Тег: Libertarianism

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Translation of the chapter on Spencer.

After a long break, during which I was busy finalizing the edition of Mechanics of Freedom, I am returning to two other projects translating libertarian literature that have been pending. Since there are currently no donations coming in for the translation of Stephan Mol liqueur, but two donations of 500 rubles each arrived for Eric Mack, I am posting a chapter from Mack. Don’t forget to encourage the translation process.

With a story about the views of Herbert Spencer, Eric Mack concludes the first part of his book dedicated to the precursors of libertarianism; moving forward, he is expected to approach the main theme of his work.

The focus is on an early and not very well-known work by Spencer, which was moreover partially revised by him in a later edition toward greater moderation and acceptance of the status quo. In it, he introduces as the primary principle of justice the Law of Equal Liberty, which is still actively used by libertarians — the idea that everyone is free to do as they wish, provided they do not violate the similar liberty of other people.

What personally seemed worthy of attention was Spencer’s direct indication that the right of property is determined by the society’s consent to satisfy the corresponding claim. This is almost identical to the phrasing I use when defining any right as a claim that is tolerated.

Also, importantly, Spencer approaches the adoption of the principle of methodological subjectivism when he notes that to move within the principle of the greatest happiness, there is no need to compare whose concept of happiness is superior; it is sufficient that everyone has the opportunity to actively pursue their own.

How much nonsense is there in Netesov’s cycle on the mistakes of libertarianism, and how should one respond to it?

Danila

This is about the following cycle of three articles: Libertarians have shrugged their shoulders, Soviet society is not 1984, and Corporate Wastefulness in the 21st Century.

Shoulders

§1. The concept of Schumpeter’s entrepreneurial function and Hayek’s dispersed knowledge is described, as well as the problems that arise in a planned economy lacking access to this knowledge, since it is embedded in market prices. Everything is quite correct, with various amusing examples from life in the USSR.

§2. Mises’s calculation argument is described, according to which in the absence of market prices, a planning agency has to assign them arbitrarily, leading to suboptimal resource allocation, making the planned economy wasteful and inferior to the market economy. As a partial answer to how the USSR managed to survive for 70 years, it is pointed out that it was able to peek at some market prices from its capitalist neighbors. There are no complaints about this paragraph either.

§3. Here, the author, on one hand, shows that the lion’s share of innovations appears in small startups, but on the other hand, says that the world has long been ruled not by shopkeepers, but by corporations, and therefore classical liberalism is a libertarian’s dream. Essentially, “pipe down and return to the real world from your beloved 18th century.” Generally, the facts presented are quite correct, but the author’s pathos is unclear: the fact that the current economy is not fully market-based does not mean that its state is optimal or even inevitable. It’s just the way it is now.

1984

§4. Here the author points out that both Mises’s calculation argument and Hayek’s argument about dispersed knowledge neglect empirics. Since a global planned economy has never been built, it cannot be verified that it is incapable of economic calculation. Since the Soviet economy contained some rudimentary elements of a market rather than being fully planned, it again cannot be verified that a planned economy is unable to account for this dispersed knowledge. In short, the unverifiability of the arguments regarding the impossibility of building a planned economy is confirmed by the fact that no one has ever been able to build a pure planned economy. I would say that the absurdity (okay, let’s say more gently—the paradox) of such argumentation is quite obvious.

On the other hand, it is pointed out that both Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and Orwell in 1984 clearly overdid the pessimism of their forecasts, because the inefficiency of a totalitarian society quickly begins to require a minimum of market lubrication, and only with its presence is this planned machine somehow able to move forward. Again, the criticism seems strange. Hayek says: if you are consistent in your madness, this is what will happen. Then Netesov claims: look, Soviet society was not consistent enough in its madness, therefore Hayek was wrong. Well, sort of…

§5. Here it is said that Hayek claimed: under a system of centralized planning, all plans are handed down from above by one leader. But this is not the case: huge, cumbersome structures were built to create plans, which worked terribly, and these plans were not properly fulfilled. It is clear that empirical data should differ somewhat from theoretical ones: the Soviet Union was not an ideal system of centralized planning because such an ideal system is simply unattainable, just as absolute zero is unattainable.

But essentially, the author is right: The Road to Serfdom is not a detailed description of a specific USSR, nor even of socialism as a system. It is simply a political pamphlet, a warning to British society not to flirt too much with the Labour Party. For studying socialism, Hayek’s book is too superficial; if anyone is interested, there are many established Sovietologists, and the author suggests getting acquainted with them.

Greedy Escort

§6. Here, the author first suggests that libertarians get rid of praxeology. Then he begins to reason that a corporation is not some single and indivisible entrepreneur, but a multitude of people, each acting in their own personal interests, which do not necessarily coincide with some conceptual interests of the corporation as a whole or even its management. The question arises: why should we discard praxeology if it is precisely concerned with the consideration of individual human interests, which are much broader than economics?

It is also pointed out that Mises’s calculation argument regarding the impossibility of economic calculation in a planned economy applies to corporations in the same way. That is, the more internal transfer pricing within a corporation is detached from the market, the worse resources are distributed within it. Next, positive and negative economies of scale are mentioned, which Mises touched upon only slightly. Well, Mises wasn’t the only one; Ronald Coase did a lot of work in the field of firm theory, and supporters of the Austrian School of Economics can perfectly well use his constructions; they fit into the general economic theory and do not violate the principles of praxeology.

Further in this very long paragraph, there are reflections that the efficiency of a corporation becomes even lower when it reaches the state trough, and Mises is accused of ignoring this circumstance. Here, one can only be surprised, because the entire sixth part of Human Action is devoted to various distortions that the government can introduce into economic activity.

§7. Here, referencing Hernando de Soto, explanations are given as to why supercomputers are unable to save a planned economy, and then a question is left hanging about what prevents these same arguments from being applied to TNCs. Nothing prevents it. Centralization has its costs, and decentralization has its own.

§8. Here the author repeats a number of theses from previous paragraphs and mentions that Joseph Salerno proved: market prices convey a reliable signal to entrepreneurs only under proximal equilibrium. He uses this as an argument that Hayek is outdated, and along with him, the entire Austrian School. But Salerno is also a representative of the Austrian School, so we are seeing an evolving school rather than a dead dogma, so what’s the problem?

§9. In conclusion, Netesov lists the reasons why, in his view, the rapid expansion of the influence of the Russian-speaking libertarian movement has slowed down significantly recently. The selection looks like a set of random facts that caught the author’s eye and serves as a warning to me personally not to do the same, because it looks very funny from the side. There, literally, as reasons for the end of the golden age of libertarianism in Russia, he lists the publication of a feuilleton with 13 thousand reads (I first learned about it from Netesov’s article), Usanov’s weak performance in debates with Vatoadmin, and the failure of Zelensky’s reforms. Where is my pre-New Year depression? I also influenced the fading interest in libertarianism in Russia!

In my view, the problem is more that almost all the low-hanging fruit have been picked, and further, if one wants to continue spreading their ideology at the previous pace, new approaches must be found. The second problem is, undoubtedly, the COVID restrictions, which completely cut off the sphere of offline agitation. The third is the recent split of the libertarian community. However, the latter circumstance, on the contrary, may provide new growth points due to increased competition for fresh minds.

Erik Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Mill.

About a month ago, I received a small donation for the translation of Eric Mack. It’s not that I was in a great rush with this translation, but I didn’t want to completely ignore the fact that someone felt it was important to encourage the process a bit. So here is a fresh chapter, the penultimate one in the part dedicated to the philosophical prerequisites for the emergence of libertarianism. The translation took some effort: John Stuart Mill wrote quite convolutedly.

The chapter is dedicated to utilitarian arguments in favor of freedom—in other words, attempts to justify its necessity not only by so-called natural rights (which is not a justification at all, but a simple postulate, as if there is such a right, and that’s that), but also by social utility. Of course, with the transition to methodological subjectivism, straightforward reasoning about the common good began to look somewhat like an anachronism, though not entirely, which surprised me a little. In essence, in his utilitarian arguments, from which any totalitarian doctrine can be easily derived if desired, Mill arrives at our old acquaintance, self-ownership, the primacy of individual security, and other liberal attributes.

From our current perspective, this, of course, looks like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Mill was a priori convinced of the value of individual freedom, and thereafter his task was reduced to selecting arguments as to why it is necessary to ensure the highest common good. Had he been a priori convinced of the value of Sharia norms or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, he could have constructed arguments in exactly the same way, proving that these very crucial things were needed to achieve the highest common good.

Don’t forget to encourage the translation process with your donations.

How do anarcho-individualism and libertarianism relate?

анонимный вопрос

To get a vivid idea of anarcho-individualism, I can recommend listening to such an anarcho-individualist as Alexander Tatarkov. He speaks quite a lot about his worldview. As for us, we will discuss the differences with libertarianism.

The main postulate of an anarcho-individualist is that the individual determines for themselves how to build their life and their relationships with others, and any norms coming from the outside have the status of well-wishes for them; they have every right to fulfill them, take note of them, ignore them, demonstratively violate them, and so on. Naturally, the anarcho-individualist agrees that they bear full responsibility for their chosen line of behavior, but reserves the right to avoid this responsibility. The only thing in which an anarcho-individualist limits themselves is that they do not engage in the construction of power institutions; this is a taboo. Violating this taboo turns them into an ordinary Machiavellian.

It is not difficult to see that an anarcho-individualist, without violating their principles, can coexist with others in a state of Hobbesian war of all against all, sit in a lotus position achieving enlightenment, join any cooperative activity, or engage in ancapism as a private entrepreneur.

The main postulate of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership. A person belongs to themselves, which is quite close to the views of anarcho-individualists. But this also means the recognition of the institution of property, for if property is completely denied, there can be no talk of self-ownership, and if property is partially denied, it implies the permissibility of encroachments on self-ownership, such as coercion. Therefore, a libertarian, unlike an anarcho-individualist, limits themselves not only in the construction of power institutions but also in encroaching on someone else’s property.

Since libertarianism was invented, the phenomenon of property itself has been analyzed and is now usually interpreted as a whole bundle of various rights. A maximalist approach to property, where it is interpreted as an absolute unrestricted right to dispose of an object, is very convenient for drawing caricatures of libertarianism or criticizing it in other ways. There are a vast number of such attempts in the information field; among the most interesting, I would name the text by Laksi Katala, Fundamental Problems of Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-individualism is a convenient basic framework in which a person acts when building their relationships from scratch with an unfamiliar environment where the rules are unknown to them, or where rules have not yet been developed.

Libertarianism is the next logical step toward building a peaceful, prosperous society, where people generally recognize each other’s legal capacity, and thus can develop frameworks for determining property rights and their transfer.

I should note that libertarianism is not entirely synonymous with anarcho-capitalism. To understand the differences, I refer the reader to the corresponding chapter of Friedman’s Mechanics of Liberty: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Libertarian?

In support of ideological diversity

What I love about libertarians is the flourishing diversity of their ideas. This is especially true, of course, for those who maintain anonymity and are therefore less constrained in their intellectual explorations. At the same time, I consider the most dangerous of possible trends in the libertarian movement to be the use of such an ancient technology of dominance as “excommunicating” people from the movement.

Libertarians may disagree with one another on the issue of intellectual property, and that’s normal: some quote Kinsella, others Rothbard. They may argue about the acceptability of a minarchist state, drawing arguments on one side from Mises, Rand, and Nozick, and on the other from the same Rothbard or, say, Zolotorev. They may simply be fond of one particular doctrine because it is most interesting to them—for example, Alexander Elesev focused on non-violent child-rearing, Bitarh on the idea of outliving aggressive violence through a multitude of non-trivial ways, Svetov on lustration, and my favorite, Artem Ferier, on contractual slavery. This entire array of ideas is the direct realization of one’s own freedom, without restricting that of others.

The idea of encouraging intellectual diversity is often opposed by the idea of intellectual purism. It has its own obvious appeal, because it is always exclusively pleasant to be in an echo chamber, and knowing that your ideas are in demand and supported is usually very inspiring. One could also quote Lenin and his famous “Before uniting, and in order to unite, we must first decisively and definitely demarcate ourselves.” In other words, you clearly state the theses that constitute the essence of your teaching, give it a specific term, anathematize everyone who tries to call themselves by the same name while having a different set of postulates—and then launch a media campaign promoting precisely this purified product. Resources that were previously spent on searching for ideas and internal discussion are redirected toward missionary work, and the teaching begins to capture the masses.

The obvious problem with such an approach turns out to be fragility. Not only do heresies regularly form within the teaching when someone reinterprets the original set of theses in their own way, but attracting allies who have their own relatively coherent doctrine also becomes problematic. For example, Svetov has a teaching very closely related to what Elesev or Bitarh bring to the masses, but he is unable to attract them to himself except at the cost of their renouncing their own perspective on the issues. And why would they want to do that? Decisive demarcation remains self-sustaining until some teaching begins to occupy a dominant position. Only then can people unite: yesterday’s intellectual rivals join you, first repenting for their blindness and renouncing everything in their early views that deviated from the current canon. This trick worked for Lenin. Today we see similar mechanisms in the advance of the ideology of political correctness. Could the same thing work with libertarianism? Easily. It is just a word, and one can embed however narrow and dogmatic a content into it, having nothing to do with freedom itself.

We have a fork in the road. On one hand, the possibility of growing a rigid but successful teaching that will capture many minds. On the other, the freedom to dwell in a swamp of fruitless intellectual rambling. The preference for the lesser evil suggests itself, and for many, this turns out to be joining the ranks of the “Witnesses of NAP” or something of that sort. Fortunately, this fork is a false dilemma.

Only fans perceive music as whole albums. Usually, someone appreciates a specific song, someone gets attached to a couple of phrases from the chorus, someone remembers a little tune. It is the same with ideologies. Ideas are gathered into teachings for logical consistency, which is important to those who are deeply interested in understanding them. However, indoctrination occurs through the spreading of individual ideas, or even practices based on ideas—not through large-block constructions. Therefore, it is far more important that ideas of freedom take the most diverse forms and presentations, and that they grow into practices with the most varied styles. Some will appreciate cryptocurrency as “free money.” Some will like autonomous energy. Some will prefer coordination structures parallel to the state. Some will promote homeschooling. And some will go into politics, advocating for economic deregulation from elected positions.

Ideas spread unnoticed. Also, ideas can be born independently. You look at a person who doesn’t even know the word “libertarianism”—yet they are internally free and project a highly attractive pattern of action to others. There is no need to immediately examine them for compliance with a given talking-point memo. Just rejoice aloud: oh, one of us!

Our man Justus Walker

Are libertarians selfish?

We continue our series of sloppy translations of English-language articles on libertarianism from popular websites, simply to keep you up to date with the discourse.

Original publication: David S. d’Amato. Translation: André [remarks in square brackets throughout the text are his]

Libertarianism is, first and foremost, a philosophy of the Other, a philosophy emphasizing our obligation to refrain from dominating other people, and from imposing our vision of a good life on others.

Media Name: are_libertarians_selfish.png

In critiques of libertarianism, a common motif is the claim that libertarianism is nothing more than a celebration of selfishness and greed. According to this view, the libertarian ideal is a heartless miser on a golden toilet, gazing dispassionately down upon the poor. This view is most common among left-wing critics and is not least driven by Ayn Rand’s 1964 collection of essays, The Virtue of Selfishness, in which Rand advocated [regardless of what you think] selfishness. To begin with, it should be noted that Rand’s definition of “selfishness,” as she noted herself, “differs from the common usage.” Her argument is built on a very peculiar and counterintuitive definition of selfishness, differing from both everyday use and dictionaries; she was well aware of how controversial and provocative such a step was, which is precisely why she justifies selfishness. Despite this remark, placed in the very first lines of the preface, Rand still insists that she is simply applying the dictionary definition of selfishness: “concern for one’s own interests.” But Rand overlooks a very important component of the dictionary definition of “selfishness”—disregard and lack of respect for others. This point, as it turns out, is very important both in everyday life and in our discussion of the link between libertarianism and selfishness.

Libertarianism implies a fundamental modesty: we should not be so blinded by our ideals as to forcibly compel [hello GULAG and prison sentences for hate speech] others to follow them. Thus, it is important to understand that in some sense, the libertarian idea embodies a rejection of selfishness. One of the main concerns of libertarianism is that some people will use others as a means to achieve their own goals [when the forest is cut, chips fly], which entails selfishness of the most loathsome kind. Libertarians view everyone and every single person—including that guy on the left—as an important individual deserving of autonomy and dignity, possessing rights that must be protected from violent encroachments. Historically, libertarianism was a reaction to the blatant, irresponsible selfishness of the strong and the powerful. It is a fundamentally egalitarian viewpoint, according to which all people are equal in the sense that, completely regardless of our abilities, skin pigmentation, sex and gender [the same as sex, but if you say so, the Transformers will beat you up], language, and ethnicity, we all have the right to be free and pursue our own notions of a better life. This is simultaneously a radical idea and common sense, but it is not an idea that can be equated with “selfishness.” Put simply: “no one is free until we are all free.”

Selfishness is the arrogant belief that I know best and have the right to force everyone to live as I wish [church, ideologies, SJWs, the state]. Oscar Wilde perhaps expressed this better than anyone: “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. Unselfishness is letting people live as they wish to live.” [trans. Oksana Kirichenko] The arrogance and complacency of the belief that I know better than others how they should live is a serious problem in itself, but added to it is the dangerous belief that I have the right, or even the duty, to use force to bring this belief to life. Obviously, this is wrong, but in politics, it is the norm. Libertarians are perceived as childishly minded egoists when they criticize, with undeniably logical ethical arguments, the unacceptability of such a state of affairs. We teach children that hitting and threatening others to get what one wants is unacceptable, but when it comes to the construction of all public institutions, this becomes not only acceptable behavior, but is presented as the best way of organizing society. Libertarians simply ask politely: “on what grounds, exactly, did you decide that among your rights there is a right to violate the rights of others?” Libertarians base their view on the conviction that we should treat others as free and equal, not as tools for achieving a desired end [whether it be ice cream or social justice]. This is sometimes called the law of equal liberty: people deserve—simply because they are human—to be free and do whatever they wish, as long as they do not violate the same liberty of others. People who support the idea that the state should create armed detachments to impose their understanding of the world and morality on people demonstrate an amazing overconfidence, believing their convictions to be the only correct ones. This overconfidence makes such people dangerous, prone to exceeding their authority and abusing power to achieve their ideals. And we are all prone to believing in the truth of our own ideals. As John Stuart Mill notes: “Very few people think it necessary to take any precaution against the possibility of their own views being mistaken, or admit the possibility that any opinion with which they are satisfied may be a case of error, which is itself a logical error.” Libertarians note the diversity of opinions and lifestyles; this position provides protection against the dominance of One Ideal, curbing its destructive potential.

The assumption that libertarians are selfish is an example of bad faith and self-deception, intellectual laziness, and an unfair way for a person to avoid the obligation to consider views on their merits. But while the critique of libertarianism as a philosophy grown out of selfishness is based on an unfair and inaccurate reading of libertarianism and its motives, we are not obliged to pay back in the same coin. Progressives, social democrats, socialists, and other pro-state creatures from the left side of the spectrum likely do not support the state solely to dominate and control those around them, even if this is an inevitable result of the expanding role of the state in our lives. Rather, they tend to mistakenly perceive the state as a virtuous social force aimed at protecting and supporting the most vulnerable and deprived. It would be one thing if they were fundamentally wrong only about what such a state is, how it behaves, and so on—but even the means to which this part of the left appeals do not yield the desired and expected empirical [visible, literally, physically tangible] results. On the contrary, they generate poverty and destitution, while libertarian principles of individual rights, genuine market competition, and private property ensure widespread prosperity and encourage generosity and social trust.

Libertarianism, in essence, is the clearest, most direct, and best path to those goals of the left that are worthwhile: ensuring that as many people as possible around the world have access to basic necessities, and opening the way to economic opportunities and security for the poorest strata of society. From a technical standpoint, those whose stated goals of government policy include the growth of the state, the restriction of free trade (both domestically and internationally), and the increase of the tax and regulatory burden are the primary enemies of the poor and oppressed; they actively hinder the mechanisms that create and distribute material values. Thus, as Jason Brennan notes in “Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know,” when libertarians criticize, for example, the welfare state, it is not because of their “heartless indifference to the plight of the poor,” but “because they are convinced that the welfare state does more harm than good to the poor.” Political dialogue often (in fact, almost always) misses or confuses goals and means, assuming that political and social institutions designed to help the poor work as they should by design, rather than as they actually do.

It must be acknowledged that libertarianism mainly speaks (or, at least, should speak) about means, placing violations of the legitimate sphere of individual autonomy outside the bounds of acceptable behavior—completely regardless of the goals the individual pursues [one cannot drive people into paradise with a stick]. “I have often said,” writes Gandhi, “that if we attend to the means, the end will take care of itself.” Gandhi said this while arguing that non-violence is a practical path to national independence, but libertarians are guided by a broader and more principled interpretation of this idea. Following Gandhi, libertarians recognize that “we do not know our goal,” that the goal must be limited by the use of correct means and therefore “is defined not by our definitions, but by our actions.” Libertarians strive to treat other people appropriately—respectfully and decently—and we think that this constitutes a far better political program than the various forms of authoritarianism that have left so many scars in human history. Those who see in libertarianism only a reflection or rationalization of selfishness do not understand either its history or the philosophical positions that characterize it. Libertarians argue that there is nothing wrong with caring for oneself and pursuing one’s interests, but that our actions are limited by social reciprocity, the recognition of Others, and their inherent human value.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Hume.

Today on our program is the promised chapter from Eric Mack’s book “Libertarianism,” dedicated to the views of David Hume as another of the precursors of this ideology. Despite the fact that Hume, opposing Locke (who was discussed in the previous chapter), denied both the social contract and natural rights, he quite sensibly supplemented Locke’s views on social organization with his description of the morality that arises in humans as social animals. Hume also formulates the resulting principles of justice, which lead to mutually beneficial social cooperation.

Left-libertarianism

Russia is considered a fairly left-wing country; however, for some reason, the phenomenon of left-libertarianism has not taken root there very well.

What makes it interesting? For a classical libertarian, the values of freedom and, consequently, voluntary interaction with other members of society have absolute priority, and if someone chooses social Darwinism, that is their right. For left-libertarians, the desire to ensure that other people do not end up in a desperate situation is a powerful moral imperative. Yes, it contradicts the values of total freedom, but there is no problem with having moral imperatives that occasionally conflict with one another (by the way, I will mention this in passing in my new video—stay tuned for announcements). Realizing that their legitimate pursuit of self-actualization might significantly hinder someone else, a left-libertarian will limit their own freedom and will not even consider it some extraordinary feat. After all, when healthy young people voluntarily self-isolate for the safety of the elderly, that is precisely an example of the behavior of a normal left-libertarian.

So why is this school of thought doing so poorly in Russia? Quite simply, we are a very poor and over-regulated country, and in order to sacrifice something, you first need to have that something. Russians mostly suffer from a critical shortage of both money and freedom.

Mikhail Pozharsky began introducing us to the doctrines of left-libertarianism in Russian, but for him, this is a side activity, as it is for me. Therefore, I would like to recommend several specialized Russian-language resources for those wishing to explore this topic more closely.

  1. Alliance of Left-Libertarians. A tiny Telegram channel (40 subscribers at the time of my publication) with a grand description listing the movements it unites—and the list is so long that it feels as though there is only one person from each movement. Nevertheless, they have developed a very productive activity and translated a vast number of articles on the subject, so you should not only subscribe to the channel but also thoroughly scour its history; there is a lot of interesting material there.
  2. Libertarian Social Justice. These are the most poignant leftists among all libertarians, supporters of UBI and other redistributive extravaganzas. Consume with caution. Knowledge of this discourse is especially useful in debates with communists—determined communists will find migrating here quite comfortable. The channel has 41 subscribers at the time of my publication.
  3. The Agorist’s Cookbook. A slightly less tiny channel (68 subscribers at the time of my publication) dedicated to agorism—a branch of libertarianism that, for some mysterious reason, is classified as left-wing but stands completely on its own. I intend to dig deep into agorism myself—the next cycle of Libertarian Band videos will be dedicated specifically to it. So, I wholeheartedly recommend subscribing.

All three channels partially overlap in content and possibly in editorial staff, but they prefer to maintain autonomy, which is completely natural and convenient for libertarians.

Rules for Success for Libertarian Organizations. An Overview.

The host of the channel Right Argument for 14.88 rubles asked to criticize 12 points published on his channel: Part 1. Part 2.

Point No. 1: An idea needs only 10% convinced supporters to convert the remaining 90% of society to its side.

According to Taleb, 4% will be enough; there are studies suggesting even less is needed. If there is an active radical minority, its ideas begin to be taken into account. However, a society may end up with two such radical minorities. This is fraught with civil war. Is this a reason to abandon one’s idea? No, but it is worth considering this point.

Point No. 2: Ideology must intersect with the mainstream.

It is suggested to broadcast simple and clear slogans outwardly, leaving the sophisticated studies for the inner circle; otherwise, agitation will be easily countered by stupid memes about courts under ancap.

Point No. 3: If a movement consists of more intellectuals, then the ideology and culture within the movement will be more developed and attractive.

This is an antithesis to point 2. Without intellectuals, a movement to transform the world degenerates into a gathering of rowdy schoolkids, rejecting anyone remotely adequate. Upon receiving a complex question, an agitator must answer at the appropriate level, or admit that it is better to consult so-and-so.

Point No. 4: Arguments over axioms and cornerstones of theory between libertarians and leftists/etatists are a waste of time.

Unless it is a public dispute to win over the public’s sympathy or training debates to hone rhetorical skills.

Point No. 5: Internal enemies are a thousand times more dangerous than external ones.

When an organization begins to fight internal enemies, it means that the external ones have won without a fight. In general, one should not confuse the competition of ideas with the machinations of enemies.

Point No. 6: Watch your appearance.

One should not fall into the opposite extreme, or it will turn into a Putin-style lineup of technocrat governors.

Point No. 7: Stay away from people who are too old.

The largest audience is forty-year-old women; without their approval, you won’t get far. Thus, you need mature people who have a track record of success, and they are the ones who should be put in the storefront, while the task of the youth is active movement.

Point No. 8: Stay away from Russian social networks, but actively use foreign ones.

Every social network has its own pitfalls. Facebook and YouTube have censorship. VK has arrests. It is important to understand where the target audience is, how to speak with them, and what precautions to take.

Point No. 9: Convince people of other political views and inexperienced newcomers of the consistency and viability of libertarianism.

There is no need to obsess over trying to absolutely convert opponents to your teaching. It is more important to create a reputation for libertarians by your own example as people who are capable of agreement and consistent, with whom one can cooperate on specific issues. Then, an ideological drift in your direction becomes inevitable.

Point No. 10: We do not have good media resources, and those that exist are terrible in terms of effectively promoting ideas to the masses (this applies to this channel as well).

It is unclear what this point is doing in the list; it does not form a positive assertion.

Point No. 11: Track progress.

In the authors’ understanding, this refers to progress in metrics: number of subscribers, views, likes, and so on. I would suggest understanding this point in a more general way.

Point No. 12: We do not have very much time to realize our ambitions.

This is a demonstration of the authors’ high time preference. An ordinary young activist quickly burns out if they do not achieve significant success, after which they switch to what does bring success—usually a business career and family life. But social change is a longer process than the evolution of a specific activist’s priorities. A movement that does not take this into account can only win by chance.

Eric Mack. Libertarianism. Chapter on Locke.

Many thanks to Mikhail Pozharsky, who promoted our translation project of Libertarianism by Eric Mack. As a result, we have seen a surge in website traffic and gained two new translators, though the rain of donations hasn’t quite fallen yet. Nevertheless, the work continues.

The second part of the book is dedicated to the philosophical premises of libertarianism. Today I am posting a short Introduction to the second part, as well as the first chapter: Locke on natural rights, civil society, resistance and toleration.

The author explains which doctrines of the time Locke opposed with his ideas, where he derives them from, what conclusions he draws, what couple of caveats he accompanies the concept of original appropriation of property with, for what purpose people form a government, at what point they should begin to rebel against it — and why such a rebellion would be just.

Be sure to send your donations to the address 1AFkD2bazCs5YZBBrSD7HsRMWLmRbg6QBo — and next time we will be able to tell you what Hume wrote about the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation.

P.S. It turned out that in addition to the text we pirated, there is another bonus section attached to the book, open to all. But for consistency, we have also posted it on our website, and we will translate it in time. Therefore, the total number of chapters in our progress bar has changed.