Тег: Marketplace

Is the use of violence by ancaps against representatives of law enforcement agencies, such as the police or army, who are violently enforcing the state and its laws, aggressive or nonetheless defensive?

анонимный вопрос

To be honest, such questions feel somewhat dogmatic to me. It’s as if someone started pestering an imam, for example: “Is the killing of infidels a defensive jihad—or an offensive one?”

Well, in the name of the great and merciful Market, I shall begin!

Since the state is a system of institutionalized violence against private property, then, of course, any person who is a subject of any given state has grounds to present property claims against that state. Since no state not only refuses to consider the possibility of restitution for property forcibly seized from people, but also applies sanctions for the very act of contesting such seizure, it must be concluded that an open conflict exists between the state and the individual, which is essentially a euphemism for the term “war.” In our case, it is a form of guerrilla warfare.

Thus, the question of how appropriate it is for an individual to use violence against certain state employees is merely a question of the laws and customs of war, as well as a question of tactics and strategy.

I remind you that the primary element in this war is the existence of property claims the individual has against the state, arising from the state’s forced seizures of the individual’s private property and the restriction of their freedom. Therefore, victory in the war is brought closer by reducing the rate of seizures and restrictions, reducing the share of state property in total wealth, and reducing the number of civil servants and other persons supported by the state.

So, can you beat up cops after all—or not? Theoretically—you can. Practically—there is usually no point. Privatizing something state-owned or securing a tax deduction is far more useful. Achieving a reduction in tax rates is an extremely noble cause indeed. But killing a state employee is simply killing a human being. It is permissible if they are carrying out a direct attack dangerous to your life, but it will in no way diminish the state, reduce taxes, or weaken regulations. On the contrary, it more often leads to a tightening of the screws and personal bitterness toward you from the deceased’s previously indifferent colleagues. So, this offensive jihad is not the duty of a libertarian.

Now, the widespread looting of state property kills the state quickly and reliably, even one as powerful and creepy as the late USSR. Widespread sabotage of taxes and regulations does the same. It is this defensive jihad that is more pleasing to the Market.

May the Market guide you on the straight path and be favorable to you. Amen!

The omnipotent Market knows best!

My friend has watched too many streams by some guy from California and is now rooting for antitrust authorities. How do I explain to him that antitrust authorities only do harm?

анонимный вопрос

Yeah. Here, as with discussions about socialism, it is important not to get bogged down in details. You tell a person about Venezuela, and they reply that it’s the wrong kind of socialism, and that it’s under sanctions anyway. The same goes for antitrust cases: you explain that after the forced breakup of Standard Oil, oil prices only rose, and they will cite a bunch of additional factors or simply say it was an isolated incident. You talk about the pointlessness of the Russian FAS, and they’ll say that everything in Russia is messed up, but in decent countries, it’s a different story.

It seems to me that it would be far more productive to provide a general understanding of the factors influencing a firm’s size and its operating strategy.

Let’s consider a certain company. It buys some product on the market, uses it to produce another product, and sells this new product. What the input product is doesn’t really matter. It could be raw materials, semi-finished products, human labor, technology, and so on. What the output product is also doesn’t really matter; it could even be the same product as the input, just moved to a different point in space, preserved in time, or repackaged into different containers.

A company can change in size, and this changes the efficiency of its activities (that is, income relative to investment). There are factors that lead to an increase in efficiency as a company grows larger. For example, a transportation company can afford to use higher-capacity vehicles, where the costs per unit of weight are significantly lower. And there are factors that lead to a decrease in efficiency as a company grows. For example, the expansion of a boutique chain beyond wealthy neighborhoods results in peripheral outlets bringing in less money.

As sales markets expand and progress is made in the organization of business processes, there are more and more niches in the world where large companies are most efficient. Moreover, it may turn out that a certain market simply cannot accommodate more than one or two companies, and attempting to prevent their growth or breaking up existing ones will lead to a drop in efficiency and, accordingly, a flight of capital to more profitable industries. Thus, an external regulator will only oppress the industry by increasing production costs, which may lead to price increases or savings on quality—exactly the opposite of the regulator’s goal.

At the same time, as I already detailed for the case with Microsoft specifically, even if a company dominates a certain market, under conditions of free competition, it still cannot relax and earn superprofits from monopoly rent, so nothing threatens the consumer.

At the same time, there are factors that hinder the growth of companies, so monsters formed through unsuccessful mergers and acquisitions lose efficiency and, after a while, begin to rid themselves of unnecessary parts if they do not want to go bankrupt; so here too, the presence of antitrust authorities is completely redundant.

Finally, there are state corporations for whose management the efficiency of the corporation’s operation is not important at all; what matters is the size of their personal income, which is most easily increased with substantial turnover. Therefore, state corporations will tend to expand regardless of market conditions, but this is exactly where antitrust authorities are powerless, as they are themselves precisely the same part of the state.

So, no matter how you look at it, antitrust authorities provide no benefit to either business or consumers; there is only benefit for the wallets of those who have direct influence over these bodies or access to insider information about their work.

I don’t know why the image of a fish stuck so much to this phenomenon, but now those involved in the M&A industry mock it as much as they can

Isn’t Microsoft a monopolist in the field of operating systems?

Of course, other OSs exist, but Windows is much more popular than something like Debian. Moreover, as far as I know, this monopoly status is not supported by the state (quite the opposite), but arose precisely in the free software market.

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, you are proposing to discuss Microsoft as an example of a monopoly that emerged and remains stable in a free market.

Indeed, Microsoft once created a very successful solution that significantly lowered the entry barrier for users into the world of personal computers, both due to ease of use and the fact that MS DOS was very undemanding of resources compared to the monstrous Unix. Then, a decent graphical shell was created on top of the system. Later, when software compactness became non-critical for most users, the company’s products responded in time and began to evolve toward expanding functionality and improving design. In general, skillful adherence to market incentives allowed the company to gain a good share of the desktop OS market. The accumulated network effect is such that individual failed products, like Windows Vista, are no longer capable of killing the company; a long series of bad decisions would be required for that. Nevertheless, such a thing is quite possible. For instance, Google’s browser dealt with Internet Explorer, despite its deep rooting in the system and its initially almost monopolistic position.

Of course, one could argue that the state supported Microsoft by pursuing pirates. If software monetization issues were left entirely to the producer, there would be fewer distortions. But this does not look like a factor that helps only Microsoft and not its competitors. So, in general, we can consider the market here to be free in a first approximation.

And how is this large company faring under free market conditions? It is having a hard time. In the shrinking market for PC operating systems, its share is consistently large, although far from 100%. It failed to really squeeze into the mobile OS market, where two other manufacturers dominate. Gaming consoles, augmented reality glasses, and many other products also haven’t quite taken off powerfully.

In other words, we see that all the horrors that political economy textbooks frighten us with regarding monopolies are not applicable to Microsoft: it cannot relax, hike up prices, and collect monopoly rent; it must, just like everyone else, diligently improve its products and maintain a flexible pricing policy so that even low-income clients prefer to buy Windows rather than pirate it — and yet, one by one, IT companies are surpassing it in capitalization.

just a company like any other…

What are the main goals that ancap sets for foreign policy? And what will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism?

anonymous question

One could answer briefly by stating that within the framework of ancap, there is no foreign policy, since this term refers to interstate relations, and there are no states under ancap. But let’s expand the answer a bit: of course, I’m not paid by the character, but I simply don’t want to release entirely meager texts in separate posts.

What could be likened to foreign policy for ancap? I suppose, relations with entities that are territorially distant, different in culture, type of economic activity, everyday habits, and perhaps even not entirely ancaps. And what are the main goals ancap sets in such a “foreign policy”? Naturally, to ensure freedom of trade with them.

If I find out that somewhere in the depths of the southeast there is the unforgettable smelly durian fruit, I want to be able to buy it. If not in a supermarket in the next block, then at least to visit the durian myself. The people who grow this curious fruit are needed so that I can try it, and as for what the structure of the commodity-money transactions that reunite me with the durian will be—the market knows best.

What will happen to Crimea with the arrival of anarcho-capitalism? The same freedom of trade. The famous international festival KaZantip will return there. Girls in bright swimsuits will flock to the Crimean sea, slender speleologists will flock to Crimean caves, tasters saturated with Georgia will flock to Crimean wine cellars, and the long-awaited Dnipro water will return to Crimean fields at market rates.

Beautiful! How could one not visit such a place?

Which is better: a state contract army, or a private one?

anonymous question

As economic theory teaches us, values are subjective. Therefore, the question of “what is better” should always be accompanied by a clarification: better for whom. To avoid writing a long-winded essay, I will proceed from the assumption that “better” should be for the person in whose interests the army fulfills its primary purpose.

In modern international law, private warfare is prohibited, so a private army can primarily operate as a subcontractor for a state army. At least, if we are talking about a classical army using live manpower armed with lethal weapons. Thus, it is clear that a private army is better than a state army for those tasks that the state prefers to outsource. In essence, the only thing a state army would not want to outsource under any circumstances is the embezzlement of budget money. And a state contract army most willingly outsources those tasks that it handles worst: protecting civilians.

Due to the very mechanisms of its funding, a state army acquires quite typical traits, which is why state armies are, to a certain extent, very similar to one another. Private armies perform market tasks in a wide variety of niches, and therefore can differ greatly from each other. In some places, the market needs cheap light infantry capable of dying in droves without stressing the taxpayers, and a conditional Wagner comes to the rescue. In other places, the market needs the protection of communications, and it is helped by slightly more technological guys skilled in communications and logistics. Somewhere, it is necessary to wage cyberwarfare, and a private troll factory is opened for this task. Somewhere, the market needs intelligence data for publication, and a company like Bellingcat appears.

You might ask, what do the last two cases have to do with war? With equal success, one could ask what Shahed explosions have to do with war. By the way, these are also an excellent example of private armies: they are inexpensive and work effectively. It’s just that their task is rather specific: supporting the advertising campaign of a terror sponsor.

Alright, so for which tasks, other than budget embezzlement, are state contract armies actually more effective than private ones? Paradoxically, despite their complete inefficiency in protecting non-combatants, state contract armies are more effective at creating a sense of security for the citizens of the country to which the state contract army belongs. This is precisely what allows them to be so effective at embezzling the budget, since the taxpayer agrees in advance to the high cost of the army, as long as there is no war.

How will treatment protocols be developed under ancap? Today, the WHO does this, and then the state implements these recommendations. But without a state?

Semyon Podporin

Even today, there is a more or less market-based competition between various treatment methodologies in the world. There is the WHO, with its ICD and list of essential medicines. There are numerous schools of traditional medicine that find their followers, often even on an international level. There is homeopathy and all sorts of other extrasensory practices. There are fasting and prayers. There are several families of therapeutic gymnastics.

Thus, even when competing with international bureaucracy, the medical market is quite flexible and provides services for every taste and budget. There are no grounds for it to be any different under ancap. Yes, it will be easier to introduce various “placebo-drugs” to the market. On the other hand, there will be no imposition of such drugs at the state level, as was the case with something like Arbidol.

Yes, humanity will not have a single list of diseases and drugs, but developing new medications will definitely become easier. Yes, there will be more various placebos on the market, but funding for the Cochrane Collaboration will likely grow, as will its authority.
Many also fear the curtailment of research into new drugs due to the demise of patent law, but that is a completely different question, which, moreover, I have already partially answered.

fully decentralized self-governing self-funding association – the market solves the problem of placebo-drugs

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream

How could a free market without state regulation of security issues have prevented 9/11?

anonymous question

I currently remind me a bit of Yulia Latynina, because I want to respond in the spirit of “you know, it’s like in that joke: first of all, there were no bullets…”.

Terrorist attacks such as 9/11, Beslan, Nord-Ost, the Boston Marathon, and so on, are directed against state policy. No state – no policy – no political terrorist attacks. Voila, the free market prevented them. Now let’s dig a little deeper.
Who ensures the safety of people in a free market? The people themselves. For the most part – directly. But the least troublesome and most obvious way, given that the market always tends to settle things through the division of labor, is to use market offers.

What does the market offer in terms of security? First, one can purchase a security service, for example, by installing an alarm system in the house and signing a contract with a security firm. Second, one can buy an insurance policy and simply know that, should something happen to you, either you or a designated circle of heirs will receive an insurance payout, so now it is the insurance company’s headache to figure out how to ensure people’s safety regarding insurance events.

Aha. So, if a terrorist attack occurs, the insurance company will suffer huge losses. There you have your potential beneficiary of terrorist attacks – competing insurance companies. The plan of action: blow up a plane, the company that insured the flight goes bankrupt, and we enter the vacated flight insurance market. There is, however, a problem: the plane is insured by one company, but each passenger is insured by any other; after all, they choose whose policy to take when insuring themselves against an accident or attack during a flight. Thus, decentralization makes commercial terrorist attacks aimed at seizing the insurance market ineffective. This applies not only to flights, but to all spheres of life in general.

But what about ideological terrorist attacks? For example, conservative fanatics might carry out mass shootings in gay clubs, exactly as they do now. To a certain extent, decentralization rules here too: when even the last gay man has a gun, a mass shooting becomes a problem. But a gun doesn’t save you from an explosion.
How does the free market prevent the spread of destructive ideologies? In the only way available to it: by making people richer and happier. This works slowly and does not provide a hundred percent effect, but it completely outperforms any state alternatives.

The only thing the market hasn’t learned to prevent yet is the appearance of insane maniacs. Economic incentives work poorly on someone who has lost their mind, just as they do on meteorites and tsunamis.

But once the market settles the raiders and Islamists, it will be the turn of the maniacs and natural disasters. Just laissez faire, laissez passer.

Will the current generation of Soviet—ugh, Russian—people live under ancap?

@WildTurkey

I would say that even the phrase “under ancap” is not entirely correct. Rather, one should say “by ancap,” just as people say, for example, “by conscience” or “by the rules,” although it sounds a bit clumsy.

The further we go, the more opportunities people have to live by ancap in a wide variety of things. Just ten years ago, people had practically no opportunity to conduct international trade without contacting the state. Now—no problem at all: there are bitcoins, there is the internet, trade away; the only issue is that problems may arise at customs. But once inexpensive long-range drones go into mass production, the issue of cross-border delivery of small parcels will cease to be acute.
And it will be this way everywhere there is solvent demand for bypassing state barriers. And the more positive examples of living by ancap there are, the greater the demand for such a life, and the less the demand for the state as such.

I have just drunk an elixir of optimism and predict that among the current generation of Russians around twenty years old, significantly more will live to see a life fully by ancap than will live to see retirement)))

This is a completely baseless prediction based on blind faith in the “market.” Mind you, economic theory does deny the possibility of precise quantitative predictions.

spherical ancap in a vacuum

Psychos and Guns

Following up on the last post about the legalization of weapons. A topical issue: what about mentally unstable people who own weapons? Won’t legalization trigger mass shootings and such? What about road rage, when firearms instead of fists will be used?

anonymous question

As the practice of mass shootings in the States shows, they are often committed by mentally unstable people for whom this fact was recorded long ago, but it did not prevent them from acquiring a gun, despite the fact that a background check is supposedly required.

So, after the deregulation of weapon acquisition, the situation with mentally unstable people will not get worse. However, law-abiding citizens focused strictly on self-defense will have noticeably more guns in percentage terms. And the more criminogenic the situation was before deregulation, the greater the incentives will be to acquire self-defense weapons. Accordingly, the curve of armed crime will decline more sharply.

As for road rage, practice shows that the best prevention is liability insurance. There is no point in being rude to someone who doesn’t owe you money when you know that the money won’t come out of your own pocket.

A pistol and a glue gun are simply two different tools