Тег: morality

Critique of Absolute Non-aggression

With some delay, I saw an article by Anton Epikhin on the RLN.Today channel, in which he discusses the idea of absolute NAP voiced by Bitarch. These thoughts seemed very interesting to me, as they appear more practical and illustrate that the same goal, if pursued as a tactical one, requires certain methods, whereas if pursued as a strategic one, it sometimes requires the exact opposite.

From the position of prioritizing a radical interpretation of the primacy and absolutization of the NAP, for example, a contract army is clearly better than a conscripted one, and the complete absence of an army is even better than its presence.

However, if the NAP is understood as a project-based direction of movement rather than a religious dogma, it becomes obvious that the existence of a national army ensures collective sovereignty for society. Therefore, it is better that it exists than not, and the presence of mass military conscription, unlike a compact conscript army, distributes power within society by involving broad layers of the population in the defensive function, preventing the repressive apparatus from being concentrated solely in the hands of the government.

Therefore, the optimal defense system for moving toward the NAP would be a ubiquitous, albeit currently compulsory, militia-volunteer force, rather than a purely “professional army,” or even more so, the elimination of the state’s repressive apparatus as such, as this would only guarantee the establishment of someone else’s repressive apparatus that is not subordinate to the local community. Gradually, once they become an accepted norm, the practices of local militias united into a nationwide defense system can become purely voluntary; however, for the NAP, the physical presence of such a militia is more important here than the voluntariness itself.

Read the full article on Dzen

Morality. A new video from Libertarian Band.

In the new video, the Libertarian Band team and I examined morality from the same perspective we previously used to examine law, namely as a spontaneous order, so it is better to watch both videos one after the other. I don’t recall anyone describing morality in this way before, but I hope we managed to provide a sufficiently coherent, consistent, and practically applicable vision of the topic.

And next will be a video on a topic that many libertarian theorists have clashed over — about children. So don’t forget to subscribe to the channel.

Persuading Statists

Vitaly Tizun, whose brochure Theory of a Free Society I recently reviewed, has released a short video in which he discusses how to promote ancap. I am also working in a similar direction and hope to please you soon with a fresh video from Libertarian band, but Vitaly beat me to it.

https://youtu.be/pnpCDuMVaUE

If the video caught your interest, you can download the leaflet for independent distribution — it briefly summarizes the main message of the video. Of course, this is for the future — who needs leaflets now, while people are staying at home. For security reasons, the leaflet should not be ordered from a professional printing house — print in small quantities, on a printer, and pay in cash.

A statist in the eye, or to become a leftist once?

anonymous question

Despite the playful nature of the question, it is easy to see that it contains a very serious and interesting hint at the kinship between libertarian and AUE ideologies. Nuacho — in both cases, there is a sharp rejection of cooperation with the state and their own clear system of concepts regarding ethics and law — in short, thanks for noticing 🍴

Nevertheless, despite fairly aggressive anarchist rhetoric, a libertarian is mostly quite unobtrusive in their actions toward the state. There is no talk of the violent overthrow of the state at all, because Koschei’s death is not in the palace — the state must first be expelled from the head.

In current reality, the state rarely presents a person with the specified dilemma in advance. More often, it simply pokes, so to speak, the statist in the eye for an unenthusiastic mindset, manifestations of which include, for example, reposting something oppositional. A person in such a situation usually tries to change their environment to a less toxic one as quickly as possible — for instance, several party members of mine fled abroad to avoid state sanctions.
But if the dilemma is posed directly and harshly — for example, put your signature here under a harmful statist decision, or we will initiate a case for such-and-such contrived violations — then libertarian ideology does not dictate any rigid guidelines to the person. Decide for yourself, bear the responsibility yourself; the mindfulness of actions is more important than dogmatic adherence to a single correct teaching. Imagine what will change if you don’t sign, and whose life will worsen if you do. Weigh your personal costs, consider which course of action you personally will regret more — and act. Other libertarians may perceive this act differently. There is no directive stating that if you’ve gone leftist once, you’re a leftist forever. If you caused harm to people — you can agree on compensation. But there is also no reverse directive that self-interest is a justification for any bullshit. It doesn’t matter if it’s a mortgage; that’s no reason to go “over there” to Donbas.

What’s up, boys, AUE?

Donations in bitcoins, bypassing the banking system, is a viable way to avoid a statist “zashkvar” even by the strictest standards, so feel free to send money: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

I would like to know how things would stand with zoophilia and other perversions (excluding people) under libertarianism?

Anonymous question

If you are interested for the purpose of figuring out whether you should buy shares in a company that produces accessories for zoophiles in advance, or conversely, whether you should dump these shares, then I have no good news for you: it is impossible to make quantitative forecasts here.

From the position of libertarianism, animals are objects, not subjects of law (the exception, as you correctly noted, is an animal such as a human, simply by virtue of the fact that he invented this very law). Therefore, any actions of an owner with his animal on his own territory, which do not cause direct damage to other people who are not co-owners of the animal or the territory, cannot be subjects of legal proceedings at all. It is another matter that such actions can be given a moral evaluation, and one can attempt, through shaming, to drive someone who treated an animal “wrongly” to the point of suicide, if one has enough talent and persistence.

But an interesting legal case occurred to me, which I would not venture to resolve unequivocally.

A cat owner lives in a certain condominium. According to the charter, the chairman of the condominium is elected in general elections by the members of the condominium, and to be elected, it is not strictly necessary to be a member of the condominium oneself. The cat was included in the ballot, won the election, and is now the chairman of the condominium. Then, the owner of the cat performs a sexual act with it without the latter’s consent and publishes a video. The question is: in this case, should the cat be considered the sole property of its owner, or an official who has been harmed?

Stubbs the cat, mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska