The state broke the demographics, and now even migrants will not save it

Every modern statist has a rather interesting “cheat code” at their disposal. States around the world, through their suffocating regulation, insane taxes, and inflation, have driven their native populations into such a demographic pit that there is no easy way out. Having children when half of your income is taken away by the tax office with an invisible (and very visible) hand, and a mortgage feels like lifelong slavery due to central bank games, is an unaffordable luxury for many young families.

And so, the average authoritarian bureaucrat scratches his head. He essentially has two paths:

The first path is total deregulation. Radically lowering taxes, easing regulations, removing bureaucratic barriers, letting people breathe, build homes, start businesses, grow wealthy, and look confidently into tomorrow. Making it so that people actually want to have children because they are confident in their future.

The second path is, with a heavy heart, to let millions of migrants into the country to somehow plug the gaping holes in the budget and the labor market, while not loosening the noose around the necks of their own citizens by a single millimeter.

Which do you think the official chooses? The second option, of course! Authoritarian statists usually don’t like migrants, but they are terrified to the point of shaking in their boots of losing power over the economy and society. It is better to import new blood than to give freedom to their own.

But then a system failure occurred; the “cheat code” stopped working. Let’s look at Spain (this was recently written about excellently here in El Confidencial). Local socialists have for years prayed to immigrants as the saviors of the solidarity pension system (i.e., a legalized financial pyramid). But suddenly, an inconvenient truth emerged—migrants age! A mass flow of people over 45 began entering Spain.

And here, the mathematics hits the official right in the face. Even if the statist gentlemen dream of importing ideal “passive hamsters” aged 55+, who will quietly sweep the streets, drive a steering wheel, and not say a crooked word against the government—it no longer works economically. Such a “hamster” will sluggishly work for 5–10 years, pay their few pennies in taxes (if they even leave the gray economy), and then retirement age arrives. And what next? Next, this person will spend 20+ years draining money from a budget bursting at the seams for a minimum social pension and free healthcare, which becomes insanely expensive in old age. Instead of solving the demographic problem, the state gets a giant financial black hole. The presence of such migrants creates a colossal burden on the budget, effectively bringing no net plus to the economy.

And you know what the most ironic part is? Statism is contagious; it has spread across the entire planet. The bureaucratic noose is not exclusive to developed countries. After all, the governments of the countries from which migrants traditionally come play the same games with no less enthusiasm: introducing new bans, multiplying bureaucrats, and terrorizing businesses. The result is predictable: birth rates there are also plummeting into the abyss! The myth that there is an “infinite reservoir of young labor” somewhere in the Global South has shattered against reality. In the countries of Latin America, North Africa, or Central Asia, there are fewer and fewer young people because having children under the conditions of their own native, local government regulation is just as much of a financial suicide. That is why it is no longer healthy twenty-year-old guys moving to rich countries, but those same exhausted people in their fifties. States around the world, with their insane rules, have created a global demographic winter.

An alternative to the “do not interfere in people’s lives” option simply does not exist. Do you want the nation to grow and the demographic crisis to be a thing of the past? Abolish taxes and the total regulation of life! When a person has freedom, property, and the confidence that the state will not come to take it away tomorrow—they will build a large family themselves. But as long as statists continue to tighten the noose, no amount of importing obedient “hamsters” will save their budgets from inevitable bankruptcy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How can the continuity of pension payments be ensured during the transition to a libertarian society?

Now, as you probably know, the majority of the pension budget consists of transfers from the federal budget, where the working generation supports pensioners through taxes. The PFR (Pension Fund of Russia) exists purely on paper; without transfer payments from the budget, it would be exhausted instantly; accordingly, its privatization would achieve nothing. In a stable libertarian society, it is clear how the pension system will work (private insurance, assistance from children, charity, capital income, etc.), but what should be done during the transition period before this has been created?

Bitarch (question paid in the amount of 0.01btc)

The state, by forcibly seizing money from people, does so under the pretext that it assumes certain obligations in return. In the case of pension contributions, this is the obligation of a lifelong annuity, starting from an age determined by the state. After the liquidation of the state, the fate of its obligations may vary depending on exactly how the state was liquidated.

Minarchism

In the event of a minarchist government coming to power, everything is relatively simple and predictable (and for me personally, this is almost the only argument in favor of minarchism as a transition period to ancap). For example, the transition period is described in the LPR (Libertarian Party of Russia) program, and the proposed mechanism generally satisfies me completely:

At the initial stage of reforms, all obligations of the state to pensioners and persons who have begun to pay pension insurance contributions will be fulfilled through the creation of a special State Pension Restitution Fund, to which current profits from the privatization of state enterprises and corporations will be directed. All those who made mandatory pension insurance contributions will have them returned as funds from the sale of state property (including the property of the Pension Fund of Russia itself) enter the State Pension Restitution Fund. 

Program of the Libertarian Party of Russia

Upon completion of the restitution, the LPR program envisions the liquidation of the fund and the transfer of the remnants to charity, which is an unfair and corruption-prone measure; therefore, it would be much simpler and more logical upon the liquidation of the fund to distribute the remainder equally to all citizens as a one-time payment.

Anarcho-capitalism

But no minarchism may happen at all. The moral and financial bankruptcy of the state may lead to its liquidation occurring not from the top, with payment on state obligations, but from below, from the side — yes, from everywhere people can reach, without the formation of any successor structures. In other words, state property will be partially bought up by private individuals and partially stolen by state employees at the pre-bankruptcy stage, and the least liquid assets will be scavenged by anyone and everyone once the state is actually liquidated.

How much will pensioners be able to grab for themselves at the pre-bankruptcy stage? Perhaps some land, since as difficulties with paying pensions grow, the demand for land for personal farming will increase, and the distribution of land to pensioners and “persons of pre-retirement age” during this period is quite likely.

How much will pensioners be able to grab at the stage of scavenging the remains? Working budget employees will scavenge the most because they are closer. Some of these working budget employees will be pensioners; they will get something. Non-working people will get something if they hustle, using old connections and similar tools.

Bleak? I’m sorry, I have no other ancap for you in Russia. But there is also good news. If, as the state gradually goes bankrupt, people manage to prevent a collapse into socialism, then by the time of the final liquidation of this parasite, society will already be ready: it will have developed most of the necessary institutions for ancap, primarily mechanisms for private protection and the establishment of property rights, and then the transition period will pass relatively painlessly.

Now, if the state is socialist at the moment of liquidation, then, I’m sorry, instead of ancap, you get Somalia. This is exactly the process we are seeing now in Venezuela.

Lovers of Meganesia will appreciate this!

Discussion of the pension reform catches up with me from every channel. Doesn’t the fact that for some time the number of beneficiaries of this predatory clusterfuck will not grow—not reduce the number of beneficiaries in the future, and not increase the chances that in perspective this clusterfuck might possibly be cancelled altogether?

anonymous question

The fact that the state will collectively receive more money from working people and return less to those who have reached the threshold age will only increase the number of beneficiaries of this predatory clusterfuck. A pensioner receiving an old-age pension is not a beneficiary of the pension clusterfuck; they are just as much a victim of it as someone who didn’t live to see retirement—they have simply been compensated for part of the damage previously sustained. The beneficiaries, however, are the pension fund employees and those who manage the plundered pension savings. Naturally, there will only be more of them as a result of such a reform.

One can conditionally agree with the logic of “the worse, the better.” The more victims the system has, and the fewer chances they have to receive any compensation within the system, the more reasons there are for the complete abolition of the system; whereas if the robbery were more moderate, far more people would be willing to tolerate it, and the few dissatisfied people would talk about reforms rather than the abolition of the system.

On the other hand, the worse, the worse. “The poor pray that their poverty is guaranteed.” Try to abolish the system of robbing the working class all at once if there is a hole in the pension fund and the elderly are universally destitute without savings—they will tear you apart, no matter how charismatic a reformer you are.

Example of the only reasonable behavior toward the pension system

And, as already mentioned, there is no more reliable tool for pension savings today than bitcoins. So you can donate a few of them to my channel 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8, and set aside the majority for your own old age.

Has really no one asked yet what you are doing at rallies against raising the retirement age?

anonymous question

I attend them, I speak at them, I even organize them📣.

But the question should probably be understood not literally, but rather in this formulation: why does a libertarian party, which wishes to abolish the state pension system entirely, oppose the state raising the retirement age?

The answer is quite obvious. There are no state funds, there are only taxpayers’ funds. If raising the retirement age were accompanied by a reduction in social contributions, I might even welcome it, provided the reduction was significant enough. But instead, the government is simply extending the time during which it intends to rob people, thereby reducing their ability to invest money according to their own choice—what is good about that from a libertarian perspective?

Let’s take the extreme cases. The amount of social contributions remains unchanged, and the retirement age is infinity. In other words, a person pays social contributions their entire life but never receives a pension. Obviously, this is less fair than the current situation; essentially, it is an increase in personal income tax from 13% to 13+22=35%. The second extreme case: social contributions remain the same, and the retirement age is zero. In other words, a person receives a pension from birth without paying a penny to the state. Since the state has no money of its own, only taxpayers’ money, it is obvious that in this case the pension will be zero. And that is exactly what the libertarian party is striving for. Consequently, it is in our interest to strive for a reduction in the retirement age, a reduction in social contributions, or both, but by no means to agree to an increase in age while taxes remain unchanged.

Come to the rally organized by the LPR in Moscow on July 29! All details are on the website No to Robbery!

I have said it many times and will not tire of repeating it: one of the best investment tools for old age is Bitcoin. I would be happy to accept donations in this currency to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8—but if you save them for your own retirement instead, that would also be great.

And what about the PENSIONS??

Anonymous question

Pensions were invented so that people would get used to the idea: thinking about how to survive in old age is none of their business; the master will take care of it—taking it away today, to feed them in thirty years. And if the master was bad and didn’t take care of it—well, it happens, your money is gone.

I don’t have a master; my boyfriend and I decide for ourselves what is more profitable to invest in for the long term. And you should decide for yourselves; it’s more reliable. Some invest in children, some in friends, some in real estate, some in stocks, some in crypto, some intend to work until death because their favorite job allows them to, and some intend to live vibrantly and die young, and that is their sacred right.