Тег: Regulations

Back to the question of global warming: the point is not that the climate will change, but rather what will follow: the disruption of climate cycles, the disruption of ecological stability, etc., etc. All of this will undoubtedly affect the agro-sector, plus the growing population. What is to be done about this?

anonymous question, addition to the previous answer

If a certain community agrees on what climate is optimal for it and has the means to establish these conditions, its representative simply takes the climate control remote and sets the required parameters. If there are no means to establish an arbitrary climate, people either migrate to more acceptable climatic conditions or adapt to the existing ones. If there are means but no agreement, then whoever holds the remote will, one way or another, set parameters that satisfy some and dissatisfy others.

To study the causes and effects of climate change, one can ask: a) who influenced the changes that occurred and to what extent; b) who suffered what damage as a result. But in fact, a different question is of interest: is it possible to organize joint activity so that the degradation of the established system of consumption of goods does not occur, and if so, how.

The current level of human development allows for direct steering of the climate approximately at the regional level: creating a large reservoir, for example, or, conversely, dividing a river into irrigation ditches. Which approaches to organizing the operation of common resources work more or less in the interests of the operators is analyzed in a book that I have already recommended: Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”.

If it is not possible to design a scheme for the operation of common resources according to the principles she derived, then the best thing that can be done is to give up and eliminate regulation entirely: in systems too complex for direct management, only the free market can bring order.

Global climate changes, certainly, still fall into this category.

Why, from the perspective of libertarianism, are market manipulation and insider trading not crimes? And why should serious financial crimes not be regulated by the state at all?

@wizard1209

Market manipulation is an attempt by a certain market player to predict the behavior of other market players in response to various options of their own behavior. They bet money that their prediction is true, and that a certain market behavior will bring them profit at the expense of other players’ losses—and then they test their prediction.

Formally, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle here, but if the manipulator’s prediction turns out to be correct, other players suffer a loss, and they, after all, did not enter the market for that purpose. Therefore, it is not surprising that the manipulator may be disliked.

Most market participants prefer predictability and do not highly value a store where, as a result of manipulations, the price jumps randomly. Therefore, the store is interested in introducing its own restrictions that make manipulation more difficult, and the smaller the market size, the more relevant such things are for the owners of trading platforms.

Insider trading is the same kind of market manipulation, except that the manipulation is carried out by the trading platform itself or persons affiliated with it. Naturally, for the reputation of a trading platform, being caught in insider trading is even more dangerous than if it allows manipulations by third parties. Therefore, in developed markets, insider trading is fought even more strictly.
And the state, when attempting to fight these things, as is its habit, either simply tends to make a mess with the best of intentions because it doesn’t know how to be efficient—or, under the pretext of fighting manipulations and insider trading, engages in those very manipulations and insider trading.

Now, in cryptocurrency trading, there are as many market manipulations as you like, but the higher the turnover, the less dangerous it is for those who do not suffer from it. So choose Bitcoin; it is the least prone to manipulation of all cryptos. I have chosen it specifically as the currency for receiving your kind donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Are there examples of successful legalization of firearms (without a noticeable increase in the number of offenses)? Perhaps there were negative consequences of legalization? I know that the legalization of drugs has almost no effect on the amount of abuse. Is this also true for weapons?

anonymous question

The most successful example of the beneficial influence of legalization for a Russian-speaking audience is, of course, Moldova. A post-Soviet country introduces the legal acquisition, carrying, and use for self-defense of rifled short-barreled firearms—and the curve of violent crime drops sharply. The same occurred in the Baltics, although the example of phlegmatic Balts is not as convincing to the listener as a story about hot-blooded Moldovan guys. But the most statistics come, of course, from the States, where half of all crime is concentrated in just two percent of counties with the strictest gun laws, which are ethnic ghettos, while in the most armed areas, violent crimes are practically non-existent.

There are also downsides to legalization—they appear when legalization is carried out partially and thoughtlessly.

For instance, in Kazakhstan, instead of legalizing rifled short-barreled firearms, they only made the acquisition of traumatic weapons extremely simplified. As a result, traumatic weapons became a convenient tool in clashes between gangs: this weapon is very useful as support in a fight since it cannot be tracked by any ballistic examination, and the psychological threshold for its use is extremely low, as it is supposedly not a “real” gun. Consequently, the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction, and Kazakhstan has begun to tighten the screws, as hoplophobes now have an excellent argument for doing so.

In Russia, gun legislation is generally tolerable, although it is quite inconsistent regarding rifled short-barreled firearms. Law enforcement practice is much worse here; in many ways, it is this, rather than the law on weapon circulation, that encourages criminals—since they know that the victim will hesitate until the last moment before using a weapon, not wanting to deal later with much more frightening criminals: the Russian police.

The main thing to understand about weapons is that a criminal always has one. He will simply buy a gun on the black market using bitcoins, as it is far less dangerous for him to be caught with a gun than to be unprepared for a showdown with competitors. Meanwhile, someone who earns a living in more peaceful sectors would rather spend their bitcoins on donating to Ancap-chan, and for them, it is important to have a legal gun, as well as the right to use it legally for self-defense.

How to handle age ratings in the media/internet and shock content? Young foals may stumble upon gore, and in the opinion of many people, this may traumatize their psyche.

anonymous question

The person who provides a content hosting service has every right to impose restrictions on it. The person who provides a content consumption service also has every right to restrict that same content. Thus, if a child uses their guardian’s computer, phone, or television, the guardian may restrict the content according to their own ideas of what is appropriate. If a child finds their own ways to obtain information independently, they have every right to use them. For example, they might go behind the garages, and there people are fighting (fucking, shooting up, you name it). Private shock content; if you don’t want to see it, don’t look.

shock content