Тег: Relationship

Ancap-chan, explain why you don’t share the views of Bitarch, Voluntarist and Agoristic, and why you recognize aggressive violence outside the framework of self-defense?

If it is unclear where exactly you are admitting it – here is the chat dialogue:

Purple Dragon: @ancapsan, I wonder, if Bitarch actually invents his libertarian vaccine, tests it, and gets approval from independent doctors, would you get vaccinated?

Ancap-chan: It’s important to understand exactly what changes will occur in the body and decide based on the specifics. If the effect is exactly as Bitarch dreams—which I don’t believe in, because genetics doesn’t seem to work that way—then why not? It wouldn’t affect self-defense capabilities, and if I needed to take violent revenge, I would still prefer to hire a specialist rather than act myself.

Lio Bertes (question accompanied by a donation of 0.0000427btc)

At first I thought about joking it off, but I think I’ll answer seriously.

The subject of my main disagreement with Bitarch is my dislike of operating with holistic constructs. I prefer to consider not violence as a phenomenon, but violence that one specific subject manifests toward another specific subject. And only then do I view this specific violence in the context of libertarian ideology, which proclaims freedom as its value. And this very freedom means that I reserve the right, among other things, to revenge, if I so wish. Naturally, I also leave others the right to try to stop me and hold me accountable.

My own moral views, which may prompt me to enter into a conflict, including a violent one, are higher for me than an abstract desire to have a world completely devoid of aggressive violence. Attempts to manipulate me in the spirit of “as long as violence remains in the world, humanity is in danger” might lead only to a shrug: “then let it remain in danger.” I would perhaps even sharpen the thesis. If we assume there is a button that, when pressed, destroys humanity, I would want to have it. Not to press it, but to know that I can do it. This is a very important incentive for a person—the expansion of possibilities, that is, degrees of freedom. Freedom.

And it is all the more important for me to have the ability to respond to violence against me, both directly at the moment of attack and ex post facto, if that is more convenient for me. I will not voluntarily destroy in myself the capacity for such a thing. So please forgive me, in the dialogue quoted above, I lied.

At the same time, I deeply appreciate Bitarch’s research with the Voluntarist regarding the investigation of mechanisms that influence people’s attitudes toward the manifestation of violence. Moreover, I respect Bitarch’s striving to obtain a button that eradicates the inclination toward aggressive violence in humanity. After all, how is this worse than the desire to have a button to destroy humanity? True, he craves this button in order to press it, and that changes the situation slightly: perhaps I will still have to stop him, as they stop mad scientists in classic action movies. Well, that would be interesting.

The rat demands another dose of gene therapy

How do you feel about anarcho-punks, being an anarchist yourself?

Mohawks, metal, port wine, speakers, Yegor Letov, Grazhdanskaya Oborona, Yuri Hoy and Viktor Tsoi! And of course, mother-anarchy!

But seriously, do you think there are common grounds between libertarians and anarcho-punks, and is interaction or even cooperation between them possible?

Ahmad (question accompanied by a donation of 0.00005166 btc)

Perhaps the most punk thing I’ve ever seen is the movie “Fight Club.” There, it’s no longer just Tsoi’s “you must be strong, you must be able to say don’t tread on me,” but an aggressive denial of the dominant system as a whole, in which, of course, the distinct contours of some anti-system are visible: how wonderful it is to destroy something beautiful, how wonderful it is to wage guerrilla warfare against the regime by any means from spitting in soup to blowing up buildings, and most importantly—how wonderful self-destruction is. Self-destruction proves the sincerity of one’s views and provides a person with a high platform, even if before that they were nobody and had no name. And here, everyone repeats in chorus—his name is Vladislav Roslyakov! That is impressive.

Of course, the punk movement is a product of the twentieth century with its disregard for individual human life and very large-scale thinking. Punks did not defend their own individual freedom (freedom within the existing system is shit), because it is only possible through a transition to anarchy, and that primarily means the breakdown of the existing system. It is pointless to discuss whether punks have a positive agenda and to make its presence a condition for cooperation with them. It is quite enough that a punk will fight not against every system, but only against the one that spawned him. We are all a bit like virologists now, so I think the analogy of punks as antibodies to the state would be quite appropriate.

I think it’s clear from the above that there are common grounds between anarcho-punks and anarcho-libertarians. But what about interaction and cooperation? Here, I’m afraid, anarcho-libertarians will seem like boring, stifling and useless theorists to anarcho-punks. What is this “respect for private property”? The state holds you as property tighter than it holds your balls; forget about it. As long as you are afraid of living in shit, they will scare you by dipping you in shit, and in the fight against the system, one cannot be distracted by such trivial fears.

Punks are guerrillas. I think they could have quite mutually beneficial and mutually understandable cooperation with sufficiently hardcore agorists, who are also essentially guerrillas. But still, I would like to see a lecture, say, by Pavel Usanov before an audience of anarcho-punks, dedicated to some kind of brutality. Well, for example, a talk on the economics of Mexican cartels from the position of AEL. Naturally, Pavel should be in full dress, with a bow tie, otherwise the picture won’t be right.

The image is very important in terms of influence on society, so there should, of course, also be many carnival punks in a strong subculture, who mostly copy visual images rather than the style of thinking and, most importantly, actions. But please forgive me for not dwelling in detail on the visual component, such as mohawks and studs: that’s for the designers, they understand the language of material culture better.

An outside look at Russia and the protests

I won’t venture to judge the details of another round of protests in Russia that took place yesterday, but I am glad that it has increased in size, and it seems to me that either people have learned how to avoid detention, or the Moscow authorities are no longer daring to be so fierce. Either way, there are fewer detainees than a week ago, and no particularly mass cruelty is visible in the photos.

In Georgia, everyone I talk to, upon learning that I am from Russia, immediately asks what is happening in Moscow, from which it can be concluded that in the information space, the protest has long since overcome local boundaries. Moreover, this cannot be attributed to biased coverage of the situation by Georgian media: I was asked questions by tourists from Turkey, Romania, and the Netherlands. I should also note that I am not at some political conference here—all around are carefree vacationers; one would think they wouldn’t care.

Naturally, the sympathy of the global public is on the side of the protesters. However, it is equally on the side of the protesters in Hong Kong, the yellow vests, the Venezuelan opposition, and so on. When volunteers are on one side and salaried employees are on the other, people sympathize with the volunteers. Even regarding the events in Kyrgyzstan, where it seems to be a matter of “the toad and the viper,” the mere fact that people are ready to voluntarily stand up for the former president and fight for him against the authorities already tells people that the government probably shouldn’t have started this whole assault.

I am also constantly assured that I have nothing to fear, that the attitude toward Russians here is still just as friendly. To be honest, this sometimes looks like a mantra for self-convincing. Evidence to the contrary also turns up. I won’t say much, I’ll just provide a few photos.

Suggesting not to feel at home
Ruining good drawings because of the author’s Russian language
But there are also statements that any Russian patriot would sign

Why don’t “Schemes and Memes” love you?

анонимный вопрос

Don’t they love it? I would say it is more like touching courtship. When three or four channels I follow posted their ads, I was somehow too lazy to go and see what they were writing, but here I finally got around to it, so well done, they used a winning tactic.

I have exactly one complaint regarding the “Libertarianism in Schemes and Memes” channel, which Grigory Bazhenov voiced to them some time ago: where are the schemes? I looked, and they really aren’t there. A shortcoming.

A picture posted in schemememes brought me 15 new subscribers. Guys, make yourselves comfortable; I will try to avoid long delays in publications in the future.

As for “memes for Russians,” I am still too lazy to drop by. But if they post something interesting there, let me know and I’ll take a look. For now, schemememes reliably protect them from my attention, for which the protected ones, I hope, will thank them.

Your attitude towards FNB (Food Not Bombs)? Is it not shameful for a libertarian to participate in such a movement, given that it is anti-capitalist, yet the members of this movement engage in charity?

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, the movement’s activity consists of volunteers recovering food from supermarkets, wholesale warehouses, and establishments—food that ended up there due to capitalism and is about to be thrown away because otherwise it would not comply with state-established shelf-life regulations—then they cook it and distribute it to the hungry, thereby expressing their disapproval of the government’s budget spending priorities.

At the same time, it ignores the fact that under socialism, the food that in this case rots in trash bins would have rotted back in the fields or at vegetable depots, as well as the fact that socialist regimes usually spent a much higher percentage of their money on bombs than on social welfare, compared to more or less democratic capitalist states.

This behavior is somewhat similar to that of a lady who, preparing to accompany a gentleman through a disadvantaged neighborhood, persuades him to leave his weapon at home and bring some food along to feed the poor. But, for the sake of fairness, let us note that, within our analogy, the neighborhood became disadvantaged largely due to the gentleman’s activities. So, on one hand, the lady’s reproaches are justified, but on the other, the behavior appears quite infantile.

But, however incorrect the rhetoric of the movement’s activists may seem to me, it is completely non-violent and is a form of moral pressure. Moreover, I suspect many participate in it not because of their anti-capitalist beliefs, but solely out of philanthropy, or to promote veganism, or because they went hungry in childhood and find it unbearable to see food thrown into the garbage—there could be many reasons to organize a distribution of homemade food on the street!

How would I personally react to finding some libertarian acquaintance in the ranks of FNB? I would be interested and ask about the people surrounding them there, the people who come for free food, how they manage to find a common language with food suppliers, whether there are problems with the state, and so on. This is an excellent practical exercise in private charity, without which pure ancap would be a rather harsh living environment, so at the current stage, familiarity with it would be useful for anyone. And switching a thinking person from anti-capitalist rhetoric to anti-statist rhetoric is not such a difficult task.

Also, they have a mischievous emblem, although for Russia I would suggest drawing a horseradish root instead of a carrot

Indefinite protest

Today you have given me a day off again, so I will reflect a bit on the indefinite protest that was announced by the participants of the rallies on September 9 in Moscow, and then in several other cities.

What surprises the protesters most is that all opposition organizations are shyly avoiding it; not only do they fail to join, but they prefer not to mention it at all, and in some places, they even ban mentions of it on their resources. How can this be? I will try to figure it out.

This indefinite protest is not the first, and all previous ones ended ingloriously. There was the Occupy Abay, there was the siege of the Christmas tree ornament in New Year’s Moscow, there was Manezhka in October of last year. Each time, the police dispersed these indefinite actions without much effort as soon as they felt their time had come. Therefore, the leaders of the organized non-systemic opposition, who themselves actively participated in previous actions in their time, are now in no hurry to repeat this disgrace and are discouraging others.

In other words, the general opinion today is that a protest action should be populous rather than prolonged, and space over time does not convert. It would seem that populous actions also do not lead to the government resigning or canceling its unpopular decisions, so on what basis should rallies be more preferable than occupations? I can perhaps name two arguments.

  1. After rallies, more young blood flows into the organized non-systemic protest than after occupations — simply by virtue of that very populousness.
  2. Rallies provide a more vivid picture, and therefore garner more views, which again helps them ensure a greater public resonance.

Thus, at the stage of accumulating strength, rallies are a more effective means of maintaining morale and replenishing the ranks, while at the stage immediately preceding the fall of a regime, rallies are certainly insufficient — this stage is precisely accompanied in the modern practice of peaceful revolutions by multi-day protests.

At the same time, one can never know for sure in advance whether the time has come for an occupation, or whether it is more profitable for now to keep a low profile and only occasionally remind people of one’s existence through rallies. For the start of the Maidan, one small, harshly dispersed rally was enough. In Yerevan, the indefinite protest began immediately, without any rallies; it was initially very small but continued to grow until the change of the prime minister. So, it can turn out in different ways.

That is exactly why one should not discourage people from participating in any peaceful protest, even if you are sure that right now, and in exactly this form, it is a complete profanation. What if it turns out that you were wrong, and the time has actually come.

It is far more important to constantly consider for yourself how the existing protest could be supplemented to make it more effective. This supplement does not have to be expressed in joining the action, as one can work on other fronts, as long as the desired result becomes closer.

Well, I will talk about that next time, provided, of course, that you don’t pelt me right now with questions on other topics.

Pushkinskaya Square, Moscow, September 9, night

Tyan, how do you feel about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?

anonymous question

Both of these figures entered history by initiating a long trend toward strengthening economic interventionism worldwide, which began at the end of the 19th century. To these two, I would add a third person who was at the helm of the state around the same time: Deng Xiaoping.

Each of these three more or less consistently implemented liberal reforms in their country and served as a prominent benchmark for the governments of other nations.

The most consistently liberal of this trio was certainly Margaret Thatcher. The most significant economic results for their country were achieved by Deng Xiaoping. Ronald Reagan received the most decent country and achieved the most modest results—but he excelled in foreign policy and became the one who practically finished off the Empire of Evil.

Reagan and especially Thatcher get an additional plus from libertarians for popularizing Friedrich Hayek, who received his Nobel Prize shortly before they came to power and prepared the ideological foundation for their reforms.

And as for my personal attitude toward them?

I don’t order Thatcher statues in Georgia, I don’t watch movies with Reagan; my attitude is calm and quite respectful.

Deng Xiaoping and Friedrich Hayek)))

How do libertarians view urbanism? It is clear that they do so differently, but are there any common points? I have heard much negativity from members of the LPR towards the projects of Varlamov and Katz.

anonymous question

Mainstream urbanism is a concept according to which cities should be developed using methods of centralized planning, but this planning should be carried out not by some lobbyists, but by experts based on current scientific research. Urbanists are hardly bothered by the fact that present-day scientific developments may contradict those of the past. After all, it is a quite common occurrence when every subsequent electrician who comes to fix the wiring first asks into the void which idiot did the wiring before him.

Naturally, libertarians can conceptually approve only urbanism based on economic theory—in other words, on the idea that the market should not be hindered from solving truly complex issues, such as ensuring spontaneous order in a large city, which is precisely what it is best at.
Thus, libertarian urbanism is the maximum privatization of all public spaces in the city and the maximum deregulation of interaction between the owners of urban spaces.

Supporting preferred initiatives through voluntary donations is precisely an example of spontaneous order at work, where those projects that best satisfy the desires of consumers flourish. You know what to do:  1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

How does libertarianism view participation in certain projects organized by the city administration (youth movements, for example). After all, on one hand it is the government, but on the other, it is municipal government… And it’s somehow unclear.

anonymous question

Libertarianism views taxes with suspicion because they are robbery. But once taxes have already been seized, and it was impossible to prevent this, and they cannot be returned in the form of money, there is nothing shameful about receiving partial compensation for the damage by consuming some of the tangible goods provided by the authorities.

If we are talking about the possibility of cooperating with local authorities on certain projects, then one must first look at the effect this joint activity has on third parties. If it involves the infringement of their rights, then cooperation with the authorities is shameful. For example, participating in some Orthodox patrol that demands adherence to Orthodox moral norms from passers-by would be shameful. There seems to be no damage to reputation from participating in charity under the patronage of local authorities, provided it is not a PR cover for some embezzlement. However, any military-patriotic theme is a literal minefield; one must think carefully about every step, where it is worth cooperating and where it is not.

And in any case, such things cannot have a higher priority than resisting state robbery and other forms of violence.

organized youth is always very strange…

Who will you choose: a tyan or a kun?

anonymous question

Murmur! A series of cute questions about personal relationships has started! I’ll answer with pleasure.

I am very, very much lacking tyans. In the best case, they make up about ten percent of the total roster.

Tyans rarely interest themselves in firearms. This is a terrible, unforgivable mistake! With your own shotgun, you’ll be the star at any shooting range, and with your own carbine at 23, you’ll strike any kun dead without any violation of the NAP, so get your first gun right at 18.

Tyans rarely interest themselves in bitcoins. They can actually be understood here: because even under the new law, a tyan will retire a couple of years earlier than a kun, which means her bitcoins won’t grow as much. But, girls, why be so petty?

Tyans rarely interest themselves in economics. It’s terrible, but it’s true. You’d think it’s forgivable for a kun to think that money is bred in a bedside table, but we should know about all these matters much more fully. Girls, fuck the etatist mainstream, study the Austrian school of economics—there’s none of that nasty, nasty mathematics!

But the strangest thing is that tyans rarely interest themselves in politics. You should have heard how Yabloko-tyan lit up the stage at the rally on July 29! The whole square just melted!

Politics is kawaii.

This is the kind of tyan that’s missing

Yes, you’ve noticed that now you can donate bitcoins to me not only by a direct transfer to the wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8, but also simply via bank card? Everything for you!