Тег: Navalny

On Participation in Elections – 2

About a year ago, I wrote a post “On Participating in Elections”, where I gave my interpretation of why ancaps need it at all. Recently, a snide comment appeared under the post, suggesting that people will come up with anything just to convince voters to give up on boycotting. I replied to the comment, but perhaps these considerations should be put into a separate post.

Election boycotting is a tactic that leads to victory in only one case: if voters, by not showing up at polling stations, form their own self-governing bodies without the state’s participation and voluntarily use them, ignoring those created in state-organized elections. In other words, one should boycott not only the elections, but the state as such.

In principle, my argument that going to a polling station to vote or observe is simply practice can be flipped in favor of boycotting elections—that it is simply practice in boycotting the state. I agree, but it is one thing to practice a plank, and quite another to practice simply lying on the couch; nothing will come of that except bedsores. A boycott is an active refusal to cooperate, so if you want, you can practice specifically this skill; it is also very useful. In this case, you will need not just to skip the elections, but to convince as many people as possible to skip them, so that the preaching of non-participation in this shit is heard from everywhere. And then, not limiting yourself to elections, begin to boycott legislation on mass rallies, the tax code, the law on personal data, and many other harmful state regulations. Do not inform the state about your actions, because it’s a boycott—there is no state for you. Treat state employees as ordinary people, and if they use violence, as ordinary gangsters.

In short, a boycott is a very difficult and responsible path, and boycotting elections is only the beginning. If you are not ready for it yet, or consider it hopeless, then it is better to practice the skills of democratic decision-making. Again, a year ago, when I suggested you engage in this, the exercise was simple. Now, the proposal is to master something more complex—not just to simulate filling out a ballot, dropping it in the box, and counting votes, but additionally, to do this in a consolidated manner, within the framework of smart voting. If anyone hasn’t registered to participate in this flashmob yet—I highly recommend it, because ancap is not about aggressive individualism where you don’t give a damn about anything except your immediate desires. Ancap is about living in a society without coercion, based on voluntary cooperation. Smart voting is the opposition of that very voluntary cooperation to the administrative resource, so it’s high time to show whose kung fu is stronger.

Who will you bet on: the balding old man, or the guy whose hand Svetov himself shook?

Navalny, Libertarians, and Protest Discourse

Civil society in Russia has been trying to rock the boat and change the government for something more human-like for quite some time now, in order to stop the country’s slide into an authoritarian hole. Alexei Navalny has long and firmly been the frontman of the Russian protest.

The core of Navalny’s agenda is the exploitation of the public demand for justice. Lawlessness, corruption, and the looting of the state budget—covering all these topics ensured Navalny’s well-deserved popularity. Nationalists tried to speak out against the infringement of the rights of the Russian-speaking population, but this aspect of justice proved not to be particularly in demand among the masses. Old-regime democrats peddled the theme of Russian foreign policy aggression, the tightening of civil liberties, and the escalation of political repression—but they only earned the label of “demshiza” (democratic crazies). Libertarians protested against increased regulation and higher taxes—they were completely ignored. Everything flowed in its own way until Svetov arrived.

In the eyes of the average citizen, Navalny’s agenda boiled down to the idea that once he comes to power, he will imprison all the crooks and thieves, thereby restoring justice. Svetov increased the level of populism even further, adding: those we don’t imprison, we will fire without severance pay and strip of their political rights. Such a demand for revenge, due to the use of the sophisticated word “Lustration,” did not resonate with people immediately, but aggressive advertising did its job. The Libertarian Party received a huge influx of fresh blood and rightfully took its place in the protest pantheon to the right of Navalny himself.

An interesting situation emerged where the theme of freedom practically vanished from the public discourse of the LPR, replaced by that very theme of justice, since this rhetoric brings more political points. The main task of the LPR now, judging by the rhetoric, is to overthrow the regime together with its allies; after that, they can distance themselves from Navalny and other fellow travelers and begin advocating for their own specific agenda of reforms. To what extent the Libertarian Party will preserve libertarian values within itself by that time is not yet very clear; however, it is becoming obvious that libertarianism is much broader than what the party does (and what is generally appropriate for a political party to do).

Previously, the activities of the LPR consisted not so much of politics as of education; now the situation has changed, and politics has come to the forefront. This is wonderful, as the division of labor usually contributes to greater efficiency of that very labor. At the same time, of course, it should be expected that those who are not interested in political activity at all, and who were members specifically for the sake of education, or who viewed it as a hobby club, will leave the party. This is logical, since many ancaps fundamentally believe that engaging in politics is pointless, and it would be far more appropriate, for example, to promote a libertarian lifestyle.

I believe that minarchists and panarchists may also receive some indirect profit from the spread of ancap ideas among the apolitical masses, and ancaps are unlikely to lose from having a conditionally friendly political representation—after all, they have nothing against using the state’s weak points to weaken it. Therefore, I urge you not to interfere with libertarians getting into politics, not to quarrel with LPR members, but also not to believe that this party is the only beacon of hope, and that any libertarian activity must be somehow coordinated with this political organization.

However, entering politics under libertarian slogans outside of the LPR is already a serious claim that the libertarian market niche is large and capable of accommodating more than one libertarian party. Perhaps this is true, but here you will have to be ready for fierce competition, which may prove counterproductive, as it diverts resources away from competing with pro-government organizations.

Libertarians in Navalny’s right hand, and coffee in his left. That is how we shall conquer!

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.

How do you feel about Navalny? Does he have a chance to change anything?

Anonymous question

Imagine if I had hung a huge poster of Svetov on my wall and constantly discussed with my boyfriend what a cutie he is. In the best-case scenario, my boyfriend would have decided I was a cultist and got far away from me. In the worst-case scenario, it would be like RB-tyan. She has a poster of Navalny on her wall, a Navalny t-shirt on her chest, a Navalny sticker on her phone… As a result, instead of a beautiful Russia of the future, she and her boyfriend constantly discuss how cool Navalny is and what new video he has released. Now, as long as they do this, Navalny has no chance of changing anything: he himself becomes more interesting than his agenda. When RB-tyan starts being asked which books to read, that’s when the chance will appear.

But he is such a cutie!