Two and a half years ago, I seriously considered Georgia as a suitable country to settle in and build a pleasant local ancap community around myself. All the sadder I am now to realize that Anton Epikhin was right when he conducted an analysis of where it would be easiest to start building a libertarian community, and ruled out Georgia.
Long ago, under the president before the last one, Georgia responded to Russian sanctions by opening its doors even wider for Russians, offering them the freedom to arrive, settle, purchase property, and start businesses. Now it is beginning to restrict political immigration, and even simple temporary entry into the country for those who publicly declare principles slightly more liberal than those of the current Georgian government.
Going to a country where a former president, who nominally stood on the side of freedom, is in prison is a stranger decision than going to a country where the president is in opposition to the prime minister, and both are desperately barking at each other, but there is no talk of imprisonments. Going to a country that does not allow political emigrants from Russia is a stranger decision than going to a country that does not extradite them to Russia. In essence, all that Georgia and Montenegro have in common today are the mountains, the sea, and the lack of direct flights from the RF.
I hope that those Russian libertarians who have already moved to Georgia manage to get out of the country before they suddenly decide to deport them to the RF. There are too few of us to waste people.
For my part, I can only promise that I will continue to build a convenient platform for receiving those who will come to us in Montelibero.
Input data: the team of Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau sent letters to 14 large property owners, threatening to forcibly buy out 194 vacant residential units owned by them if they do not put the apartments on the market.
Anonymous question
Of course, the provided input data is incomplete. Here, for example, is a little more information about rental market regulations in Barcelona, gathered from a quick Google search:
2011: Licensing for the short-term rental market introduced in Barcelona
2014: Issuance of short-term rental licenses in central Barcelona suspended
2018: Measures to combat rental regulation violators tightened
August 2020: Temporary ban on short-term rentals (less than 30 days) introduced
So, look at what is happening. First, the Olympic Games are held in the city; for this occasion, the state pours serious money into increasing the city’s tourist appeal. Tourists flood the city. Demand for short-term rentals spikes. Residents who rent housing themselves begin to grumble: rental prices have risen for them. Locals who are not tied to the tourism market also grumble: noisy tourists are wandering everywhere, and there is no room to move. The government listens to the voters’ opinion and begins to tighten the screws. Time and again, it demotivates property owners from renting to tourists—at high prices and for short terms—and instead demands they rent to locals—cheaply and for the long term.
What do property owners do when they realize that renting to anyone under the current rules is unprofitable? They freeze the business and wait for favorable conditions. Or they rent completely “under the table,” so that officially the housing stands empty. What does the government do? It begins to “force” them to the market, demanding that the housing be listed for long-term rental at regulated rates, threatening otherwise to forcibly buy out their property at prices set by the government itself.
With exactly the same success, one could talk about forcing peasants to the market who, for example, are forbidden from selling what they grew personally at the city market and are instead required to hand it over for pennies to wholesalers appointed from above.
How can I feel about this? Naturally, strongly negative. There is no need to call a state plan a “market”; it only introduces unnecessary confusion.
The Barcelona case shows very well how even a seemingly single benevolent government intervention (investments in infrastructure for the Olympic Games) leads to a market distortion, which causes public discontent and provokes further strengthening of government regulations. So, the best answer to the question of how the state can help you still remains the eternally relevant answer: Laissez faire et laissez passer.
Do you believe that social justice, democracy, general welfare, developed feminism, LGBT rights, juvenile justice, tolerance, reliable protection of human rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are good or bad, and why?
In classical liberalism, the state is considered an evil necessary for the protection of private property rights. In libertarianism, it is not considered necessary for this function; however, as long as it limits itself to this, its existence may be considered justified. In a conditional EU-style liberalism, the state is viewed as a tool for reconciling the interests of various strata of society, one that is more convenient than free market tools.
What is the convenience of the modern liberal state compared to the classical liberal one? Primarily, it is that being personally responsible for one’s own life is a rather frightening level of responsibility for many people. In the market, you must independently decide which property objects to insure, where, and under what conditions; how much and when to save for unforeseen circumstances or for an entirely predictable old age; which neighbors’ claims to satisfy and which to actively oppose, and if you oppose them, whether to do so independently or in a coalition. This is somewhat complicated; it’s better to spend one’s finite intellectual resources on skills that bring in money, and delegate all the aforementioned tasks, as far as possible, to those who are more savvy in these matters.
In a complex world where narrow specialists interact, a vast number of standardized solutions will inevitably be used, and a significantly smaller number of custom ones. The state is a standardized solution for any issues where it is not entirely clear who to offload them onto. And since such issues are constantly proliferating, the functionality of the state—even one consisting of entirely well-meaning liberal bureaucrats completely devoid of corrupt interests—will inevitably expand.
But as the state grows, its inefficiency inevitably grows as well. A Swiss Army knife with a couple hundred blades looks great in a store window, and you really want to buy this shiny toy, but in everyday life, the vast majority find it more convenient to have one very simple knife for most standard tasks, plus a couple of highly specialized ones that are used rarely, but when others are extremely inconvenient. A durable jumpsuit with a bunch of pockets looks exquisitely designed, but in a relaxed setting, a person throws on shorts and a t-shirt. It seems like you’d want to be able to call 911 and solve absolutely any problem, but in practice, this means you’ll get tired of fighting an automated answering machine, selecting menu items, and in the end, you’ll still be directed to the wrong specialist.
One would think that the more aggressive the environment, the tougher and more reliable the institutions should be. Therefore, on a small yacht in the middle of the sea, a single chain of command and clear functional duties for each crew member are quite appropriate, while on a beach, it’s enough that those wishing to play volleyball don’t trip over those sunbathing; otherwise, let complete anarchy reign and no one will care about anyone else. But the state cannot do that. It grew out of military needs, and it’s like a guy who returned from the front, suffers from PTSD, and is extremely outraged that people on the beach aren’t buttoned up to the top, aren’t marching in formation, and aren’t saluting. If you let him establish his order, everyone will have a hard time, even without unofficial hazing. And it’s no better when the state looks like a safety engineer. Fence off the volleyball court! Divide swimming zones by gender and age! Everyone put on life jackets! Organize the delivery of ice cream and lemonade! But the ice cream must be warm so that no one catches a cold, and the lemonade sugar-free, regardless of the fact that the ice cream has sugar. And then the state will see some kind of COVID, and the whole beach will go down the drain because everyone must stay home and wash their hands.
For Bitarkha, it is important that no one attacks anyone. Because one person will attack with fists, and another will sneeze on the first, and the whole world will die from a virus. So that no one dares to attack anyone, it is desirable that everyone be armed, and those who are not stopped by the sight of a weapon in others’ hands should be stopped some other way. It could be a bullet at the moment of attack, but it’s more humane to make them change their mind, perhaps, say, medicinally. Fortunately, Bitarkha only needs people to observe the NAP; otherwise, he would be indistinguishable from an adept of the COVID-fighting state. In order to live in a safe society, he is willing to pay well.
It is important to me that both I and the people around me are wealthy and free. For this, people must not be robbed or restricted, and they must not be extorted for all sorts of useless nonsense. For this, robbing and restricting must be dangerous, unprofitable, and unprestigious. And I, as a civilized and benevolent person, would of course prefer that people be stopped from robbing and regulating for reasons of lack of prestige, or at the very least, lack of profitability. If I have to ensure a threat to them as well, that will stress me out.
I apologize for the lack of a direct list, such as “I feel this way about social justice, that way about democracy,” and so on.
I’ve read about the ideology of non-violence, and a question occurred to me. In some “leftist” European countries, mixed martial arts were banned for a long time—they were considered not a sport, but a spectacle that encourages cruelty. How does Ancap-chan feel about this? On one hand, it is a prohibitive measure, but on the other, it is ideologically correct.
анонимный вопрос
Here we see some confusion between cause and effect. Various violent games do not encourage cruelty; they are simply a manifestation of already existing cruel customs, and to some extent, fashion. The desire to thrill the nerves persists in people, but for the vast majority today, it is important that everything be voluntary and slightly “make-believe.” A disaster movie, rather than the actual burning of Rome. BDSM instead of real torture. Combat sports of varying degrees of brutality instead of judicial duels. Cirque du Soleil instead of a traditional circus with its inevitable lions.
What would happen if a mixed martial arts club or some other kind of harsh hand-to-hand combat gym were opened in every neighborhood? Half would go bankrupt (in the Russian case, they would run to the state to beg for sports development subsidies). Forty percent would tone it down and switch to something like capoeira. The “market-chan” doesn’t need that much brutality. But it needs some. I wrote a rather amusing post about this a long time ago.
In Petrozavodsk, the rules for placing signs were recently canceled, and most likely, entrepreneurs will start hanging very bright banners again to advertise their establishments; however, ordinary people will clearly not be very fond of such an arrangement. What will happen to the design code of signs (and to the facades of buildings, since differently glazed balconies and air conditioning units spoil the appearance of the object) under ancap?
анонимный вопрос
This is a typical example of a question about externalities. Who will pay the owner of a historical building for a careful reconstruction instead of a cheap and high-quality modern renovation? Who will forbid defacing the facade with convenient and useful air conditioning units? Who will encourage the creation of banners and signs that please the fastidious taste of an aesthete, rather than those that simply increase sales? Who, if not the state?
You probably already know that any ancap should answer this question. “The market, of course,” an ancap will answer. But how will the market do all this? It doesn’t have hands. The market has invisible hands, don’t worry. Now I will explain where they grow from.
First, the invisible hands take the economy by the scruff of the neck and pull it out of the obvious hole. If no state clings to the economy in the process, it will be easier for the market to pull it out. Every entrepreneur will decide for themselves, based on local cultural norms and their own ideas of what is acceptable, what size and what acidity of colors is appropriate for a sign here in order to maximize profit. And the better their property rights to what is under the sign are protected, the more this profit will be viewed in a long-term perspective.
A poor person will buy a cheaper apartment, as spacious as possible and not too far from work. A well-off person will buy a spacious and cozy one. A rich person will build a beautiful house in which every detail will please their own eye. Somewhere between being well-off and rich, it will already be strange to remember such an archaic problem as an air conditioning unit sticking out in a prominent place.
Some historical buildings will be demolished for the sake of objects that bring more income. When this income turns into wealth and prosperity, the remaining historical buildings will become expensive and prestigious—those who want to live in historical buildings themselves or house tourists there will invest in their careful reconstruction. And whoever finds the old historical buildings insufficient will find a great architect, and they will build a new building that will become no less historical—despite the fact that niches for air conditioning units will be provided in it. And the signs on it will look solid and noble. Or perhaps lush and neon, if that turns out to be the spirit of the neighborhood. Because why hang a sign that violates the spirit of the place, especially if you are not limited in means? It will not be as effective.
And in some places, instead of such subtle matters as spirit, there will be strict rules prescribed by the owner of the territory—or a homeowners’ association. They are within their rights, but most likely they too will use their rules to ensure that their land is worth more, the district is considered more prestigious, and the tenant is not too frightened by unnecessary strictness. They will have a far more direct motivation for this than officials from some urban planning department.
Among the authoritarian right, there is a widespread belief that capitalism and the market can exist and function only through strict state control. They believe that this is the only way to ensure the protection of property rights, the honesty and security of agreements, and to correct certain alleged deficiencies of the free market. Naturally, alongside this, they deny that such state intervention in market processes is an act of violence. In their view, this intervention is precisely what protects everyone from violence. But is this actually the case?
1) State intervention harms market processes
From economic theory, we know that by intervening, the state disrupts market equilibrium. The most obvious example of measures leading to such a process is the establishment of minimum and maximum prices. The first measure leads entrepreneurs to believe that the production of a certain good is more profitable than it actually is. As a result, an overproduction of this good occurs, and the entrepreneurs themselves, unable to sell it, only go bankrupt. The second measure, conversely, leads to a shortage of the good, as it becomes unprofitable to produce and sell, and the fact that the cost is lower than the market price leads to those first in line for the product buying up the entire available assortment immediately, leaving nothing for those who find themselves at the end of the line.
Usually, proponents of state control say that these measures are necessary to support entrepreneurs and to guarantee that all people are provided with a certain benefit, and that the listed problems are solved by additional measures (subsidizing entrepreneurs and controlling the redistribution of benefits among people). But, of course, these measures require additional bureaucratic expenses, which negate the alleged benefits obtained from introducing these regulations.
The state also takes a portion of the population’s funds through taxation, and thereby partially deprives people of the ability to invest their funds in the types of production in which they are genuinely interested. Furthermore, through its regulations, the state makes it difficult for businesses to enter certain economic spheres, which also distorts market equilibrium and complicates people’s access to certain types of benefits.
Let us also not forget that in some spheres, the state declares itself to be an indisputable monopolist. Unable to compare the results of its activities with possible alternatives, and unconditionally receiving profit in the form of tax funds regardless of the quality of these results, the state monopoly is an inefficient producer, which harms the well-being of citizens.
Finally, the state corrupts the private sector. Under conditions of a free market, companies have only one option to continue functioning and increasing their wealth—providing people with benefits of the highest quality and at the lowest prices. Otherwise, people will simply leave for competitors. The state, however, gives some entrepreneurs an alternative option—corruption. An entrepreneur bribes officials (or promotes their relatives, friends, and acquaintances into the state apparatus) and gains legal grounds to restrict competitors from conducting a certain activity. At the very least, he can avoid the application of state regulations to himself and achieve the active imposition of these regulations on everyone else. At most, he can lobby for a law that makes him the only legal producer in a specific economic sphere.
Through its regulations and monopolistic coercive control, the state severely harms economic processes, distorts market equilibrium, and reduces the well-being of people. Capitalism, as a type of economic system in which legal equality as well as the principle of freedom of activity and agreement must be observed, is absolutely incompatible with the actions undertaken by any governments.
2) The state does not protect property rights and does not ensure the security of transactions
An important point in the program of etatists is that the state is necessary for the protection of property rights and guaranteeing the security of transactions, without which capitalism and the market cannot function at all. Minarchists—proponents of a minimal state that should engage only in this—place particular emphasis on this.
Yes, I agree that property rights and the security of transactions are necessary for the functioning of the economic system as a whole. However, the state cannot provide them in any way.
Let us remember that the state is a monopolistic and indisputable instrument of power. Being in specific hands at a specific moment, it serves only the interests of its owners. And nothing can stop them from abusing their authority and violating the norms they themselves have prescribed. Of course, it can be said that this is solved by the democratization of politics, or by creating a system in which only intelligent and kind rulers come to power. But in reality, neither will work. Ensuring the first, even in its absolute (that is, in the form of direct democracy), only means the observance of the interests of the majority to the detriment of the interests of the minority. Ensuring the second completely collapses against the phenomenon of corruption and the potential incompetence of the agents and agencies engaged in searching for and bringing to power supposedly pure and innocent angel-rulers.
Even in the case where the government is more or less reasonable, it still, unlike market and competing agents, has no incentives to act in the most efficient way. It only needs to act as efficiently as the population’s indignation does not exceed a certain critical level, above which the actions of security forces become either ineffective or cause the government significant reputational damage, thereby stimulating the rest of the population and the global community in general to also express indignation.
As Mikhail Svetov always correctly notes, the state is the One Ring of power. And regardless of whose hands this ring is in, one should not expect it to work for the good.
The observance of property rights and the security of transactions can be ensured only by the Balance of Violence Potential and Reputational Institutions. The first concept states that monopolistic power should not exist at all, and that different subjects and groups of subjects should possess approximately equal capabilities to inflict unacceptable damage on one another. In such conditions, cooperation will be far more profitable than coercion. The second concept asserts that reputational institutions and services can be used as tools for guaranteeing the security of transactions. Furthermore, they provide ostracism as an effective and powerful tool for punishing those who were not honest in their intentions.
You can read more about the concept of the Balance of Violence Potential here. You can learn how Reputational Institutions function, why Reputational Services are useful, and what ostracism is here.
3) State intervention is always violence
What do you call a subject (a person or an organization) who unilaterally imposes certain conditions on me, forces me to give them a part of my funds, and threatens to take away even more of my funds or forcibly lock me behind bars in case of non-compliance with the conditions imposed by them? Obviously, this is a rapist and an aggressor, and the actions they carry out are violence and aggression. And the institutionalization of these phenomena in no way changes their essence.
Even in the case where the state exists exclusively to protect its citizens from violence, it still first commits an act of aggression toward them, because it establishes itself as their protector regardless of the desire and choice of the people. In fact, this is common gangster protection (“kryshevanie”). If someone breaks into my house, points a gun at me, and says, “give me this much money, and I will protect you, otherwise you will be punished yourself,” then that too would be an obvious act of aggression.
A rapist and aggressor cannot be your protector, because to provide this protection, they must first apply aggression to you. Based on this, the state, politicians, bureaucrats, and all those who clearly support state activities are rapists and aggressors, because their activities assume that people must be attacked first, covering themselves with stories allegedly about how if we don’t attack you, someone else will. Naturally, the attitude toward the listed subjects should be appropriate.
We can draw the following conclusions: the state hinders the functioning of the economy and market processes, it is unable to ensure the protection of property rights and the security of transactions, and it is merely a rapist who has imposed their will on you through methods of aggression. And after all this, how can one even support the idea of state control and intervention? No sane person will do so, and whoever does—they themselves admit that they lack the slightest competence in matters of economics, public management, and in general are an open rapist and maniac!
According to libertarian law, the sale of alcohol and tobacco should not be prohibited by force of law (nor should it be subject to fines), including to minors, because it is a victimless crime.
Given that I am currently working as a cashier, my colleagues and I ask for IDs from everyone except those who look under 50, because those participating in sting operations are 17-year-olds who look much older than their age: young men with gray hair, thick beards and muscular builds, and girls who are tall, stout, with makeup and “first” wrinkles. Dozens of customers daily harass us, telling us “not to take it to the point of absurdity” or to stop creating “Kafkaesque” situations. The solution proposed to me by the surrounding statistes is even more of a hell—to ask everyone, to lobby for checking documents through the register as in the USA, etc. My old acquaintances and friends harass me by saying that alcohol consumption at a young age increases the risk of alcoholism many times over. Yes, I am aware. Moreover, I myself actively stood by the same prohibitory position, was an active lobbyist and advocate for control measures on alcohol and tobacco, which was sometimes a topic for discussion with these friends and acquaintances or even a reason for meeting. That is why my social networks are under tension right now. But it is inevitable. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then; I have been studying economics and history for three years, and for the last few months, I have openly considered myself a libertarian.
So, the sale of a product that sits on a store shelf for legal money is not violence. But some people believe that by selling to those under 18, I am committing violence. People tell me that advertising and propaganda force one to start drinking, and that until a certain age, a person supposedly has no freedom of choice. As if they acquire it on their 18th birthday. As if they have none at all before that. Simply, parents should handle upbringing while children live with them, not the state. This answer does not satisfy such people.
How can I clearly explain to them that the decision to sell or not sell anything should be made by the owner, and they should not be punished for selling or not selling?
Sergey Sushinsky
I would suggest approaching your argumentation from two sides.
First, you need to demonstrate that the very idea that the state does good through trade bans is a poor idea. Remind them how in the Soviet Union people were imprisoned for trading foreign currency, and in general for any entrepreneurship involving reselling (for this, a seemingly neutral economic term, “speculation,” was used as a condemnation). Later, currency trading was permitted, but no one compensated those previously imprisoned for currency operations for their losses. All over the world, the trade of marijuana is gradually being legalized, while in Russia, more people are imprisoned for the distribution of substances than for theft. And when marijuana trade is permitted in Russia, it is likely that no one will compensate the losses of all those previously convicted under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Remind them that in many Islamic countries, the sale of alcohol is illegal not only to children but to adults as well. In short, there are many restrictions on free trade that are introduced by the state and then repealed. So why did they decide that the ban on selling alcohol to children is actually necessary and will not subsequently be repealed by the same state as mistaken or even criminal? And who will then reimburse alcohol traders for their losses in fines and bribes during the period of the ban?
Secondly, point out to them that if the satisfaction of a need is pushed out of the legal field, it begins to be satisfied illegally. A child was unable to drink beer and smoke cigarettes—they have an unsatisfied need and unspent money. Tomorrow they will buy mephedrone. Maybe it would have been better to sell them beer?
What needs to be done to achieve clean air with the help of the state? You need to launch a public campaign, convince politicians that ecological regulations can generate both political capital and a decent amount of embezzled money—and eventually, the state will squeeze those who pollute, reducing their income, and bestow favors upon those who want clean air. This is, of course, if you live in New York, and not in the city of Sibay in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
What happens to the environment in a free market? Where existing technologies mean that you either pollute and make money, or you don’t pollute and make jack shit, you will pollute. And around you will live those who also pollute and make money, or are otherwise tied to your business. Those for whom the smoke is harmful simply leave for wherever it is cleaner and start their own business there, linked to the sale of beautiful views and clean air. For example, in the USA in the 20th century, New York and other Detroits and Los Angeleses were polluting, while connoisseurs of healthy recreation mass-developed Florida, which rapidly transformed from a land of swamps into a land of beaches.
The market very reliably compels people toward peaceful coexistence when everyone minds their own business and does not try to suppress competitors by force. When the state began to actively fight for clean air in cities, businesses found places to pollute and began moving to third-world countries; the country paid for this with the emergence of the Rust Belt—cities where it was impossible to find any other more or less profitable activities besides polluting. Of course, I am simplifying greatly, and it wasn’t just about ecology—the state was advancing on many fronts.
Of course, business can be criticized for often starting to solve problems as they arise, meaning that for some time a problem remains unsolved. But the state, with its manic-depressive style of reacting, either forces you to swim in an empty pool or demands that you march along the bottom of one that has already filled up. If ecological regulations are introduced before the emergence of sufficiently cheap emission cleaning technologies, you will either get corruption or destroy businesses, and a vast number of people will suffer needlessly from poverty. Conversely, if you try to centrally suppress ecological protests, a vast number of people will also suffer needlessly from poor ecology.
At the same time, business in a free market, even without any state regulations, will look for ways to pollute less, produce less waste, spend less energy, and so on. A dirty enterprise is located on the outskirts; skilled workers must be lured there with good money, the produced goods must be transported to consumers in far-off lands, waste must also be hauled away, and so on. If it were possible to produce the same thing with comparable costs right next to the mass consumer, it would provide a significant competitive advantage, which means investing in technologies that reduce ecological damage.
The main means of improving the environment is the prosperity of the people. As long as people are poor, they will turn a blind eye to everything that hinders the satisfaction of their most urgent needs. Only after becoming wealthy do they begin to think about how to organize a comfortable life. Trying to organize their life for them immediately, at their own expense, while preventing them from becoming wealthy, is a crime.
If you live here, it means you need this for some reason
There is a well-known assumption that if government regulation regarding zoning, green spaces, parks, building height, etc., were abolished, developers would begin to squeeze profit from every square meter of land, building continuous masses of hundred-story skyscrapers.
In fact, it is by no means always profitable for a developer to sell as many square meters as possible in a building where there is no park or greenery nearby. The average price per square meter in such a building would be much lower than in an identical building with appropriate landscaping of the surrounding area. This is confirmed by the example of New York, where the cost of housing with a view of Central Park is significantly higher than similar real estate a block away. Anyone who tries to build over that area would be dragged through the courts by residents of nearby houses, as it would crash the value of their assets.
Skeptics might object—look at Hong Kong, where there is indeed minimal government regulation and the development looks like “concrete anthills.” In reality, firstly, the state intentionally built such blocks to provide “affordable housing” to its voters. Secondly, Hong Kong is a special free zone with a tiny territory in the midst of vast totalitarian China. Accordingly, the demand for real estate far exceeds the supply, and people are willing to sacrifice environmental comfort for the sake of economic and personal freedoms. For a country as huge as Russia, or for European countries, the problem of lacking free space is not nearly as acute.
I wanted to insert a photo of New York’s Central Park first, but no, here is a concrete anthill without any zoning.
Actually, modern China is not only the People’s Republic of China, but also the Republic of China, as well as Macau, Hong Kong, and to a considerable extent, Singapore. And specifically in terms of citizen welfare, the People’s Republic of China fares worse than all the other states I mentioned, despite the fact that the starting conditions for economic development in the PRC, the Republic of China, and Singapore were roughly the same.
Therefore, from a libertarian perspective, one must explain China’s failure rather than its success. Yes, of course, Deng Xiaoping proved better for the PRC than Mao Zedong. But the residents of the Republic of China achieved far more significant success without any world-famous reformers. What is the role of state regulation here? As is easy to see, it is negative.
In reality, of course, there is a degree of cunning here; it is much harder for a large continental country to escape poverty and socialism than for a small maritime one. But any city on the coast of mainland China could today live no worse than Hong Kong or at least the Republic of China, and if that is not the case, the responsibility lies solely with the leadership of the PRC. The guiding and directing role of the Communist Party is too great, the share of the state sector in the economy is too high, and too many resources are spent not on what people are willing to buy, but on the construction of the Great Firewall and the social credit system.
The Great Firewall of China and its role in the success of modern China
