to real life here and now are absorbed best.

It is worth starting with the most basic things.

Property. Indicate that this thing belongs to mom, this to dad, this to the child, and these are in the joint property of the whole family (just don’t use that terrible communist word “common”)

Exchange. Exchanging values is a quite exciting activity for children, and here it is important not only to instill a taste for exchange in the child, but also to explain that exchange must be only voluntary, and that exchange is always unequal: everyone values what they give away less than what they acquire. So if one exchanged something and then changed their mind, the second is not obliged to agree to a reverse exchange.

Contract. Get them used to, if not writing down, at least clearly articulating the terms of exchange; do not hesitate to refer to old contracts, and do not dare to go back on your own word.

Court. If you cannot reach an agreement with the child, look for someone who can arbitrate for you, provided the child also agrees to the adjudication. Let them get used to defending their position before an independent party, and then executing the verdict.

Money. The sooner a child gets their own money, the better. Do not hesitate to hire them for any work you want to get from them. But if they refuse the work, do not dare to compel them. Let them get used to saying the phrase “and what will I get out of this?”

Reputation. Avoid inducing shame in the child; it is far more important to make them understand that their reputation in such-and-such a field looks poor, and now they are not trusted in this, but in this other area, they can be fully trusted.

Compensation for costs. Again, instead of shaming, suggest they think about how they could compensate for the damage. It is useful to haggle, not agreeing to the very first offer. If you yourself have somehow betrayed their trust, also boldly offer compensation, and let them decide whether to accept the offer.

Self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense. Here, you may have to conflict with other adults who maintain the view that a child fundamentally has no right to fight, and can at most complain to adults. Do not hesitate to arrange a full judicial proceeding following such incidents, naturally, on a voluntary basis. If the court then decides that your child did indeed cause unlawful damage to someone, you must ensure that they pay compensation.

In general, try to start treating the child as an equal subject as early as possible. They may lack knowledge or skills, but this does not deprive them of their rights. Knowledge and skills are things that can be acquired.

A mediocre example of a contract: the service provided is not defined, and there are no termination conditions. But even such a contract is far better than its absence.

How did you get acquainted with Libertarianism? What is your story?

анонимный вопрос

Many people say that they came to libertarianism imperceptibly; simply one fine day, their more erudite acquaintances informed them that the set of views they were projecting is called libertarianism.

It happened a bit strangely for me. I knew the word itself, but I interpreted it purely phenomenologically—that libertarians are supporters of removing the state from the economy and the private lives of citizens. Then, I mentioned to a friend that I was a libertarian; she heard an unfamiliar term and looked it up on Wikipedia. At the time, it wasn’t the current, relatively balanced article, but right from the start it stated that libertarians are guys who advocate for the rejection of aggressive violence. I was like: what? What does this crap even have to do with my interest? And so I started digging into the matter in detail. Since then, like that Shulman who doesn’t understand what could be more fascinating than parliamentarism (except perhaps British literature, but best of all, British literature about parliamentarism), I don’t understand what could be more fascinating than economic theory and libertarian law, although the abbreviation NAP and its many derivatives still make me cringe a little.

I sincerely believe that selling libertarianism to people through the NAP is methodologically incorrect and provokes people to view us as some kind of strange freaks. Purely aesthetically, the NAP can only be convincingly advocated by a person with a weapon, ready to use it at any moment for self-defense, because the non-aggression principle is the ethics of armed people, not the whim of the unarmed. If you are a clumsy lady, a pampered girl with manicured nails, or a slender metrosexual, advocate for something else.

Sorry, I got carried away, but you asked for personal stories, and I have them.

“Remember, children: NAP is when everyone has everyone else in their sights, but no one shoots”
For variety, I decided to record an audio version of the story; perhaps some will prefer the voice format

Hi. If only traditional terminology for characterizing political currents (left/right) is used, would it be correct to call libertarianism a socially left and economically right movement?

анонимный вопрос

The question reminded me of the disputes regarding the self-definition of the Libertarian Party of the USA: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. It’s roughly clear what is meant, but it looks like an attempt to assemble the word “eternity” from four known letters.

“Left” and “right” are such vague terms, so easily loaded with an entirely arbitrary agenda, that it’s almost scary to even use them.

Originally, the right wing in the French parliament represented the aristocracy, and now they are associated with Nazis and Christian conservatives; so why use “economically right-wing movement” instead of the correct “movement for economic freedom”? To confuse everyone? Or simply to set themselves in opposition to the economically left?

The socially left advocate not only for the freedom to use psychoactive substances or for the right to abortion, but also, for example, for the criminalization of sex workers’ clients, as well as for gun control. So why call oneself by the vague term “socially left” when you can immediately speak of a movement for personal freedom?

What are the drawbacks of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories?

анонимный вопрос

The main drawback of both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories is that they do not exist.

There is an economic theory developed by the Austrian school of economics, which took on a relatively cohesive form thanks to Mises. This is praxeology, that is, the theory of human action; catallactics, that is, the theory of exchange; the theory of money, the theory of interventionism, the theory of the business cycle, and so on. The logic of the libertarian doctrine’s presentation is built upon economic theory, and it is used to verify various fantasies regarding the possible structure of society. Austrian economic theory does not provide quantitative forecasts and postulates the fundamental impossibility of doing so, which gives many followers of other schools reason to criticize it for uselessness in this regard.

There is a libertarian legal theory, also known as institutional or sociological. Russian libertarians generally tend to rely on it in their legal constructions, which is not least because it was developed by Vladimir Chetvernin, who is Russian and still alive. In the English-speaking world, natural law theories are more common.

There are various ethical libertarian teachings: some take natural rights as their basis, others derive ethics from the idea of a contract, and some rely on consequentialism—that is, evaluating actions by their consequences. In short, in the field of ethics, libertarians experience considerable fragmentation and instability.

As a result, libertarianism is a rather broad and pluralistic current of thought, which can be seen as both a plus (there is internal discussion, there is development, but there is also agreement on the fundamentals) and a minus (there is no unambiguous opinion on a number of specialized questions, some of which are quite serious—for example, whether an institution such as the state has a right to exist).


Cool little tree, and Chetvernin isn’t even here yet…

Update: after the post was already written, a video with Alexei Tereshchuk was released on SVTV, which deals precisely with similar issues.

Can a person who jumps on the heads of people adhering to (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP, call themselves a libertarian?

anonymous question

I think that if you meant the literal meaning of the expression “jumping on heads,” the answer would be banal: this is violence that is not a response to a violation of the NAP, therefore the person who jumped on the head has no right to remain unpunished, and their behavior certainly does not correspond to libertarian principles at this moment.

Also, I think it’s clear that you aren’t actually asking whether a person can call themselves something. A person can call themselves whatever they want; that’s what freedom of speech is for.

So I will answer the question in the following formulation:

Should one trust a person’s claim that they are a libertarian if it is known that they exhibit non-violent aggression toward those who hold (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP?

Alas, however tempting it may be to deny any asshole the proud title of libertarian, it must be admitted: a libertarian can be an asshole. Due to personal dislike, they may non-violently cause you any unpleasant experiences, and even provoke you into violence, but they are within their rights, and this is a completely conventional libertarian way of behaving in a conflict. Applying retaliatory non-violent sanctions to them—be my guest. Spitting in their face—that’s bordering on a foul. Lunging with a knife—be prepared for the fact that both they and everyone present will be able to unpunishedly apply any violence to you to prevent your actions.

And as for which ideology you peacefully adhere to—it doesn’t matter at all—even if it’s socialist.

– You have black-and-white thinking!
– No, you do!

Among our libertarians, there is much talk and many jokes about contract slavery. However, how is this possible from the point of view of libertarianism? After all, I cannot transfer my will, body, and mind to anyone—they belong only to me, and regardless of my desire, I will not be able to conclude a slave contract. Or can I?

anonymous question

I dislike lapsing into academicism, which is why I try to attract experts who aren’t prone to it. Regarding contract slavery, I recommend reading LJ-user Artyom Zheleznov under the tags slavery, slave ownership, and slave trade.

The guy positions himself not only as a theorist but also as a practitioner in this industry, which gives his delivery an additional freshness.

I’ll provide a mix of his points and my own thoughts.

Let’s define a slave as a subject coerced into a particular activity, and a slave owner as the person or organization that is the ultimate beneficiary of the slave’s forced activity. I should note that coercion to labor specifically is not the defining characteristic of slavery—it is enough, for example, that a slave is forced to live where specified, eat what is given, and follow a routine imposed by the slave owner. Similarly, whether the slave owner derives profit from the slave is not fundamental. A slave can be loss-making and yet still be in slavery.

In the modern world, private slave ownership seems to be permitted only in Morocco, while state slavery, conversely, is legalized everywhere. A person becomes a slave by entering prison, a conscript army, or an orphanage. Whether an Australian citizen, obliged to come and vote in elections, is considered a slave is a debatable question. I would rather define this as a labor obligation that can be bought off.

What is the difference between slavery and wage labor? A slave, by default, has no right to negotiate the amount of their remuneration with the slave owner, nor do they have the right to unilaterally terminate the relationship.

Now, let’s move on to contract slavery. This is a type of slavery that arises as a result of concluding a contract, that is, voluntarily. Thus, at the moment the deal is struck, each party believes they are gaining more than they are losing.

For example, Irish people fleeing famine to the United States in the 19th century could not afford the trip, so they sold themselves into slavery. In the States, they were bought by some private individual, and under the contract, the slaves were obliged to work for them for an agreed term. You will agree that such a model was beneficial for all participants of the deal. The emigrant bought their life and a ticket at the cost of a temporary limitation of freedom. The captain received money only if he delivered the indentured slave to the other shore. The slave owner received cheap labor, which would pay off only if the slave remained capable of working for the entire term specified in the contract.

I will note that voluntary slavery does not mean the sale of the body, mind, and will, even if the contract is lifelong rather than term-limited; this is precisely why it does not contradict libertarian principles. Contract slavery simply means coercion to perform activities at the request of the slave owner, in accordance with the contract. Retaining freedom of will, a slave can always deem further existence in slavery unacceptable and begin to sabotage the master’s instructions and take actions toward their own liberation. If they can convince the master to enter into a new deal—where, on one hand, the condition is liberation, and on the other, some benefit unattainable under the current slave contract—then obtaining freedom is entirely realistic.

The most innocent variety of slavery is erotic games between a dominant and a submissive. By contract, the submissive may be coerced by the dominant into anything, but the contract can be terminated or suspended at the will of either party.

The most disgusting variety of slavery is, of course, state slavery. Slaves come to the state for free; the state does not care about profit and is not interested in the preservation of the slaves—and therefore there is no cruelty that it could not easily exhibit toward them while remaining completely unpunished.

Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((

Do libertarians realize that their ideology is impossible in the real world, since “non-aggression” itself contradicts human nature?

anonymous question

The correct definition of the non-aggression principle is as follows:
No one has the right to initiate violence with impunity.
If Alice initiates violence against Bob and does not face responsibility, the society does not cease to be libertarian. It ceases to be libertarian if there is a rule according to which neither Bob nor Carol has the right to hold Alice accountable for initiating violence.
The state is an organization of violence elevated into an institution, that is, precisely the kind of order where Alice is not held responsible for initiating violence simply because the state ordered it so.

The question is, what corresponds more to human nature: the desire to hold accountable everyone who initiates violence, or only those whom some external enforcer allows to be held accountable? I think if the latter corresponded more to human nature, we would have to admit that calls to hang thieving officials from lampposts do not correspond to human nature. Meanwhile, even the thieving officials themselves do not claim such heresy; on the contrary, they say that it is a natural human impulse, but let us be civilized people and obediently follow the laws we have invented.

symbolic violence, not elevated into an institution

Just think about it, it’s so unnatural: to just go ahead and donate bits to a favorite telegram channel: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What’s going on with New Hampshire? Which laws did they manage to change? How many libertarians ended up moving there?

anonymous question

I will remind those who are not aware of what, exactly, we are talking about. New Hampshire is a fairly sparsely populated state in New England that was chosen for the implementation of the Free State Project – a project to build a minarchist utopia in a single state. According to the plan, during the project’s crypto-phase, people were to sign a declaration of intent to relocate to New Hampshire once 20,000 such signatories were gathered. It was assumed that given the current population of the state, an active minority of twenty thousand would be able to effectively implement its policies.

In fact, the relocation began even before the coveted figure was reached. Today, according to data from the project’s official website, 24,155 people have signed the declaration, and 4,392 people have moved to the state.

FSP is not a political organization, and most of those who moved simply live according to libertarian ideals. However, Freestaters have also developed political activity. The project’s website claims that throughout the project’s existence, a total of 45 Freestaters have been elected to the state’s representative bodies.

Even before the start of the project, New Hampshire was somewhere in the top ten states by freedom index, and after the launch of the relocation, it confidently climbed to first place within about three years. The state has very lenient laws regarding weapons, substances, road control, and small business regulation. Homeschooling is also widespread here, and the religiosity of the residents is very low—while tolerance towards religions remains high.

Mikhail Svetov claims that the fastest-growing community in the USA is the Amish. In terms of organic growth, this may be true, but if you consider those joining from the outside, the Freestaters obviously beat the Amish with one hand tied behind their back.
The LPR is represented in the FSP by a member of the St. Petersburg branch, Yuri Polozov.

A landscape of the Free State, which for some reason I wildly love))

Furthermore, thanks to the Freestaters, New Hampshire is a leader in the implementation of cryptocurrency payments. If I eventually make it to reporting from the Free State, that’s exactly where your donations will come in handy. Bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8.

Why is there so little libertarianism in the libertarian party and is everything centralized?

anonymous question

I received a whole series of questions on a similar theme, and I chose the least acute phrasing that allows for a substantive answer.

The fundamental documentary description of the libertarian party, as with any other political party in Russia, is defined by the Russian law on political parties. The party made four attempts at state registration, making amendments to the charter each time to comply with the Ministry of Justice’s requirements. Eventually, the Ministry of Justice made it clear that there would be no registration without a green light from the presidential administration, and at the 2017 congress, a decision was made to end this farce until the wind changes.

But the charter remained: a charter of a vertical structure consisting of regional branches subordinate to a federal committee, with a congress convened by the federal committee according to representation norms adopted by the federal committee, and with a federal committee elected by the congress. Any Russian party created from the top down maintains full controllability thanks to such a layout until it is decided to tear it apart—after which alternative congresses, committees, and the like magically emerge, and the party is either seized or disappears.

The LPR, however, was created from the bottom up. This does not mean that within the framework of the same charter it suddenly becomes capable of meaningful activity. It means that the values of joint activity for the purpose of spreading the libertarian agenda prove to be higher for people than any formal decisions made without their participation or against their will. Therefore, the overall success of the party is greater the less attention party members pay to the formal side of party activity and, accordingly, the lower the notorious controllability is.

At this point, it’s worth asking why call itself a party at all, rather than a libertarian movement or something of the sort. What difference does it make? Historically, it so happened that this particular entity has this particular name. As long as the costs of keeping the name and charter documents are lower than the costs of changing them, everything will remain as it is; just don’t confuse the map with the territory. Next, you’ll be asking why a character named LPR-chan doesn’t project the official point of view of the party!

So the main thing is to ensure powerful momentum, engage new people as supporters, and compel outsiders to pronounce the word “libertarianism” without a hitch; whether a trip to the shooting range or bowling is documented as a meeting of the steering committee of a regional branch is completely unimportant.

LPR logo (by the way, a different logo is described in the charter, but who cares!)

Yes, just in case: donations to LPR-chan do not count as party dues.