Тег: NAPs

A question about hitmen

As I understand it, it is the hitman, not the client, who exits the non-aggression pact, and therefore the perpetrator should be the one to face punishment. But in the murder of Nemtsov (and other political murders), should the clients really be exempt from responsibility?

анонимный вопрос

In order to exit a contract, one must first enter into a contract, so the very concept of a non-aggression pact is as dubious as, say, the concept of a social contract for the establishment of a government. One can only state that people are generally not inclined to kill each other without reason, as if they had agreed upon it, or that people generally behave toward the government as if this institution acts on their behalf. In reality, people are simply inclined to adhere to the status quo and view its violation with suspicion.

States are organizations that systematically exercise aggressive violence, so in the current worldview, political murders are precisely part of the status quo for many people, which means it is an ancient and venerable tradition: a state representative has the right to order a killing, and the perpetrator must follow orders, and for this, the court will treat them with understanding. Therefore, of course, in a deeply etatist society, where it is not difficult but quite easy to find a perpetrator of a political murder on behalf of the state, placing all responsibility on the perpetrator signifies a lack of understanding of the foundations of the world order by the person doing so.

So it is more correct, until proven otherwise, to view murders in the interests of political groups as a common division of labor, where there is a client, a manager, and hired workers; all of them are to some extent involved in performing the work, and all of them to some extent bear responsibility for the result, whether it be the success of the operation or a trial of its participants.

Now, under ancap, should a contract killing occur, it is conversely more appropriate by default to assume, until proven otherwise, that the perpetrator bears full responsibility, since it is he who makes the decision based on his own personal moral convictions. If, during the investigation, a serious economic dependence on the client emerges, or hostages, or some other crap where not only the reward for successful work but also serious sanctions in case of refusal to execute the order depend on the client—then it would be appropriate to hold the client responsible, as if it were the ancient wild era of total etatism.

The vertical is a double-edged sword.

What to do about preventive measures under the conditions of the NAP?

I understand that this can be settled within contract jurisdictions, but how should one act in general? For example, if I see someone drawing a weapon in a public place, can I shoot first before they have harmed anyone?

Han Solo

I understand your desire to remove the responsibility for choosing the best course of action in an extreme situation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

You see someone drawing a weapon in a public place. You can also draw a weapon and shoot first, or you can choose not to. You don’t know which decision will be correct because you do not have full information about the situation. There are real-life examples where a person drew a weapon to defend themselves from an attack, but bystanders decided that he was the attacker and shot him. What if that person is drawing a weapon to protect themselves from someone outside your field of vision?

Therefore, a safer practice is considered to be shouting the sacramental “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” before shooting anyone—this is done primarily to inform witnesses that you did not start the attack and that you are hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. By the way, this is taught in firearm safety courses, so I’m not reinventing the wheel here.

Yes, any delay before firing carries the risk that you will not be the first to shoot. But no one in that specific situation will decide better than you which risk is preferable: shooting without warning and answering for having attacked, or giving a warning and taking a bullet.

How does NAP differ from existing laws?

After all, both can work equally well if punishment is inevitable.
Do prisons (they will exist in ancap, right?) violate the NAP? Or even not prisons, but any restriction of freedom or coercion. I understand that the punished person violated the NAP themselves, but then it becomes a kind of “eye for an eye” principle. Personally, in my understanding, it should not be that way.

Kirill

I have already had to answer the question of how the NAP differs from contractual jurisdictions, and now I am similarly being asked to find differences between heterogeneous things, between a general principle and specific prescriptions, which may be based on this principle, or may not be.

The NAP is a principle stating that no one has the right to initiate violence with impunity—it specifies nothing about what the measure of retribution should be. State laws, by contrast, regulate the measure of retribution both for NAP violations and for many other types of actions, but at the same time, they mandate that this retribution be carried out through the mediation of specialists paid for by taxes, denying this right to those who are, in fact, directly interested in retribution.

Is someone who has been robbed by a private individual willing to voluntarily pay the state so that it keeps the robber in prison for several years? Usually not, so the state reaches into the citizen’s pocket itself and carelessly pulls out the required sum, after which it spends it haphazardly on whatever it feels like, though some of it does end up going to prisons.

Is someone who has been robbed by a private individual willing to voluntarily pay some private company of their choice to keep the robber in prison for several years in the absence of a state? Obviously, they are no more willing than under a state. This means the only person who could pay for the cost of keeping someone in prison under ancap is the person hiding in the prison itself, and I have written about this in sufficient detail. On the other hand, for example, if I have purely property claims against a robber, there is hardly any reason for them to lock themselves in prison; one can always agree on the payment of compensation, like civilized people.

Will that very inevitability of punishment be ensured under ancap? Not necessarily. The damage may be too small to pursue independently. But if someone is engaged in the seizure of other people’s property on a systemic basis, they will almost certainly be caught eventually. They might get lucky, and a substantial compensation will be politely demanded from them. Or they might be unlucky and be shot on the spot. A dangerous trade, to be sure.

But the richer and more prosperous a society is, the more likely it is that the capture of various gangsters and thieves will be streamlined and handled by specialists. After all, until the state over-regulated the detective market beyond all reason, the Pinkerton agency in the US flourished quite a bit.

How is it with female genital mutilation in the Beautiful Russia of the Future?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Female genital mutilation, like any forced medical procedure performed without necessity, is a crime against a person. The main problem is that it is most often committed by relatives against a legally incompetent girl. In Russia, cases of female circumcision have been recorded in Dagestan. If we try to analyze this from the perspective of the NAP, it is an assault on a person with the intent to cause injury, putting their life at risk. Circumcision is most often performed at home by people who lack even basic medical knowledge.

The non-aggression principle presupposes the protection of a person of any age. Consequently, in the Beautiful Russia of the Future, the girl’s relatives will be held accountable: either in the form of compensation for damages or via deductions from income earned in a private prison.

I believe that the position viewing a child as the property of their parents is untenable; the child and parent are in a guardianship relationship. The intentional infliction of harm on a ward is a more terrible crime than aggressive violence against a person who could fight back. At the same time, it would be logical for a court to declare the guardianship of such relatives illegal. The victim, unable to support herself, has the right to choose a more worthy guardian or to live and study in institutions maintained by private funds.

Over time, the tradition will fade into the past. Currently, it is sustained by the impunity of those performing the operation. The reason for this impunity is total nepotism in the regions where the practice is widespread. There, a child simply has nowhere to turn for protection. The police will not accept a report of grievous bodily harm because that’s just how things are done there. An independent municipal court or an arbitration court is more likely to side with the victim to maintain its reputation.

This tradition is unlikely to find support among insurers. Infection is very often introduced during female circumcision. The most common complications of such a procedure are inflammation, scarring, and difficulties with urination and the discharge of menstrual fluids. Insurers would have to pay for the treatment of every unsuccessful case. Another motive deterring relatives would be a manifold increase in insurance costs.

The damaged reputation of those practicing such atrocities could also influence the eradication of the tradition. While we currently cannot influence the security forces and clan leaders of the North Caucasus, without state support, they will have to reckon with the general law enforcement practice across the country; otherwise, people will not agree to live in their jurisdictions.

And yes, an exception is possible. If a woman wishes to obtain a certain status or respect among Muslims who adhere to such a tradition, she has the right to go to a clinic and undergo the procedure voluntarily. It is quite difficult to stop her; she is the owner of her own body.

Addition from Ancap-chan

In a situation where such a practice is widespread throughout a community (and circumcision can also be male, which is no less of a piece of filth), it is pointless to try to take the victimized child away from the parents through a court and hand them over to other relatives, as they most likely hold similar views. It is even more pointless to try to fine the parents, as they share a budget with the child, and the child, in addition to the mutilation, would be punished financially.

But upon growing up and gaining independence (and in the BRF, even a traditional society will be forced to grant a woman this independence), the woman can then pursue her parents in court for her mutilation, be branded an ungrateful beast, but uphold the version of justice that she herself shares.

The state, of course, also knows how to deal with traditional society, but such a medicine is worse than the disease. In a libertarian environment, traditional society will erode much faster and more reliably through the rebellion of individuals.

Can one praise a tyrant to save lives?

For example, praising and promoting Putin to gain the ability to operate your own charitable foundation where you will save lives. Is this a violation of the NAP?

анонимный вопрос

I present to you my new co-author; he will answer the questions you have accumulated from time to time, and where I want to add something, I will do so. So, responding is Alex Murin.

Ancap-chan

The principle of the non-aggression principle implies only the rejection of aggressive violence. Everything you write or say does not relate to the NAP. However, the NAP is a fundamental principle, not the only one. There is also the principle of freedom of contract, the institution of reputation, public opinion, and traditions. In general, there are many different factors to which the NAP has no relation. If everything is reduced to the NAP, one can simply get lost in logical and legal constructions. It is not worth doing that.

From the point of view of the NAP, praising Putin to get money for a charity or a public organization is permissible. You are not attacking people to kill or rob them.

And then there is the reputational aspect: you convince people that the system currently in place in Russia is the only possible one, that the country is managed by a person leading it toward prosperity. If you do not believe this, but want to get money from it to implement a humanitarian mission, then judge yourself. You did not attack, kill, or rob. You wrote or spoke words that you will then reproduce in one way or another. People who have not seen you will judge you by these words. Will they want to accept help from a person who praises a system that sent them to the bottom of life? Everything stated in the question has no relation whatsoever to the prohibition of aggressive violence. If, in your opinion, you are lying and then performing good deeds to redeem your own guilt, then you are doing double work. If you believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the person who deserves to be exalted, while performing good deeds, then “blessed is he who believes,” and your conscience is clear. If this is how you earn money, then your judge is your conscience. In short: this has no relation to the NAP, based on its definition. But the NAP is the primary, not the only principle.

And yes, I would not use the techniques of a Baptist preacher to influence your opinion; that would be dishonest.


The Walking Dead — ancap? And is it possible to create Ancapistan during a zombie apocalypse?

анонимный вопрос

Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to answer the first part of the question. My knowledge of the series is entirely exhausted by the information that there is a sad boy named Carl somewhere in there. So I will not go into specifics; let’s talk about the zombie apocalypse in general, without tying it to a specific series.

I would define a zombie apocalypse roughly like this: it is a phenomenon of an unstudied nature in which the bodies of dead people become deadly to the living. In such a general formulation, humanity has encountered the zombie apocalypse repeatedly. Every epidemic of some plague became a zombie apocalypse. According to one version, the great zombie apocalypse in England in the 17th century even contributed to the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of liberalism, since it increased the cost of labor.

A typical cinematic zombie apocalypse differs from historical analogues only in that the dead body pursues living people with all the appropriate cinematic special effects: it approaches with a tragic gait, waves household equipment terrifyingly, and scrapes its nails against stone in powerless rage if the victim manages to climb to a height. Hygienic measures against zombies are generally about the same as during an epidemic: burn the corpses.

Alright, these are all very sweet reflections, but how will zombies help in the construction of Ancapistan? For this, we will have to introduce another fantastic assumption. A zombie does not just lunge at everyone indiscriminately. No, he purposefully and inventively sets out to take revenge specifically on the person he considers responsible for his death. By analogy with the philosophical zombie, I will call this subspecies the “legal zombie.” Agree that, compared to the fantastic assumption that brisk corpses exist at all, such a specification of their motivations looks like a quite modest and realistic addition.

Such a zombie is a living… pardon, non-living embodiment of the non-aggression principle: no one has the right to initiate violence with impunity. Let’s add that a legal zombie also lunges at anyone who prevents another legal zombie from carrying out their revenge. Having finished the retribution for their death, the legal zombie finds peace.

I assert that in the world of a legal zombie apocalypse, Ancapistan will be built quite quickly. A living person is such a more pleasant companion than a zombie that the very idea of contributing to the appearance of a new zombie would already be horrifying. Therefore, people will soon learn mutual politeness, develop a readiness for charity and cooperation in difficult situations, and will even evacuate from the Titanic into lifeboats only after ensuring that a seat was voluntarily provided to them.

But we don’t have to wait for the arrival of a legal zombie apocalypse; we can learn mutual respect, cooperation, and compassion for the weak in advance, and be ready to pounce on any violator of the NAP. Why postpone for the afterlife what can be done today?

Thank you for your attention.

Buying up looted goods

If I illegally appropriate someone else’s property, it is aggressive violence and a violation of the NAP. But if I buy someone else’s property that was illegally appropriated by another person, will that be considered a violation of the NAP? And what if I place an order for certain goods with a person who deals in such things?

Emmanuel Goldstein

This question echoes the question of whether ordering a hit violates the NAP. And similarly, the answer to it is a definitive “no.” It is completely irrelevant whether someone created a positive material motivation for the thief, robber, or killer — the decision to commit aggressive violence was made by the perpetrator themselves. However, if someone threatened the executor with certain sanctions in case the theft/robbery/murder was not carried out, then, of course, both the client and the executor bear responsibility: one for the threat of action, and the second for the actions they took to avoid the threat.

Does this mean that a fence acquires legal rights to what they buy? No, they do not. That is precisely why they buy things at a massive discount: they obtain the item only in factual possession and factor into the price the risk that the previous owner will be found, to whom the item must be returned without any compensation.

So, if a service station owner buys a stolen car and dismantles it for parts to make it harder to find, will nothing happen to him? Something will. He will still be obligated to return the car to the owner, but due to the technical impossibility of doing so, he will have to negotiate compensation, which will clearly include a significant premium over the market price of the car.

Finally, I want to note that property claims are not always linked to a violation of the non-aggression principle. If you become a victim of fraud, the NAP has not been violated, but you still have a claim, and a court, given the evidence, has every reason to side with you. In effect, a fence, in relation to the legal owner, is precisely a fraudster: they deceive you by claiming they were unaware of the item’s status, and that they just desperately needed parts, so why not buy a practically new car for scrap.

So, while there is no violation of the NAP in this activity, it does not mean impunity.

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!

Let’s imagine a situation: a young man threatens a woman with a toy gun (a replica of a real one).

A woman entered self-defense mode and killed a man. Is the woman right in this situation? Is it permissible to kill a person if they point a replica pistol at you?

Alexey Deripaska

You know, a recent episode immediately came to mind, similar to the premise of the comedy “S Legkim Parom” (Enjoy Your Bath), but in the modern USA. A policewoman, thinking she was going to her own home, accidentally enters someone else’s house. There she sees a strange man and immediately kills him, mistaking him for a burglar.

It is quite obvious that in this tragic misunderstanding, the full responsibility lies with the woman, because the object of the attack did absolutely nothing to provoke it. The behavior of the woman, convinced that she had discovered a burglar, is completely logical and commendable: only such a lightning-fast reaction guarantees that the burglar will not have time to draw and use a gun first. But a mistake does not exempt one from responsibility, and a legal proceeding between the woman and the plaintiff, who filed a claim for damages resulting from the killing, will most likely lead to the woman having to pay the costs in full.

But now we add the provocative behavior of the deceased to the problem. It turns out that the emergence of a situation in which the woman defended herself from a presumed attack was caused not just by a tragic mistake, but is a direct consequence of the deceased’s reckless actions. Her behavior is also completely logical and commendable, as in the first case, but the party whose actions directly provoked the accident is different.

Therefore, a potential court proceeding here will most likely conclude that the man who threatened the woman with a dummy gun bears full responsibility. Wanted to play a prank? Well, congratulations, you played a fucking great prank!

… that’s because it says “replica” on the side of your gun…

What is an acceptable reaction to a verbal insult for a libertarian (given that it is committed without the use of physical violence)? How can one influence the insulter so that they lose the desire to do so again?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

This is a very popular question that has been asked of me in various formulations more than once. Here is a recent answer about stepping on a foot. Here is another one, about ideological enmity. Here is one about psychological aggression. Here is one about the impossibility of getting away from an unpleasant neighbor. And here is one about stalking.

But, as one poet wrote—who, like all Soviet people, knew the ins and outs of the language of hatred—”the more times you see him, the more times you kill him!” So, I will take up your question and try to uncover the topic in a slightly new way.

As a starter, I suggest listening to Davud Zulumkhanov’s report at the seventh Adam Smith Readings in 2015 “On the Origin of Honesty”. There, he conveys a very important thesis:

An honest person cannot be insulted because he has no “honor”—that is a brigand’s term. Therefore, “insult” and “feeling insulted” are the weapons of brigands. Feeling insulted is a pretext for obtaining a “legal right to use violence.” An insult is a provocation of the other party to take actions that can be legally answered with violence.

Davud Zulumkhanov

So how can one influence the person insulting you so that they lose the desire to do it again? You can turn to Davud again and use his prescription:

A merchant cannot be insulted.

— You are a scoundrel, you are a villain, and your entire lineage were thieves!

And the merchant smiles and says:

— Yes, yes, but still, I won’t give it away for less than fifty.

Davud Zulumkhanov

However, it is unlikely that this advice fully answers your question, because such an answer does not guarantee that the brigand’s craving for insults will disappear. Perhaps you should respond in their own brigand language.

For example, Navalny accepted General Zolotov’s challenge in exact accordance with their brigand dueling code, choosing a weapon in which he was strong and the general was weak. The general backed out, and now, by the very laws of honor he himself appealed to, he was dishonored. Will his craving for violence disappear? Not necessarily. But the craving for insults—almost certainly.

Or, for instance, Kadyrov showed up before the Ingush elder Mukhazhir Nalgyev with a hundred people, claiming that the latter had made disrespectful remarks about him. But local residents began to gather to defend the elder, and what did this lead to? Kadyrov apologized and left. Kadyrov, unlike Zolotov, actually understands something about honor, which he demonstrated.

In the post about stepping on a foot, I described how the escalation of conflict occurs. If people had only escalation available among all conflict resolution tools, they would have run out very quickly. Well, you know all those tales that if you permit short-barreled firearms, these crazies will quickly shoot each other dead. But quite logical fears of such an outcome also lead to the development of such an important tool for de-escalating conflict as an apology.

Where is the highest probability of receiving an insult? Of course, on the internet. Because the internet is a gun-free zone. But go to a practical shooting competition, and there you will hear constant bowing and scraping: “esteemed shooter,” “esteemed judge.” Because everyone has a gun, plenty of ammo, and excitement—try not to be polite in such a case.

To summarize. Insults are countered by calmness, politeness, and firmness of position—that is, indicating, on one hand, your willingness to apologize if you have inadvertently offended someone, but on the other hand, your readiness to respond with force if the insulter does not apologize themselves. As for the prevention of insults, you will have to acquire a reputation as a person who is not worth insulting.