Тег: Marketplace

Hi. And how, under ancap, can the harmony of the urban environment be ensured? What would stop one guy from building houses in the Baroque style, while another builds right next to him in the Constructivist style (let’s say)? Or is this not a problem worth thinking about at all?

anonymous question

Strictly speaking, even under a state, in most cases, nothing prevents two developers from building houses in completely different styles next to each other. There is a set of formal criteria regarding something like insolation, number of floors, and parking area; once those are met, it’s done. If the verdict of the chief city architect or some other expert bigwig is required, then corrupting them is simply a matter of time.

At the same time, there are many cases of self-organization in condominiums, where the purchase of land for development or a finished real estate object is accompanied by a set of restrictions common to the entire condominium—on fence height, number of floors, roof color, or even damn curtains on the windows. As long as such easements allow for increasing the value of the property in the condominium, the market supports them. As soon as a restriction leads to a decrease in the price of the properties, the market sets in motion the forces to abolish them, and suddenly the condominium board decides to lift the ban on building a second garage on a plot, or the requirement that roofs must necessarily be red. In the described mechanism of restricting property disposal rights, there is nothing that could not be implemented under ancap.

Here you go, an addition to baroque under state regulation

I recently came to the conclusion that antitrust services are not very effective in handling their task (one can use the recent situation with the collusion of memory chip manufacturers or with video cards as an example). And how can the free market resolve a monopoly?

anonymous question

This question is so common that when a memo for arguing with schoolchildren was being compiled, it was listed as number one.

Indeed, antitrust services are not needed. Monopolies are either formed where the optimal business size turns out to be comparable to the total market size, or where government regulations have created the monopoly artificially (for example, through licensing of activities, exclusive procurement from a single supplier, issuance of patents — in other words, by prohibiting anyone but the monopolist from entering the market).

In the first case, the monopolist successfully meets the demand, the market grows, and over time it turns out that there is now room for several more companies; any attempt by the monopolist to fight them using market methods leads to such a loss of profit that it becomes more profitable for the monopolist to invest in other industries rather than cling to a market share where they are still a monopolist.

In the second case, the monopolist becomes arrogant, raising prices and degrading the quality of services, while the state has to deal with consumer dissatisfaction. Sooner or later, either lobbyists for potential competitors will push through the deregulation of the industry (this is how Novatek secured the right to export liquefied natural gas, which previously belonged exclusively to Gazprom), or a black market will develop, which, without doing anything about the de jure monopoly, will undermine its de facto monopoly. Despairing of fighting the black market through state power, the monopolist will be forced to make concessions — and finally start lowering prices and improving quality.

Back to the question of global warming: the point is not that the climate will change, but rather what will follow: the disruption of climate cycles, the disruption of ecological stability, etc., etc. All of this will undoubtedly affect the agro-sector, plus the growing population. What is to be done about this?

anonymous question, addition to the previous answer

If a certain community agrees on what climate is optimal for it and has the means to establish these conditions, its representative simply takes the climate control remote and sets the required parameters. If there are no means to establish an arbitrary climate, people either migrate to more acceptable climatic conditions or adapt to the existing ones. If there are means but no agreement, then whoever holds the remote will, one way or another, set parameters that satisfy some and dissatisfy others.

To study the causes and effects of climate change, one can ask: a) who influenced the changes that occurred and to what extent; b) who suffered what damage as a result. But in fact, a different question is of interest: is it possible to organize joint activity so that the degradation of the established system of consumption of goods does not occur, and if so, how.

The current level of human development allows for direct steering of the climate approximately at the regional level: creating a large reservoir, for example, or, conversely, dividing a river into irrigation ditches. Which approaches to organizing the operation of common resources work more or less in the interests of the operators is analyzed in a book that I have already recommended: Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”.

If it is not possible to design a scheme for the operation of common resources according to the principles she derived, then the best thing that can be done is to give up and eliminate regulation entirely: in systems too complex for direct management, only the free market can bring order.

Global climate changes, certainly, still fall into this category.

Hi, Ancap-chan! And once again the notorious question about roads: tell us, how will the movement of cars and pedestrians be regulated in the absence of single and centralized control?

anonymous question

There is already complete anarchy regarding pedestrians on the roads. In order to participate in road traffic, a pedestrian does not take any exams; they simply learn to walk—and then they walk. Infrastructure owners are interested in ensuring that a pedestrian arrives alive, solvent, and ready to spend their money at the place where they will spend it. Therefore, a pedestrian on a private street is fully looked after: they are physically separated from dangers, and efforts are made to move the points where they will spend money as close as possible to the places where, for some reason, there are many pedestrians.

But here is the trouble. Some pedestrians, wishing to make their movement even faster and more comfortable, get behind the wheel and begin to pose a danger to other pedestrians. How should the unfortunate owner of the street handle this situation if it is important to them that all pedestrians reach the spending point quickly and safely, even if some pedestrians have climbed into individual high-speed delivery vehicles? It becomes necessary to somehow reduce the risks of transport collisions by physically separating flows of different speeds and directions, and where this is too expensive, separating them at least logically—not in space, but in time, by organizing alternating movement in intersecting directions.

The same market logic applies here as in any other service sector: the more money there is in the market, the more profitable capital investments in improving service quality become. Therefore, in a remote village, we will see neither a sidewalk nor dividing barriers on the road, while in a metropolis, we see all of this and much more.

All these considerations are already in effect, despite the nominal existence of a “single centralized control,” and in its absence, they will work even better due to the absence of single centralized obstacles.

Why, from the perspective of libertarianism, are market manipulation and insider trading not crimes? And why should serious financial crimes not be regulated by the state at all?

@wizard1209

Market manipulation is an attempt by a certain market player to predict the behavior of other market players in response to various options of their own behavior. They bet money that their prediction is true, and that a certain market behavior will bring them profit at the expense of other players’ losses—and then they test their prediction.

Formally, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle here, but if the manipulator’s prediction turns out to be correct, other players suffer a loss, and they, after all, did not enter the market for that purpose. Therefore, it is not surprising that the manipulator may be disliked.

Most market participants prefer predictability and do not highly value a store where, as a result of manipulations, the price jumps randomly. Therefore, the store is interested in introducing its own restrictions that make manipulation more difficult, and the smaller the market size, the more relevant such things are for the owners of trading platforms.

Insider trading is the same kind of market manipulation, except that the manipulation is carried out by the trading platform itself or persons affiliated with it. Naturally, for the reputation of a trading platform, being caught in insider trading is even more dangerous than if it allows manipulations by third parties. Therefore, in developed markets, insider trading is fought even more strictly.
And the state, when attempting to fight these things, as is its habit, either simply tends to make a mess with the best of intentions because it doesn’t know how to be efficient—or, under the pretext of fighting manipulations and insider trading, engages in those very manipulations and insider trading.

Now, in cryptocurrency trading, there are as many market manipulations as you like, but the higher the turnover, the less dangerous it is for those who do not suffer from it. So choose Bitcoin; it is the least prone to manipulation of all cryptos. I have chosen it specifically as the currency for receiving your kind donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

And what about global warming?

I think it would be foolish to deny this phenomenon. The consequences of warming include the melting of glaciers and the flooding of lands, and consequently, the violation of property rights. Who should bear responsibility for this? And how can the market be used to prevent it?

anonymous question

For the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants, global warming is, of course, wonderful. History clearly shows that during periods of climatic optima (which is why they are called optima), it was far more comfortable for people to live than during periods of cooling: at the very least, they didn’t starve to death as actively.
However, for the inhabitants of the atolls of some Kiribati, warming provides no benefit, as it is already warm at the equator; instead, the rise in ocean levels is a very real problem.

So yes, indeed, some people benefit from certain climatic changes and others from different ones, and if climate change is anthropogenic, then those for whom this externality is negative have grounds to file a claim for damages against those involved in anthropogenic climate change.
Let’s imagine how this could be implemented under ancap, that is, in a free market system. A native of Kiribati goes on the internet, first looks for theoretical information about the industries contributing most to global warming, then finds specific companies operating in those industries, and then starts flooding them with lawsuits? It seems unrealistic. Too many competencies are required from the victim; it is too difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for damages. When the damage is finally calculated, it may easily turn out that the calculation cost more than the amount of compensation. What is left?

Only private charity remains. Eco-activists create hype by filming videos about unfortunate natives disappearing underwater. Companies and individual media personalities capitalize on the hype by creating a fund to help those affected by flooding. With the fund’s money, individual natives who wish to do so are solemnly helped, in front of cameras, to move somewhere to Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Solomon Islands, or are simply given money, with which they acquire a yacht and then decide for themselves which harbor to dock in. Voilà, everyone is happy, everyone profits, the market has solved it!

Kiribati

Well, you understand that the mention of private charity wasn’t just for nothing, right? How about chipping in for a yacht? 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8 

How do libertarians view urbanism? It is clear that they do so differently, but are there any common points? I have heard much negativity from members of the LPR towards the projects of Varlamov and Katz.

anonymous question

Mainstream urbanism is a concept according to which cities should be developed using methods of centralized planning, but this planning should be carried out not by some lobbyists, but by experts based on current scientific research. Urbanists are hardly bothered by the fact that present-day scientific developments may contradict those of the past. After all, it is a quite common occurrence when every subsequent electrician who comes to fix the wiring first asks into the void which idiot did the wiring before him.

Naturally, libertarians can conceptually approve only urbanism based on economic theory—in other words, on the idea that the market should not be hindered from solving truly complex issues, such as ensuring spontaneous order in a large city, which is precisely what it is best at.
Thus, libertarian urbanism is the maximum privatization of all public spaces in the city and the maximum deregulation of interaction between the owners of urban spaces.

Supporting preferred initiatives through voluntary donations is precisely an example of spontaneous order at work, where those projects that best satisfy the desires of consumers flourish. You know what to do:  1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

I’m a kun. I’ve been in the party for over 6 months, but still no tyan. How do I romance a little libertarian tyan?

anonymous question

I feel your pain, bro!

The hardest part about romancing a libertarian girl is actually finding one. If you already have someone in mind, ninety percent of the task is done. After that, you just need to study her consumer preferences and understand at what cost you will be able to satisfy them… no.
Of course, describing such things in the language of economics would be wrong.

I can assume that if the girl is a libertarian, she will appreciate how well your libertarian rhetoric matches your actual actions. How you keep your agreements. How you respect self-ownership—especially, of course, her self-ownership. How economically independent you are. How ready you are to accept her cultural agenda.

Having common interests will help a lot, and if you don’t have any yet, the ability to present your own attractively or sincerely engage in hers. Nothing brings libertarians together like the joint achievement of complex, interesting goals.

But, most likely, you won’t find a ready-made libertarian girl within a reasonable timeframe and reasonable vicinity, and you’ll have to indoctrinate whichever girl comes your way. To increase your chances of success, pay attention to those who tend to use logical argumentation in disputes, love reading long-form articles, and don’t too actively project to the outside world that everyone in life owes them something.

How can party membership help with all this? Well, unless your local branch organizes various team-building events. Involving girls in them eases indoctrination, but increases the probability that the girl will find a more interesting libertarian, and in fair competition, the market will decide.

Romanced her and won’t let go

How will the issue of the nuclear arsenal in the Russia of the future be resolved upon the emergence of characteristic features of libertarianism or at least minarchism? Will nuclear weapons be placed under the jurisdiction of private individuals or decentralized across all regions and placed under the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies? Thank you.

anonymous question

I sincerely do not understand why one specific variety of product causes such a number of questions, while other varieties are not given such attention. Who, under libertarianism, will get the currently state-owned stockpiles of chemical weapons, who will get the nuclear ones, who will get the biological ones, who will get the multiple launch rocket systems, and who will get the strategic canned meat from twenty years ago?

The state, by its very nature, opposes the free market; therefore, it regularly produces all sorts of crap that no one gives a fuck about on the free market, but is very necessary for the state in order to dominate and show off. Then it goes bankrupt, and the question arises: who is willing to pay even a few pennies for this national treasure, and is this “who” a dangerous asshole who wants to use this treasure not only to show off (which is a clear and legitimate market incentive), but also to dominate.
The most market-efficient solution during the liquidation of a state is to offload the dangerous movable property of the deceased power to some neighboring state that hasn’t had time to die yet. Firstly, only a state is capable of paying some reasonable money for this illiquid asset, and secondly, by buying such shit, it will die faster, so its current citizens will get some indirect strategic profit from this.

Nevertheless, one must assume that various strategic junk will be scavenged in significant quantities by whoever happens to be around, and there will be no one to stop it. Some will go to collectors, some to paranoids, some to various DIY tinkerers who will manage to find a use for the junk in their backyard workshops. But terrorists will also want to acquire some. However, this, again, will be a problem for those states that still remain, or for certain groups similar to states in their methods of operation, even if they do not possess some state attributes. It is states that are the first and primary target of terrorists, not people or corporations.

Nevertheless, it is people who suffer from the actions of terrorists, and therefore, I believe, in a free libertarian society there will be some market demand for the disposal of various weapons of mass destruction, and this will also help to mitigate some of the harm from them. Someone clears territories of debris, someone deals with mine clearing, someone dismantles missiles in silos—and this increases the value of the territory since it reduces the risks of managing it.

valuable scrap metal

How does libertarianism relate to environmental protection? If there are no certain prohibitions at the state level, will we not jeopardize the endangered species of flora and fauna with extinction?

Anonymous question

First of all, of course, I would like to recommend a short video by Mikhail Svetov dedicated specifically to this issue.

The main idea of the video is that to save rare species, a free market is needed that allows for profit to be derived from their preservation. Unfortunately, a short monologue did not leave room for an analysis of how to overcome the tragedy of the commons—that is, a situation where privatizing a resource is either impossible or disproportionately expensive. To delve deeper into this issue, I recommend reading the book by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”. It examines numerous cases of how public property, which by all theoretical considerations should have been ruthlessly plundered, was successfully preserved without government regulation.

Ostrom formulates a set of criteria that must be met for the effective management of a common resource:

  1. The group of common resource users is limited
  2. Usage rules are determined based on the characteristics of the resource
  3. Usage rules are developed by the users themselves or with their consent
  4. Monitoring of compliance with usage rules is carried out by persons accountable to the users
  5. Sanctions for violating usage rules are graduated in nature.

When these conditions are met, the joint use of a common resource does not lead to its degradation. Note that government intervention is directly contraindicated here as well, as it violates at least points 3 and 4.

So, the “invisible hand of the market” actually managed to solve even the tragedy of the commons. Hurrah for the market!