On October 16, a lecture by Mikhail Svetov took place in Novosibirsk, for which I recently asked you to chip in money. A huge thank you to everyone who responded to the call!

The organizers of the lecture were unable to spend this money for its intended purpose because absolutely all the venues they tried to negotiate with backed out. As I understand it, it was theoretically possible to mislead the venue owners and not inform them that Svetov would be speaking—then we would have enjoyed power outages, a police visit in the middle of the lecture, some kind of fire alarm—or simply the doors being closed half an hour before the start. Instead, all the details were told to everyone immediately, and the venues honestly refused to cooperate. Whether it made sense to act in exactly this way, I will leave to the organizers’ conscience.

One way or another, the lecture eventually had to be held at the headquarters of Sergey Boyko. About one hundred and fifty people crowded into an office of about a hundred square meters (there were over eight hundred registrations on Timepad), it was very stuffy, one person fainted, I was close to it as well, and there was no sound amplification—in general, the impression was not very good.

Brief financial report:
A total of 42,570 rubles were collected.
15,560 went toward stage rental, printing, transportation costs, and partial compensation for the ticket cost to the federal tour organizers.
The remaining money will be returned to the general sponsor or will be used by them for other projects.

On the other hand, Libertarian band released a surprisingly decent recording of the lecture—for once, Svetov’s performance can be watched without straining; even the questions from the audience are clearly audible. So, I have now re-watched the performance in a more human setting, and at least I can comment on its content.

Briefly, Svetov’s message is as follows: uniform legislation for all regions is completely unsuitable for Russia; such a large and diverse country can only be a federation. But it is pointless to wait for federalization to be handed down from Moscow: however it is granted, it will be taken back later if desired; we went through this under Yeltsin. The demand for federalization must come from below; ideally, Moscow should simply be presented with a fait accompli: that we have these rules, this economic policy, and now let’s agree whether we pay you any taxes at all, or simply tell you to get lost. If you want taxes—give us representation and guarantees of autonomy, something like that. Of course, this is all my interpretation; Svetov expressed himself carefully so as not to trigger a criminal article.

I assume it is precisely because any specificity leads to a criminal charge that Svetov offers no plan of action for federalization. On the question of methods, he is extremely laconic: do something, anything.

I was pleased that, standing in front of a banner about contractual jurisdictions, Svetov mentioned those very contractual jurisdictions several times in a complimentary key, which is a further development of the idea of federalism. I also cannot fail to note Svetov’s thesis on how nuclear weapons specifically gave humanity the possibility of the practical implementation of libertarian ideas, since it makes the concept of the Westphalian state meaningless—this is either a direct borrowing from our article on the deterrence doctrine with Bitarkh, or an independent invention. Similarly, the thesis about the church as an example of a contractual jurisdiction is either taken directly from Laxi Catala or also invented independently. Thus, one can state the gradual formation of a quite specific Russian school of libertarianism, which is not reduced to the dogmatic reproduction of the rhetoric of the founding fathers of the teaching.

My main grievances with the considerations presented by Svetov concern the expression “non-aggression pact,” and especially the monstrous phrase “a child becomes a subject of law when they conclude a non-aggression pact.” Such rhetoric is well-suited as material for stupid memes, as well as for forming a sect around oneself, but certainly not for conscious acceptance by a wide circle of people.

At the end of the lecture, Svetov gave a short interview to Ekaterina Khudoleva (Just in case—that’s not me! Yes, also from Kuzbass, yes, also a journalist, yes, roughly the same age, but not me). In the interview, I was pleased by the answer about Nozick, where Svetov’s grievances with Nozick’s analytical philosophy were laid out quite clearly. I hope that in the book Svetov is writing, according to his words, he will expand on them in more detail.