Тег: Musk

Who benefits from regulations and what threat they may lead to

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Who is always the first to demand the introduction of new taxes? And who demands the introduction of new laws regarding the regulation of the economy and the market? Etatists will say that ordinary citizens are primarily interested in this for the sake of protecting their interests, ensuring security, and providing social benefits. But such an answer would be foolish, because the correct answer is large corporations, which are literally “in bed” with the state.

Why did Jeff Bezos—founder of Amazon, a company that writes off its profits as expenses to avoid paying taxes—support the increase of corporate taxes in the USA? To any sane person, it will be obvious that this is necessary to eliminate competitors in the market. But that is an old story; there is a more current example—well-known corporations and billionaires, such as Elon Musk and Microsoft, are actively calling for the regulation and limitation of the development of Artificial Intelligence. All of this, of course, they justify by the alleged need to ensure safety, since AI is so far a technology that is not fully understood, including in terms of risks. But such words sound like a fabricated excuse; moreover, why would major market players limit a technology upon which they can make money? Obviously, the point is to prevent private developments in the field of AI from entering the market; many small companies simply will not be able to afford the regulations, whereas large corporations will easily handle them. It is especially worth noting that those calling for the regulation of this field are themselves extremely active in its development.

The drive toward market monopolization is clear, as are the results of this process. Due to the lack of competition, everyone will only become poorer, and technological progress will be stunted. But the problem is not only this; there is a far more terrifying scenario. If AI technology truly carries some danger, then it would be extremely foolish to try to limit it, especially in developed Western societies where law-abiding citizens, who do not seek to harm anyone, will indeed follow the regulations. However, those who wish to use AI to cause harm will not follow the regulations. This applies to government authorities and their various structures. And it especially applies to those structures that are not under the control of Western jurisdictions at all. Some hackers from North Korea, already famous for hacking and stealing funds from crypto exchanges, persecuting people, and attempting to breach the defense networks of other countries, spit on Western bans; they will actively develop and use AI to cause harm to others. And military structures everywhere will certainly use AI, and even if the West bans its own military from doing so (and even that is a doubtful scenario, as the military usually has a completely free hand in such matters), jurisdictions hostile to the West will engage in it. In the end, only the civilian sector and the development of AI tools that could be used to counter AI threats will suffer from the bans and regulations.

The ability of large corporations and monopolists linked to the state to promote favorable regulations through it not only harms everyone economically, but can also jeopardize the very security for which all of this is allegedly being done. And will anyone still justify the very existence of stationary bandits and their ability to impose bans on everyone after this?

April 12

When a couple of years ago I congratulated readers on Cosmonautics Day, I mentioned that while the state might have fucked things up in space, the market has arrived there for real and for the long haul, and it won’t be possible to kick it out anymore. Since then, many interesting things have happened in space, but the most promising, of course, is Elon Musk’s Starship.

And as for everyone’s preferences, ancaps care about the displacement of the state. I’ll allow myself a simple extrapolation. Musk perfects Starship and organizes more or less regular communication with Mars. An orbital station, a base on the surface, supplies for that very base; some of the population works on a rotational basis, some settle for the long term. Nothing stops Musk from declaring that his private colony has its own jurisdiction, a certain legal code, contractual citizenship, an embassy on Earth in the city of Starbase, and other state attributes.

What grounds, precisely, would other states have to prevent this? Would the US claim the surface of Mars based on the fact that it is being colonized by an American company? It’s unlikely this would pass through the UN. Would the US begin criminal prosecution of Musk for secession? That’s bad PR; moreover, the PRC is nipping at their heels, and while you’re putting spokes in the wheels of an American entrepreneur, the red planet will be annexed by the red Chinese.

But if an independent sovereign contractual state forms on Mars, the majority of its citizens will be Earthlings who have never left Earth. Formally, they would, for example, be waiting in line for relocation, hold a residence permit and a correspondingly broad list of civil rights associated with that permit. They would even pay taxes, for instance, in the form of fixed regular contributions as a subscription fee for the maintenance of their interests by a diplomatic mission before Earthly states. In short, all the attributes of a state will be present, but its sole function for citizens will be the provision of legal norms; in all other respects—complete freedom of entrepreneurship. This means that the space offshore will rapidly grow its citizenship, while states will face the prospect of being left high and dry.

Why do I think that something like this could quite possibly happen? Why not, that’s why. Musk has repeatedly demonstrated that “it’s not done that way” is not an argument for him. The idea of getting rid of state dictate is in the air, as is the idea of space expansion. I don’t see why the noble Don shouldn’t combine two promising ideas.

Musk and the alarmists

I read in a left-anarchist channel reflections that our very own Elon Musk has completely dropped his mask and is now collaborating not just with the state, but with the military establishment itself; shame on him, and shame on everyone who speaks of him approvingly.

This reminded me of the words of another liberal idol, Ludwig von Mises, who said that the entrepreneur’s task is to vigilantly seek ever-new ways of satisfying customer demand, and if guns find more demand than butter, there is no sense in blaming the entrepreneur for producing guns.

But with Musk, it is much simpler; he is not choosing between guns and butter, but is steadily moving toward the future he considers desirable. In the brave new world that Musk is building, there is no problem with delivering eighty tons of cargo to the other side of the planet by rocket in an hour. And it makes no difference what cargo one starts with. A customer was found for the development of cargo suborbital transport—so we will build it. And once the technology is mastered using military budgets, it can be brought to the private market to send cargo cheaply. And then, with a bit more polishing, send people.

In reality, for most military tasks, sending dozens of tons twenty thousand kilometers in an hour is overkill. However, for emergency response, this option will be very useful. Thus, I foresee a predominantly peaceful use of this technology being developed with military funds.

If taxes have already been collected and the question is how to spend them, then let them at least be spent by a private actor on dual-use technologies with prospects for wide civilian application.