Тег: Libertarianism

And how do I turn into Ancap-chan if I’m just an ordinary chan who recently found out about libertarianism?

Katya Latysh (The question is accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.00008354 BTC. There is also a second half to the question; the answer to it will be in a separate post.)

In my specific case, the principle of noblesse oblige worked. First, I was asked to play the role of Ancap-chan, and then she just stuck to me. It turned out that by starting with a good style and a sufficient amount of common sense, one could create a convincing image, and then refine it through reading literature and countless reflections. Fortunately, kind readers constantly threw me topics for reflection: how does this work under ancap, and how does that work under ancap.

I also think it was a great stroke of luck that I began my acquaintance with libertarian literature with economic works rather than the writings of moral philosophers. I think it was something light, like Callahan’s Economics for the Ordinary Person , from which I immediately moved on to Mises’s Human Action. When I tried Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty and Hoppe’s Argumentative Ethics, I found the line of thought there to be excessively dogmatic, preferring to operate not so much with abstract deductively derived principles as with economic logic. In this regard, David Friedman and his The Machinery of Freedom were a true discovery for me, and (also thanks to the fact that David and I do not live together) I have fervently loved him for more than a year now, which is practically a record for me in terms of the duration of feelings. From him, I would very gladly have a child (a small homage to your second question): the potential father not only has a magnificent pedigree but also possesses restrained self-irony, an extremely sane approach to raising children, and on top of that is a connoisseur of historical reenactment (though that is personal).

Now I will try to abstract myself from personal experience and generalize slightly. It seems to me that the optimal path for developing oneself as a libertarian is roughly as follows.

  1. Upon learning that such an attractive ideology exists, immediately realize that so far you only know a few of the most striking positions. Get acquainted with some overview work that provides a fairly general outline of libertarianism. I think I managed to give a maximally brief overview of this kind in the first (and so far only) part of my future, currently untitled book about ancap. Of course, other works with similar goals are also suitable; they don’t have to be text—they could be videos of some successful lectures. A popular economics course would also help significantly, but without the shamanism regarding various macro-indicators, and instead something as close to ordinary life as possible. This is important for establishing an economic worldview, because economics is, in essence, the logic of how incentives work.
  2. Realize for yourself the key point: libertarianism is about the person, their activity, and their interaction with other people. Any logical abstractions, such as “society,” “the state,” “violence,” “inequality,” “justice,” “the market”—these are nothing more than tools of analysis. They have no independent value and certainly no agency. It is not the state that robs and kills, but people who have become arrogant from the realization of how cool a gang is protecting them. It is not “the market” that decides, but people within the framework of market relations. It is not socialism that leads to poverty, but people practicing socialism. This means that libertarianism can be practiced here and now, without waiting for a libertarian revolution or a decree on ancap.
  3. And after that—mostly practice (filling gaps in theory as they are identified by turning to experts and reading specialized literature). A conscious preference for voluntary relations and a conscious avoidance of robbery. Settling conflicts privately, without turning to gangsters. And if you have to turn to them—at least realize that this is precisely a gangster racket operating according to concepts deeply alien to a free person, and there is no need to pay attention to the beautiful facade on which various words are written, such as “state,” “law,” “Spartak is champion,” “Kosovo is Serbia,” “dick,” and whatever else they write on facades.

Perhaps, after some time, you will feel the urge to begin broadcasting your libertarian agenda as widely as possible. This is, of course, an impulse that is hard to resist, but it is very desirable to do this in such a form as to not look ridiculous; otherwise, you will become a walking anti-advertisement for good ideas. For this reason, for example, I do not appear in videos and prefer to avoid discussions in oral form, as that would be a much more pathetic sight than texts. Similarly, it would be counterproductive, for instance, to boast of a deep understanding of economics without having any reasonably well-placed capital or a streamlined business: counterparties will reasonably suspect that the knowledge is detached from life and will prefer the advice of celebrities.

I hope I managed to answer the first question, and Bitarch will answer the second; I will most likely also add something of my own.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Hayek’s views on social justice

I have processed another large donation and finished translating the fourth part of Eric Mack’s book “Libertarianism.” The chapter being posted is interesting because it is the first time Mack polemicizes with the discussed views of a particular author rather than simply transmitting them. Previously, there was nothing like “Locke is wrong here” or “Spencer is wrong there,” but he makes such assertions about Hayek. Apparently, this means he considers Hayek sufficiently his contemporary for it to make sense to argue with him.

Mack classifies Hayek’s argumentation against social justice, highlighting five arguments against it, and notes at the end that in his further reasoning, Hayek still departs from his own principles and argues that society does have the right to provide its members with a basic income, and that this is fair. In short, Nozick, in Mack’s presentation, appears far more consistent.

Strangely enough, this concludes the main positive exposition of the principles of libertarianism by Eric Mack. One more part will be devoted to the critique of libertarianism, and one bonus part contains a set of surnames completely unknown to me, who tweaked the ideology in their own key—I suspect, somewhere toward the left. I will deal with them starting from the next donation.

Watched Milov’s video, letting my inner libertarian out for a walk

Yesterday, I put on a video by Milov to listen to before sleep, but I fell asleep before reaching the scandalous phrase about the inner libertarian. I had to start it over in the morning.

In short, Vladimir’s thesis boils down to the idea that it is not always appropriate to take the side of big business when it is in conflict with a state defending certain political interests, especially when big business is lobbying for its own interests. And if your inner libertarian only knows how to say “everything private is good, everything state-owned is bad,” then kill it and grow another, more adequate one. Because values are subjective, and nothing is “good” or “bad” in a vacuum; these terms are always attached to a specific interested party—specifically, who exactly benefits and who exactly suffers.

Is it good for the German gas consumer that their country will receive cheap fuel supplies with massive excess transport capacity? Obviously, it’s good, and from Montenegro, I can only be happy for them. Is it good for a Pomeranian worker that a new employer comes to their land and creates many high-paying jobs? Yes, it’s wonderful for them! Is it good for a Ukrainian worker that their local job maintaining the pipeline is under threat of abolition or at least salary cuts? Nothing good about that. But is it good for them that they can travel to Germany without a visa to maintain the pipeline being built there, already earning a German salary? You bet! True, they will have to compete with Germans, and here, if the German tries to use state protectionism, the Ukrainian will suffer.

Is it good that gas is extracted in Russia and a transport network is built allowing its delivery to various corners of the world? This is an incorrect question. The question does not specify the subject for whom we are making assumptions—whether it is good or bad for them. For Putin, it’s good—the geopolitical club is long, heavy, and shiny. For the rotational workers laying the pipes—it’s great. For Gazprom shareholders—it’s questionable, because the commercial profit from the project is unclear; it’s less about money and more about geopolitics. For Russian citizens counting on some taxes from this Gazprom—don’t count on other people’s money and you’ll sleep sounder; and what are you even doing in Russia? Get out of there, following me and Vladimir Milov. The inner libertarian sticks its head out and gives the budget workers the finger.

In short, a huge thank you to Vladimir Milov for promoting libertarianism. Navalny is in prison and can no longer, as before, send us to forced labor, so Milov has to take the heat. It’s okay, he’ll manage.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Nozick’s views on property rights.

I have started on the fourth section of Eric Mackay’s book Libertarianism, dedicated to economic justice and property rights. Like the third, it consists of a short introduction and two chapters showing the views of Nozick and Hayek on the subject—apparently, for Mackay, there are no other libertarians worthy of attention on this issue (though this is likely because Mackay is writing a book on philosophy, not on history, economics, or law, which explains the selection of authors).

The chapter on Nozick examines how he tore into supporters of distributive justice, showing that to achieve some ideal end-state, they would have to launch a mechanism of permanent revolution, and to apply some single distributive model, they would have to reduce everyone to partial slavery. Nozick opposes this redistributive ecstasy with the libertarian approach well known to us, according to which the justice of a particular property right depends on the procedures by which it was acquired, rather than on the size of the property or, for example, the degree of the beneficiary’s loyalty to the party line.

I express my deep gratitude to everyone who sent in donations for the translation of this chapter; now we can start collecting for the next one. And while the money for Mackay (or for Molynneux, you love Molynneux, don’t you?) is being collected, I will return to Friedman; a chapter on the laws of the Chinese Empire awaits us.

Exit from Sausage Libertarianism

A certain Belarusian libertarian, known in narrow circles and who changes nicknames frequently enough that there is no point in remembering them, recently posted a solid article on the subject on Telegraph.

A brief list of the article’s key takes from the author himself (what a clever boy, he took care of everything):

1) There are ethical libertarians and “sausage” libertarians

2) Sausage libertarians are useless or harmful to libertarianism and are prone to drifting toward other political views

3) The opposite of a sausage libertarian is an ethical libertarian

4) An ethical libertarian differs from a sausage one by possessing a libertarian mindset and a libertarian framework

5) Most libertarian activity in attracting new members is focused on attracting sausage libertarians and building a libertarian framework, as well as transferring it to ethical libertarians

6) A libertarian mindset is determined at a young age, and to increase the number of ethical libertarians, one should create it in other people’s children through specific practices.

7) Our enemies deal with the mindsets of other people’s children, while libertarians do not

8) And they should

In other words, the author suggests that we stop denying the insinuations that libertarians supposedly love children and, moreover, have a huge interest specifically in other people’s children—and instead, start confirming these insinuations, but in their own libertarian way. Like: everyone thought that “teaching” was a euphemism for “fucking,” but he actually makes children libertarians.

If, after reading the article, you share its conclusions, I await an influx of libertarians into children’s sports sections and creative studios (well, not state schools, for heaven’s sake), the organization of children’s libertarian hiking trips, the hiring of children for part-time jobs, and other useful practices.

Consumer Serfdom

Currently, many companies, such as Apple, Tesla, and John Deere, design their products so that in the event of a breakdown, the user cannot repair them, even if they know how. For example, a farmer could buy a certain part for a John Deere tractor for $100 and would have no trouble replacing it. However, the software installed on the tractor will prevent such a procedure, and the farmer will either have to pay $5,000 for the manufacturer’s service or install pirated software. In essence, the farmer does not own the tractor but merely takes it on an indefinite lease.
How does libertarianism view such a policy?

themouse1_ from Bulbaland

The examples provided are particular cases of the platform economy. Similarly, an app developer is forced to adapt to the requirements of the company producing the operating system for which the app is developed. Likewise, a hired worker on a plantation in Brazil a century ago was obliged to buy groceries only from the shop run by the plantation owner, and in Soviet Russia, a collective farmer could only redeem his work-days, again, at a specific village store.

In short, these are not entirely market cases. Can such quasi-monopolistic situations arise in a completely free economy? Yes, but they are unstable. The emergence of a profit source significantly higher than the market average leads to others wanting to imitate such success, and soon competition levels the margin: platform owners, competing for the customer, begin to spend more on maintaining their loyalty.

Libertarianism proposes removing politics from the economy. Will this make John Deere more reasonable? Not immediately. Simply put, they will no longer have the ability to sue the farmer for installing pirated software. Therefore, wanting their authorized service to not go completely under, they will lower repair prices. Moreover, some Japanese or Belarusian tractors will start being imported duty-free, so the consumer will have a real choice and will be able to acquire the solution that maximizes their profit from operating the tractor.

Similarly, without the ability to force a worker to eat expensive slop in the factory canteen, without the ability to forbid installing apps from outside the app store on a smartphone, without the ability to punish a kiosk owner for moving under the protection of another security firm—the owners of all these platforms will find that racketeering practices work worse and worse, and they must get used to acting within the framework of fair competition. It’s fine, they’ll get used to it.

A good tractor, what else

Tyan, but what about the physical restriction of liberty for dangerous criminals under ancap?

If, for example, we take ancap according to Molynieu, is it really possible that a few rich kids who caused a car accident while drunk or high, even without fatalities, or raped a girl, will be able to pay compensation, even tenfold, and continue to roam free? Money is money, but the danger to society hasn’t disappeared. Would you yourself, God forbid, if the above happened to you, turn to a state or private court, assuming we have minarchism with ancap tendencies and a choice between them? Yes, a state court would shake out a tiny compensation, as usually happens, but would isolate rapists in a colony for 5-10 years, with a small chance that they won’t return, or will return as broken and sick people. A private court, however, would shake out compensation exceeding the damage dozens of times over, but would release the rapists, as we know that the goal of punishment under ancap is not correction or retribution, but restitution for damages. What do you say to that?

Pushistik (question accompanied by a donation of 0.00009809btc)

Fortunately, I have already managed to write the first chapters of a book on libertarianism, so I can immediately send you to read about libertarian law. The task of the court is not to punish the criminal or to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of them. The task of the court is to resolve the conflict. Even if I couldn’t reach an agreement with the rapists regarding which court should consider our conflict, and the court turns out to be imposed on the defendants, this does not cancel the main task of the court. The outcome must be a situation where the conflict between me and the rapists is considered exhausted.

For me, it is extremely important to understand that I will never see these people again in my life. This will allow me not to flinch upon seeing an indistinct figure in my peripheral vision (at least, I hope). So I would insist that they receive an order to live in some specific city known to me, even if it is quite large. Accordingly, I will never set foot in that city, and they must stay out of mine. Of course, monitoring their compliance with this point will cost money—there’s no way around it, let them cough it up, it’s important to me.

I have a very strong psyche, but when I heard in an interview with Shulman that she suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome for a year after an attack on her husband, I am forced to admit the possibility of some psychological traumas needing treatment for myself. So my second requirement, of course, would be the payment for my rehabilitation.

Also, naturally, I would like to receive significant monetary compensation, however, I placed this point third because my priorities fully correspond to safety regulations: first, the dangerous factor is eliminated, and only then is aid provided and compensation paid.

As a fourth point, I would like the rapists to also receive psychological treatment, but if they have no money left for this after the payments for the previous points, I will not insist.

If the rapists were too poor to immediately pay the compensation assigned to me and fund other measures—well, they will have to take out a loan. They’ll pay it back someday; that’s no longer my business, but theirs and the bank’s.

It seems to me that my requests are modest enough: I do not insist on castration or execution, I do not demand that they necessarily languish in a cramped cell and be subjected to rapes by cellmates. I don’t need them to lose their health, nor do I want those who deprive them of health to lose their human form. So I hope the court will grant my claims. And if a victim of violence insists on all the crap described in this paragraph, I hope the court manages to convince her to abandon such requests. If the court appoints some severe punishment in this vein, for me, it will be a clear red flag: the court is not libertarian, I will never voluntarily deal with it, and I will try to dissuade others.

Here is a sufficient physical restriction

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Hayek and his spontaneous orders.

The donation for the translation of this chapter was quite decent, 6000 rubles, but the volume of text in it is also quite outstanding, so I had to toil away in the intervals between voluntary libertarian hard labor at the logging camp.

In this chapter, Eric Mack explains how Mises’s calculation argument regarding the unviability of a total planned economy influenced Hayek, describes the alternative approach developed by Hayek to describe society through the idea of spontaneous orders, and also analyzes in detail (in my opinion, even excessively meticulously) the idea that freedom is when everyone observes a certain single set of abstract rules, proudly called the rules of just conduct, and they observe them not for reasons of profit, but elevate them to the rank of a transcendent value. In short, if God is dead, it doesn’t mean that everything is permitted.

I hope that the next donation will be for the translation of Stephan Molynieux; his style is simpler, and the chapters are not of such monstrous size, so the interval between the donation and the product can be kept relatively short.

Boris Yurovsky. How to get away from the state

I want to recommend a pretty good video from the “Unknown Economics” channel, run by Ukrainian economist Boris Yurovsky. His channel features many detailed theoretical reviews of economic theory—I didn’t even notice how I gradually switched to him from Pavel Usanov’s channel, who is more of an economic historian. But not long ago, Boris Savvich started a series of videos on the topic of libertarianism, which is outside his primary field, and in my opinion, he handled it quite достойно.

The video I’m recommending is the final one in this series and is dedicated to the transition from etatism to libertarianism. As usual, it is a review of other authors’ ideas, quite clear and benevolent. If you like it, check out the other videos in the libertarianism series, and from there, you might reach the economic theory reviews; it happens as unobtrusively as becoming addicted to male approval.

Eric Mack, Libertarianism. Fundamentals. Nozick.

I am continuing to translate Eric Mack’s “Libertarianism.” Last time, having finished Part 2 on philosophical premises, I am now tackling Part 3 on the foundations of libertarianism, and today I present for your attention a short introduction to the third part and a rather long chapter on how Nozick explained self-ownership and the resulting moral constraints. Nozick’s approach is compared with Rawls’ more famous concept—about the veil of ignorance and all that—after which Eric Mack shows in which places Nozick seems more convincing to him.

I tried to translate in a way that makes it as clear as possible what is being discussed, but I cannot guarantee that I haven’t missed some set expressions from the unfamiliar jargon of moral philosophers, so I would be glad if some conditional Artem Seversky could briefly scan the translation and suggest corrections where he deems necessary.

The translation of this chapter was stimulated by a donation of one thousand rubles—which is quite a lot for a single donation, but very modest considering the volume of work. So I would be glad if you chip in more.

The next chapter will also be quite large, and it will be about what the author learned from Friedrich Hayek regarding the foundations of libertarianism.

I also slightly corrected the layout of the previously posted chapters, translated the notes for them, and improved the navigation between chapters. I’m doing great)))