Тег: NAPs

From a libertarian point of view, how should one deal with a neighbor who makes noise throughout the whole house during the night?

After all, he does not actually violate the non-aggression principle, but for reasons of common sense, his actions should nevertheless be stopped.

anonymous question (paid in the amount of 0.0001btc)

How does a human neighbor differ from other annoying factors, such as a thunderstorm, a highway under the windows, flying planes, barking dogs, and so on? Only in that you can try to reach an agreement with them, whereas the most realistic way to avoid the other annoying factors is soundproofing.

But the neighbor, in turn, also understands that by coming to them and demanding that the noise stop, you are demonstrating double standards, because if you had actively protected yourself from the noise of the other sources mentioned above, then the noise from behind the wall would not bother you, as its level would be below the threshold.

Thus, after hearing your requests regarding reducing the volume level, they will expect a deal. The subject of the deal may turn out to be the most unexpected thing.

You can state that since they are celebrating so wildly that it’s impossible to sleep, they should pour you a drink as well—and join the party.

You can ask when the banquet is expected to end, and, having received an answer, declare that you are willing to tolerate it until then, but if they continue after that, they should be prepared for the harshest sanctions, from “I’ll shit under your door” to “I’ll smash the door with an axe.”

You can agree on monetary compensation, enough to spend the night in a quiet hotel nearby…

In general, there are plenty of options.

But, of course, you may also fail to reach an agreement. This will mean that you and your neighbor were unlucky with each other: you had a grievance, you initiated a conflict, the conflict was not resolved, and escalation is possible in the future, which entails costs for both parties. And no daddy-mommy-state will help; you are adults now, it’s time to learn how to negotiate on your own.

How did you get acquainted with Libertarianism? What is your story?

анонимный вопрос

Many people say that they came to libertarianism imperceptibly; simply one fine day, their more erudite acquaintances informed them that the set of views they were projecting is called libertarianism.

It happened a bit strangely for me. I knew the word itself, but I interpreted it purely phenomenologically—that libertarians are supporters of removing the state from the economy and the private lives of citizens. Then, I mentioned to a friend that I was a libertarian; she heard an unfamiliar term and looked it up on Wikipedia. At the time, it wasn’t the current, relatively balanced article, but right from the start it stated that libertarians are guys who advocate for the rejection of aggressive violence. I was like: what? What does this crap even have to do with my interest? And so I started digging into the matter in detail. Since then, like that Shulman who doesn’t understand what could be more fascinating than parliamentarism (except perhaps British literature, but best of all, British literature about parliamentarism), I don’t understand what could be more fascinating than economic theory and libertarian law, although the abbreviation NAP and its many derivatives still make me cringe a little.

I sincerely believe that selling libertarianism to people through the NAP is methodologically incorrect and provokes people to view us as some kind of strange freaks. Purely aesthetically, the NAP can only be convincingly advocated by a person with a weapon, ready to use it at any moment for self-defense, because the non-aggression principle is the ethics of armed people, not the whim of the unarmed. If you are a clumsy lady, a pampered girl with manicured nails, or a slender metrosexual, advocate for something else.

Sorry, I got carried away, but you asked for personal stories, and I have them.

“Remember, children: NAP is when everyone has everyone else in their sights, but no one shoots”
For variety, I decided to record an audio version of the story; perhaps some will prefer the voice format

If someone accidentally bumped me with their shoulder or stepped on my foot, and I shot the “aggressor” in response—would I be right from the perspective of the NAP?

anonymous question

For reasons that are unclear to me, in Russian libertarianism, the main emphasis is too often placed on the NAP, and the non-aggression principle is given not so much a legal meaning, but rather an ethical, or even mystical, one. All sorts of bastardized constructions like “I didn’t sign a NAP with you” or “he exited the NAP” stem from this intellectual imbalance. The violation of the NAP becomes a magic trigger that transforms a person from a legal subject into an object of legitimate violence.

As a reminder, the correct formulation of the NAP is “no one has the right to the unpunished initiation of violence.” And this principle is a derivative of the far more fundamental principle of self-ownership, which asserts a person’s inalienable property right to their own body. Violence, therefore, is an infringement on property. This infringement entails legal consequences if the owner so wills it.

The NAP, by asserting the lack of a right to unpunished aggressive violence, says nothing about the measure of punishment. Simply put, you have a property claim against another person: he stepped on your foot. You present this claim to him. In response, he suggests you don’t put your feet wherever you please, meaning he asserts that you created an obstacle for him, preventing him from moving freely across a territory that, for example, belongs to neither of you. By stepping on your foot, he avoided a trip-up that would have caused him property damage. You, in turn, are flabbergasted and suggest he wash his eyes and look where he’s going, meaning you assert that his behavior poses a constant systemic threat to those around him. He responds by saying he fucked your mother and tells you to fuck off. Thus, if one does not take his statement literally, he is asserting that he is ready to use violence against you if you do not stop making claims against him. You respond by telling him he’s out of line, a faggot, and that you will now make him lick your boots with his tongue. In other words, you promise the enforcement of the satisfaction of your property claims, but leave him the opportunity to bargain over the amount of compensation. He responds by promising to shove your boots up your ass, meaning he categorically refuses to satisfy your property claim in any form and expresses readiness to escalate damage in response to your attempt at enforcement. You, in turn, shoot him dead, meaning you apply ultimate economic sanctions against him, rendering his property useless.

Of course, in this case, there might not have been an argument, and you might have applied these economic sanctions immediately, without waiting for the counterparty’s refusal to pay compensation for damages. But to a potential judge, the case looks exactly like this: relatively small damage was caused to you, and in response, you caused significantly greater damage. Consequently, should you be required to make some compensatory payments to someone, should you be expelled from the local community, or should you be thanked for taking out a dangerous asshole who loved to pick on people but was, fortunately, not as skilled with a weapon as you—exactly what decision the court will reach will depend on many circumstances that the court must consider. Your reputation, the reputation of the deceased, community traditions, the compensation requested by the deceased’s friends, the personal moral beliefs of the judge, and possibly a number of other factors will play a role.

And these legal frameworks concerning permissible sanctions for a given property damage are a spontaneous order that will form in a libertarian society, optimally adapting it to the needs of people such that people’s satisfaction in society is maximized and conflicts are minimized. Because that is precisely the function of law—to resolve conflicts. 

Can a person who jumps on the heads of people adhering to (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP, call themselves a libertarian?

anonymous question

I think that if you meant the literal meaning of the expression “jumping on heads,” the answer would be banal: this is violence that is not a response to a violation of the NAP, therefore the person who jumped on the head has no right to remain unpunished, and their behavior certainly does not correspond to libertarian principles at this moment.

Also, I think it’s clear that you aren’t actually asking whether a person can call themselves something. A person can call themselves whatever they want; that’s what freedom of speech is for.

So I will answer the question in the following formulation:

Should one trust a person’s claim that they are a libertarian if it is known that they exhibit non-violent aggression toward those who hold (also) other ideologies, but who do not impose them on anyone and do not violate the NAP?

Alas, however tempting it may be to deny any asshole the proud title of libertarian, it must be admitted: a libertarian can be an asshole. Due to personal dislike, they may non-violently cause you any unpleasant experiences, and even provoke you into violence, but they are within their rights, and this is a completely conventional libertarian way of behaving in a conflict. Applying retaliatory non-violent sanctions to them—be my guest. Spitting in their face—that’s bordering on a foul. Lunging with a knife—be prepared for the fact that both they and everyone present will be able to unpunishedly apply any violence to you to prevent your actions.

And as for which ideology you peacefully adhere to—it doesn’t matter at all—even if it’s socialist.

– You have black-and-white thinking!
– No, you do!

Explain the difference between common law and civil law jurisdictions?

anonymous question

This is roughly like asking what the difference is between equality and a jury trial. The first is a principle. The second is an institution. Between them is a cause-and-effect relationship.

NAP is the non-aggression principle, stating that no one has the right to use aggressive violence with impunity. Contractual jurisdictions are an institution for conflict resolution based on adherence to the NAP.

The point of contractual jurisdictions is that one subject enters into an agreement with another subject stating that they are subject to their jurisdiction. The agreement also specifies what limitations this jurisdiction has.
The existence of a contract between the court and the subject is a mandatory condition that ensures compliance with the NAP, since under the contract, the subject agrees to execute the court’s decision or agrees that they will be forced to execute it. Without such prior consent, an attempt to force a convicted person to execute a court decision becomes a violation of the non-aggression principle.

The most elementary example of a contractual jurisdiction is an arbitration court. Two parties to a conflict enter into a contract with a court to resolve one specific conflict, pledging to execute the court’s decision regardless of what it may be. An arbitration court provides the highest possible degree of fairness in conflict resolution, but is poorly suited for cases of extreme bitterness between parties, as well as situations where the parties are barely acquainted and simply cannot find a single person whom both parties trust.

In cases where a pure arbitration court is difficult, intermediaries begin to step in. I entrust the settlement of my conflict to someone I have chosen as my representative, and after some effort, they provide me with a result: here the opponent is ready to make such-and-such a concession, here it makes sense for me to make a concession, I can also count on such-and-such compensation, but I must pay such-and-such for the mediation. I agree to this, and a settlement occurs. Or I disagree and negotiations continue.

The more stable a society is, the more likely it is that such mediation contracts will become more long-term and the results of their activity more predictable. People generally love to generalize and average things out to save effort and not worry about minor details.
Thus arises what is usually meant by the words “contractual jurisdictions,” although this is only a specific case of them: a system in which practically everyone is bound by a permanent contract with one jurisdiction or another, and it is that jurisdiction that handles all their conflicts, whether they bring claims against others or others bring claims against them. A contractual jurisdiction can be freely changed, but this will likely happen no more often than people change mobile operators today.

To a certain approximation, such a judicial system existed in Iceland during the Age of Sagas, that is, in the period of the absence of a state, when jurisdiction, along with priestly functions, was carried out by the so-called godi, and a landowner could enter one godord or another or move to a different one.

For the geeks, I can even provide a link with a description of this legal system.

Modern Icelandic godi are more like role-playing games, but imitation institutions sometimes wake up

When it comes to violence, only physical violence is mentioned. But various methods of psychological violence can cause physiological problems with the CNS, with the brain. If one arranges constant quarrels, doesn’t let [someone] sleep, and other “breathing into the tube.” One could say that “one can leave this,” just as one can hire security.

anonymous question

When the actions of one person cause damage suffered by another, and the evidence of damage and its assessment can be demonstrated, this is sufficient to demand compensation for damages, and it is completely irrelevant whether physical violence specifically took place.

It is another matter that damage resulting from non-violent actions is much harder to prove, which is why an external arbitrator may deny compensation for damages in such cases. This is precisely why, in the case of psychological violence, a more successful response tactic may be not a lawsuit, but, for example, retaliatory psychological violence.

Of course, when a victim of psychological violence receives such recommendations, they have reason to despair.
What can be said here? Just as it is very useful to possess a weapon and know how to use it for direct protection against physical violence—and only after successful self-defense to file lawsuits against those who survived—so too, for direct protection against psychological violence, it is useful to train the psyche and know how to use psychological weapons—and only after successful self-defense to engage in ruining the reputation of the unsuccessful abuser, if they haven’t already put their head in a noose.

Hi! How do things stand with animal rights in libertarianism? Can a person buy a kitten for the purpose of cruelly killing it? Can people create a community like Ancient Rome with the annual crucifixion of dogs?

anonymous question

What is the right to certain actions? It is a state of affairs in which others agree to tolerate these actions. In other words: you have the right to do something from the perspective of certain external subjects if they agree not to oppose these actions.

For instance, one kitten may have the right to sleep on a person’s face, while another may not even have the right to enter the person’s room.
Libertarianism is a legal doctrine asserting that no legal subject has the right to initiate violence against other legal subjects and their property with impunity. Thus, libertarianism reduces the question of acceptable treatment of animals to a question of legal personality. A stranger who has come from beyond the village outskirts—is he a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against him with impunity. A woman—is she a subject of law? Then no one has the right to initiate violence against her with impunity. A child—is he a subject of law? An embryo—is it a subject of law? A dog—is it a subject of law?

In other words, purely logically, libertarianism can serve as a basis for defending animal rights—but only among those who recognize the legal personality of animals. As for those who consider animals to be objects, while remaining within the framework of the same libertarian doctrine, they may act toward the animals they own at their own discretion.
A problem arises when the positions of people who consider animals to be at least partially legal subjects (for example, at the level of children) clash with those of people who consider animals to be objects of property. The most stubborn disputes are always conducted precisely over definitions.

In essence, from the perspective of their opponents, animal rights advocates make claims against them for the suffering that the advocates themselves experience while realizing the suffering of animals in the hands of their tormentors. How should one react to such claims? As with any claims of an ethical rather than legal nature: take them into account, weigh the possible costs of fulfilling or not fulfilling the claim, and then act.

The better organized the groups applying moral pressure are, the sooner the corresponding morality becomes mainstream in society. So, those who nonetheless wish to crucify dogs without hindrance in a libertarian society need to start promoting this hobby of theirs in advance—under the banner of preserving cultural traditions, or some other way.

the kitty is sad(((

Let’s consider a situation: someone builds a pyrotechnics factory in the city center, and everyone’s fire insurance premiums go up. But the factory owner has not violated the NAP, so he owes nothing to anyone (and no one can forbid him from building this factory). Do libertarians not consider this a problem?

anonymous question

To answer this question more fully, Alexei Tereshchuk aka @kamendant, leader of the Austrian School of Economics public page on VKontakte and the chat on the same topic in Telegram, was brought in as an expert. Below is a mix of his explanations and my own thoughts.

What is the difference between the case of a factory that pollutes the surroundings and a factory that raises the cost of property insurance for its neighbors?

In the first case, the factory causes direct damage to those around it, and this damage can theoretically be subject to compensation, even if the methods of calculating the damage are quite unreliable — after all, to set the price for a bunch of radishes for an old woman at the market, it is also not necessary to calculate its cost price in detail.

In the second case, it is only a matter of increased risks, and the very attempt to insure these risks leads to additional costs. Such indirect damage is not related to a violation of the non-aggression principle and therefore is not subject to compensation. Indeed, we are surrounded by many factors that increase our risks, but which we are forced to put up with if we want to maintain our current lifestyle.

For example, in the city, we have a higher chance of getting into a car accident than in the village; this increases the risk and, accordingly, the price of insurance for this event — but it is not a reason to make property claims against all drivers in the city — only against the specific one who caused the accident in which the victim was involved.

So, libertarians do not consider it a problem that it is impossible to demand money from a pyrotechnics factory located in the city center simply for the fact of its presence in the center.

It is another matter that the insurance cost for the factory itself will be much higher if it is built in the center than if it is on the outskirts — because the risk of claims from neighbors affected by an accident will be insured, which means it is more profitable for the factory owner not to have neighbors in the danger zone.

explosion at a pyrotechnics factory – fun and scary

Do libertarians realize that their ideology is impossible in the real world, since “non-aggression” itself contradicts human nature?

anonymous question

The correct definition of the non-aggression principle is as follows:
No one has the right to initiate violence with impunity.
If Alice initiates violence against Bob and does not face responsibility, the society does not cease to be libertarian. It ceases to be libertarian if there is a rule according to which neither Bob nor Carol has the right to hold Alice accountable for initiating violence.
The state is an organization of violence elevated into an institution, that is, precisely the kind of order where Alice is not held responsible for initiating violence simply because the state ordered it so.

The question is, what corresponds more to human nature: the desire to hold accountable everyone who initiates violence, or only those whom some external enforcer allows to be held accountable? I think if the latter corresponded more to human nature, we would have to admit that calls to hang thieving officials from lampposts do not correspond to human nature. Meanwhile, even the thieving officials themselves do not claim such heresy; on the contrary, they say that it is a natural human impulse, but let us be civilized people and obediently follow the laws we have invented.

symbolic violence, not elevated into an institution

Just think about it, it’s so unnatural: to just go ahead and donate bits to a favorite telegram channel: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

If a libertarian penitentiary system is aimed at restitution, then how will it work in the case of a murderer?

anonymous question

The system will work exactly as it does with a robber. Compensation for damages resulting from a murder will be demanded by those who suffered that damage. This is precisely why insurance companies play such an important role in theoretical developments regarding ancap: they suffer direct financial loss from the death of the insured person, and therefore, a developed insurance market will obviously lead to a reduction in the murder rate.

If one attempts to limit feedback to such archaic mechanisms as blood feuds, this also works, of course, but it looks rather primitive in modern society; more effective market mechanisms have been developed in our time.