USA

Many reflections on the situation in the USA have already been written, from the banal to the very deep, authored by quite respected people. I will try to survey the state of affairs from a slightly different angle.

From my two previous posts, you know that a republic is a society of people who agree on questions of law. In the USA right now, there is nowhere near an agreement on questions of law, which means there can be no legal assessment of either the electoral procedures, the performance at the Capitol, or the subsequent purges in the information field. If the jurisdiction of a court is not recognized by both parties to a conflict, then the court does not perform the function of resolving conflicts; therefore, it is not a court at all, but a more or less ritualized execution. In short, I interpret the state of affairs in the USA as a civil war. In a war, elections are only capable of recording exactly which personalities end up at the helm as the leader of the dominant grouping. This is still a more legitimate procedure than the direct rule of military commanders, but in fact, at the federal level, the elections in the USA were not between Trump and Biden, but between Biden and Sanders (from the Republican side, there were no elections at all). And then, Biden, having won the election, simply led the troops during the forceful crushing of the Republican side of the conflict.

What position do ancaps find themselves in this situation? The position of the third party who rejoices. In the confrontation between the toad and the viper, the toad emerged victorious, and now the viper temporarily finds itself on our side. An alliance between agorists, who defend market freedom regardless of the desires of any power groups, and those who continue to chant the mantra about law and order is potentially a very powerful thing. Because now we will be talking about our law and our order.

Using the information field as an example, this will mean the following. We will get a serious solvent demand for free social networks, free hosting, free domain registrars, free operating systems that do not prevent us from managing user devices, free hardware without hardware backdoors, and free money to pay for all the above. The network effect is exactly what the tools of freedom are currently lacking.

Today, it is a matter of honor for every American Republican to sell all their Apple and Alphabet shares, not to mention shitty Twitter, invest the proceeds in bitcoins, and use them to support those free market tools that best satisfy their client demand for the free exchange of information, money, and goods, for self-defense, for building peace and order around themselves, for the destruction of the aggressors’ property, for provoking discord among them, and for tools that ensure the state’s blindness, whether through anonymizing network actions or paralyzing the will of the overseers. Gouging out the Cyclops’ eye is an important part of the strategy.

The enemy is fucked – we grow stronger

In defense of Linux

Yesterday, I published a post describing my modest user experience installing a single program on Linux. The verdict was that for most people, even if they are libertarians through and through, convenience in the here and now can easily prove more important than abstract ideals. This is true in far more cases than just when choosing between a graphical interface and a console. In the same way, people neglect to carry means of self-defense, don’t set passwords on their phones, and have sex without a condom.

Naturally, the post sparked a lot of debate, because the war between adherents of different approaches to interacting with computers has dragged on since deep antiquity. And, as I understand it, every revival of this eternal bickering always consists of at least two posts: the first condemning Linux, and the second defending it. Today is time for the second.

I installed a version of Linux that was positioned to me as being quite close to Windows in terms of interface. It installed easily and effortlessly. All typical applications, such as office suites, browsers, Telegram, or password managers, are installed without any console via the graphical shell. If my task were to move all my daily work to open-source software, I would move to Linux without any problems and wouldn’t notice much of a difference. Meanwhile, there are many atypical tasks for which I would need the help of someone with deeper system knowledge even under Windows.

The world is full of technically complex devices that no one has the slightest need to study thoroughly. The magic of the division of labor lies in the fact that everyone focuses on what they have a relative advantage in. Every object has its nuances, and some people specialize in them to increase their value. But at the same time, for the average user, it generally makes no difference which system they use to perform most of their tasks; any will do.

So, I will clarify my answer from yesterday to the question of why libertarians don’t use open-source software. Yes, they use what is convenient, but often a large part of that convenience boils down to the network effect. If advertisements for computer technician services mentioned not the setup of Windows and installation of antivirus, but the selection of a Linux distribution and system configuration for the user’s tasks; if information on government resources were stored in odt rather than docx; if hardware Bitcoin wallets were sold in mobile phone stores—that would be clear evidence of the network effect working in favor of open-source software and decentralized money.

What is needed for libertarians to use open-source software? Simply to start using open-source software.

This post was written on Linux, and future ones will be written on it as well. There is no reason to delay adopting useful habits.

Useful habits