Тег: Libertarianism

Is it possible in some way to reconcile libertarianism with the idea of the absence of free will in humans?

анонимный вопрос

Very often, these kinds of tricky questions boil down to a lack of clarity in definitions. On the other hand, imprecise definitions provide an excellent opportunity to reflect on the entire topic at hand, which I will gladly do.

Historically, when speaking of free will, it is implied that although God is omniscient and omnipotent, having defined all the laws of existence, and that not a single blade of grass blooms without His providence, He made an exception specifically for humans. Having created man in His own image and likeness, and knowing his entire destiny from beginning to end, God nevertheless does not interfere in his behavior—except in those cases where He does, which is then termed a miracle or divine inspiration, but that is another story.

The concept of free will did not become established in Christian doctrine from the very beginning; in the writings of Augustine, we still see complete predestination, where a person has not a single chance of salvation unless it was predestined for them from the start. Within the framework of this strange doctrine—”I am a slave (that is, a speaking tool) and I will sternly state this”—there was no chance for libertarian ideas to even emerge. Indeed, what self-ownership can be discussed for a speaking tool that does not dare even to sneeze except by the will of the master.

If we shift from theology to a more commonplace understanding of free will, it could be defined as the ability to act contrary to someone’s manipulations. Following this, we can observe that, indeed, quite many people do not possess free will in full, as their choices are determined by context rather than internal preferences (such matters are analyzed in detail in the trendy field of behavioral economics). Can pronounced libertarian relations exist in a society where such manipulative practices are actively applied? Yes, they can. Such images are often painted for us, showing a world of triumphant corporations. As long as manipulations are non-violent, libertarians will clearly point to their legitimacy, whereas violent opposition to them, such as destroying advertising materials, may indeed be suppressed in such a society.

Still, we are not talking about total zombification in our fantasies today, but even if we were, we would have a situation of private slavery, which is either voluntary—in which case we have no legal grounds to oppose it—or forced—in which case, again, libertarian doctrine provides all the tools necessary to counteract such practices.

A manager’s dream

I know that a huge number of pseudo-libertarians have appeared in our movement

Pro-lifers advocating for the ban of abortions, pedo-hysterics advocating for the ban of consensual intercourse with minors, and there are even freaks pushing for a “new Russian Pinochet.” The second class is the most delusional, of course. And it is the most numerous. While the first and third can be dealt with by simply distancing oneself from them, here we have a situation where the hydra of pedo-hysteria has embedded itself so deeply into the womb of the libertarian movement that it is practically impossible to extract. What are your options for action?

Inglikament Artzebantovsky-Bukht

You have listed three categories of people, of which the first and third would like to change the status quo (currently abortions are legal, and communists are not being thrown from helicopters into the ocean), while the second would wish to maintain it (voluntary intercourse with minors is already restricted). Libertarians are conducting a public campaign to change many things in society, and therefore need very broad public support. But the preferences of different people will inevitably differ, and the more actively you fight for the purity of the ranks, the less support you will have.

In this regard, I would like to recommend reading a post in an interesting channel run by anarchists who clearly have leftism in their history but have somewhat outgrown it (subscribe, by the way, the channel is good). The post analyzes behavioral strategies in conflict for a broad expansive social movement versus a hermetic sect. It notes a curious feature: expansive expansion is usually accompanied by fairly peaceful rhetoric, whereas sectarians are extremely aggressive in their rhetoric, even though their composition and numbers remain stagnant.

The libertarian movement is currently on the rise, so it will inevitably attract various freaks. There is no need to waste energy on internal sectarianism; it is more useful to focus on the unifying traits of your worldview. As for the pedo-hysteria, you can shrug your shoulders and say that personally you do not understand how one can distrust the personal preferences of teenagers so much and approve of state violence for victimless crimes, yet you are ready to cooperate with conservatives on the topic of lowering taxes and many other issues. This is a callback to my recent post, where I fantasized about how hypothetical American libertarians, without having a majority in Congress, nevertheless set the agenda and pass their laws by exploiting the contradictions between socialists and conservatives.

In short, if you have signed up for politics, be more flexible; unite around common interests, and you will have plenty of time to fight once you are in the parliament of the Beautiful Russia of the Future discussing a bill to abolish the age of consent. If you manage to gain broad enough support on this issue, you won’t need a helicopter.

Let’s imagine that libertarianism won in a particular country. A rich country is meant. Where will the state budget money go? Even if minarchism is meant, the budget is still much larger than what is needed for defense and protection.

Oleja)

Why be modest? Let’s take not just a rich country, but the richest one, after all, it’s so pleasant to talk about other people’s money—any socialist would appreciate that.

So, the USA. The fantastic premise is that socialists left the Democratic Party and conservatives left the Republicans, founding their own parties. The remnants of the two parties merged into the United America party, colloquially known as unionists, while many people defected to the libertarians. In 2032, each of the four parties puts forward its own candidate for president, and a libertarian wins by a tiny margin. Seats in Congress and the Senate are distributed roughly equally among the four parties; the Supreme Court, due to the greater rigidity of its formation mechanism, is represented primarily by unionists diluted with conservatives.

Disagreements between socialists and conservatives reach such a scale that conservatives are ready to vote blindly for any libertarian bill on cutting government spending and deregulation just to spite the socialists, while socialists just as zealously support any libertarian bill regarding the expansion of personal rights to spite the conservatives. Everyone except the conservatives supports measures to expand free trade. Pairs of parties barely manage to push through cuts in defense spending and the abolition of the minimum wage, and so on. In short, thanks to such a fortunate layout and the talent of their party organizer, the libertarians steer the agenda, even though they lack an actual majority.

So where will the budget funds go amidst such active spending cuts, booming economic growth, and the sale of federal property, which, although not massive, is still not insignificant? First and foremost, of course, toward paying off the enormous thirty-trillion national debt. Once the national debt is paid off, a constitutional amendment is adopted prohibiting the creation of new debt, and the Federal Reserve is abolished. After that, since the debts are paid, federal taxes are abolished in full accordance with the constitution: each state supports its own senators and jointly rents the office where the senate meets; each party supports its own congressmen and jointly rents the congress office; the places of embassies are taken by the offices of insurance companies serving the interests of their clients abroad; the armed forces work as hires for logistics companies, protecting maritime trade, as well as for oil companies, protecting rigs in Venezuela and other Sudans, and so on. States keep their own taxes, using them as they please: Commifornium goes wild with social welfare, Alaska with national parks, Vermont subsidizes schools, and New Hampshire simply places a huge porcupine-shaped piggy bank in the center of the state capital, and anyone who wishes drops in as much as they like, taking a selfie and posting it to Instagram—and once a year, the state government breaks the piggy bank, counts the money on camera, and based on the amount collected, adopts the budget for the following year.

In short, once you break it, you build it. If it’s possible to cut spending, then cutting income is no problem at all; you don’t have to worry about that.

Porcbank

Political coordinates

I have very often seen assertions from conservatives, fascists, and other people occupying the upper-right corner of the political spectrum, claiming that libertarianism is a left-wing idea, that libertarians are enemies of tradition and therefore leftists, and that judging right-wing status based on economics is nonsense. Could you tell me how to respond to such people?

Alexey Antonov

Any ideology is described in human language, and then the specific premises underlying the ideology are compared. However, for a clear comparison of many different systems of views, it is common to use a geometric metaphor, assigning ideologies numerical values on coordinate axes. Some use the one-dimensional “left-right” metaphor. Others prefer a two-dimensional one, such as the Nolan chart or other variations of the political compass. The 8values test is popular online, where we already have four dichotomies. In any case, these are all nothing more than illustrations.

Arguing about the most correct way to transfer libertarians from a two-dimensional compass to a one-dimensional segment—whether by cutting the economic scale, cutting the conservatism scale, or recalculating the values on both scales into a single figure—is roughly like arguing about which single word to replace the two epithets “brilliant” and “heroic” with in order to fit them into an ode praising a dictator.

What qualities and knowledge must a person possess to call themselves a libertarian without shame?

анонимный вопрос

If we approach the issue purely formally, to call oneself a libertarian without shame, a single quality is sufficient: shamelessness.

So, for a more substantial answer, I would phrase the question differently: what qualities and knowledge must a person possess for me to be able to say, without shame, that they are a libertarian.

I must say, my requirements are quite minimalist. It is enough for me that a person is guided by libertarian principles in their own life. Knowledge of the intricacies of libertarian doctrine and economic theory, an entrepreneurial vein, the ability to competently explain why roads are not so necessary—these are all pleasant, but not mandatory, additions.

Accepting oneself as one’s own property, for which you yourself bear full responsibility. Respect for the property of other people. Readiness to appropriate ownerless resources for the benefit of yourself and your loved ones. Readiness to defend what is yours. Avoiding, whenever possible, cooperation with the state, and certainly sabotaging its strengthening.

The main emotion that, it seems to me, a libertarian should evoke in a statist is bewilderment: wait, was that actually possible? In this sense, an exemplary libertarian for me is the Moscow region farmer Mikhail Shlyapnikov. He didn’t want to die from some incurable ailment, moved to a village, issued his own private money, built a strong farm, took local self-government into his own hands, is expanding, growing stronger, and replicating his experience for all who wish. And I don’t really care whether he has read Mises or limited himself to an agronomy handbook.

Incels, the state, and how to set them against each other

I have already published two texts about incels, but I don’t like either of them: hostility toward the subject of study is easily detectable in them, and that is wrong. Now, I have finally managed to create a sufficiently unbiased synthesis. Thus, you were able to observe in real time the thought process of searching for the right formulations on a complex topic. I hope it was entertaining.

Progress in communications, allowing literally everyone, no matter how surprising their interests may be, to find a kindred spirit, has led to the emergence of some very peculiar subcultures. And while cultural phenomena—say, a certain genre of music—previously played a significant role in building such group identities, people now cluster much more often by ideological traits or around a specific problem. Our subject of consideration is the incel subculture, and their problem is quite serious: women deny them sex.

The word incel comes from involuntary celibate. Incels generally believe that their failures are entirely due to their appearance, meaning they are genetically programmed, and therefore their problem is unsolvable without violence. Some go further in their logic and begin, for example, to advocate for the idea that women should be legally restricted in their right to refuse sex, or that rape should not be prosecuted, as it is the satisfaction of a natural vital need.

In the article about private discrimination, I showed that, first, discrimination in society is inevitable and necessary, and second, the more urgent someone’s need appears to the counterparty, the greater the likelihood that they will not be discriminated against, even if interacting with them is not particularly desirable. In our age of emancipation, a woman usually does not consider a man’s need for sex to be so urgent that she would voluntarily satisfy it upon the first request, and she is even less inclined to do so at the first meeting stage, before any attachment to the man has arisen. Therefore, it is not surprising that incels are infuriated by modern female upbringing and would wish to change the state of affairs somehow.

So, incels are dissatisfied with all men who do not encounter systemic problems with sex, and all women who choose those they find more attractive. How then should a libertarian convey their position when communicating with representatives of a subculture so prejudiced against everyone who is not part of it?

Telling them about biology, about sexual selection, saying that evolutionary mechanisms work because some are culled—is completely counterproductive. On the contrary, it is more useful to point out that humanity has long stepped beyond the limits of pure biology, and now selection is primarily driven by cultural factors. The world has become complex and diverse; there is no such thing as one single type that everyone likes. There are many examples of women liking men of the most varied appearances.

Thus, salvation for discriminated groups lies in the increasing diversity of society. What prevents the increase of diversity? The state, of course.

It is the state that provides children with standardized education, imposes uniform cultural norms, seeks to ban non-traditional sexual practices and non-traditional types of marriage. Well, when human preferences are unified, those who deviate significantly from the norm begin to have problems.

Of course, incels’ preferences also differ greatly.

Some consider the idea of using commercial sex instead of tedious courtship rituals that do not guarantee a result quite calmly. The state hinders them by not allowing the legalization of prostitution.

Others need precisely a classic patriarchal family, with marital fidelity and strong foundations—they are infuriated that even after entering a marriage, they are in no way protected from their wife running off with some handsome man and even having a child by him, using the husband only as a wallet. The state hinders them by depriving people of the right to bring legal claims for infidelity—sanctions for this cannot be written even into a marriage contract in Russia.

A third group sees no possibility of sex with people at all. The state hinders them by interfering for some reason in the sphere of sex-robot exploitation, although it is completely unclear whose interests it is protecting here.

A fourth group has no particular grievances against other people and their preferences, and would wish to adapt themselves to them. The state hinders them by regulating the field of biotechnology and plastic surgery, which drives up prices. The ability of incels to adjust themselves to standards turns out to be limited.

Finally, a fifth group realizes that the issue is not appearance, but simple shyness and an inability to communicate. The state hinders here too, by criminalizing light psychoactive substances for some reason, such as marijuana, euphoretics, and empathogens. Meanwhile, it would seem that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is scarier—a possible side effect from taking substances or inevitable lifelong loserdom.

One can also point out to incels the fact that it is precisely state paternalism that makes people so frivolous. Why take responsibility for one’s own actions if the state will take care of it anyway? In a paternalistic state, a woman will easily prefer someone she feels attracted to, even if he is worthless as a life partner—because thanks to the state, she doesn’t need a life partner, and she is simply looking for someone to have fun with.

It is precisely due to the actions of the state that powerful migration flows are formed. People flee their talentless dictators to more prosperous countries to somehow feed themselves—and simultaneously increase the competition for women. After all, the vast majority of labor migrants are unmarried men in their prime.

Finally, it is important to remind incels that even if their community achieves some obvious preferences from the state, this will lead not only to obvious benefit, but also to equally obvious harm. If now they are mostly simply ignored, then state patronage will inevitably make them an object of hatred from all those who had to be legally disadvantaged for the sake of incels, as well as all those who hoped for preferences themselves and now feel envy. The state is an attempt by everyone to live at the expense of all others. Avoid this toxic tool, there will be no use from it, live like honest people.

And after the image of the enemy has been formed, one can add a bit of a positive agenda. Pushing political initiatives for deregulation in various sectors, if you prefer a minarchist approach. The idea of organizing ECUs for supporters of traditional family values, if a transition to panarchy seems more promising to you. Kinky parties, drug parties, swinger parties and similar activities—if you are a hardcore agorist and do not wish to come within a cannon shot of the state. One way or another, involving an incel in activity will help them very much, and it is better if this activity is in line with libertarian values.

Incels, a discussion

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.

Look, so many submissive tyans! Just lovely!

Incels

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.

What ways exist to rehabilitate people in the eyes of the libertarian public in the case of a complicated background?

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

A little more about Zelensky

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.