Тег: Reputation

What ways exist to rehabilitate people in the eyes of the libertarian public in the case of a complicated background?

For example, what if there were some relationships with “United Russia” in the past, or if non-libertarian laws were promoted? In general, what do you advise such people to do? Is damaging those in power through compromising materials or lawsuits the only format? And what if those in power were not comrades of any sort, and there is no compromising material on hand? Perhaps reversing the adopted bad laws would also work? Maybe something else?

Sergey Sushinsky

This is a very complex topic if viewed through the prism of holistic constructs like the “libertarian public,” but it becomes much simpler if one does not deviate from the principle of methodological subjectivism. It is impossible to please the public as a whole; it is impossible to stain your reputation in the eyes of absolutely everyone, and to an equal extent. To some, Stalin is a bloody tyrant; to some, the father of nations; and to some, a weakling who failed to crush the hydra of counter-revolution.

There are very intolerant libertarians, at least in their public rhetoric. Judging by your mention of compromising materials on government representatives in your question, you clearly meant, among other things, “how to curry favor with Mikhail Svetov if you are Dmitry Gudkov.” You can’t. Svetov is just as biased as many others, and will similarly fit the arguments to his pre-existing opinion. This works both negatively and positively; any conditional Svetov will inevitably have a “inner circle” that is forgiven more than outsiders. This is normal, in the sense that it is determined by our biology.

From the outside, of course, one can indeed imagine horrors. If these guys are so strict with a person whose father voted for bad laws and who did not disown him, then what will they say about a person who personally lobbied for bad laws?

In fact, however, people are quite inclined to respect those who act in accordance with their convictions, and when those convictions change, those who honestly admit it and declare their new agenda, providing a justification for why it appeared.

You believed smoking was an evil and lobbied for anti-tobacco laws. Now you believe smoking is an evil, but you consider anti-tobacco laws an even greater evil. This is a perfectly natural evolution of thought, and you naturally seek arguments now against the lobbying of anti-tobacco laws. You collaborated with United Russia, realized that it was not only futile but harmful, and now you seek ways to shake its monopoly. This is a far more understandable, consistent, and respectable position than having no position at all, or simply claiming that no one can be trusted and there is no point in trying.

Take Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly: he used to be involved in public politics, and now he has not only cooled toward it but considers the pursuit harmful. I believe he is wrong, but given the difference in experience, I fully admit that I might be the one who is wrong. We have noted our disagreement, and I hope that for him this will not be a reason to “cut me out of the movement,” as especially intolerant people like to do. If you encounter such people, simply understand that using simple oppositions saves a great deal of mental effort, and do not force them to strain themselves where they don’t need to. On the other hand, they can use their thinking to the fullest where it is more justified for them, and division of labor is great, even if it is the division of brain labor between separate tasks.

I am not a neurobiologist, and it is difficult for me to say what this brain is busy with now, but in any case, that is its private business

Can one praise a tyrant to save lives?

For example, praising and promoting Putin to gain the ability to operate your own charitable foundation where you will save lives. Is this a violation of the NAP?

анонимный вопрос

I present to you my new co-author; he will answer the questions you have accumulated from time to time, and where I want to add something, I will do so. So, responding is Alex Murin.

Ancap-chan

The principle of the non-aggression principle implies only the rejection of aggressive violence. Everything you write or say does not relate to the NAP. However, the NAP is a fundamental principle, not the only one. There is also the principle of freedom of contract, the institution of reputation, public opinion, and traditions. In general, there are many different factors to which the NAP has no relation. If everything is reduced to the NAP, one can simply get lost in logical and legal constructions. It is not worth doing that.

From the point of view of the NAP, praising Putin to get money for a charity or a public organization is permissible. You are not attacking people to kill or rob them.

And then there is the reputational aspect: you convince people that the system currently in place in Russia is the only possible one, that the country is managed by a person leading it toward prosperity. If you do not believe this, but want to get money from it to implement a humanitarian mission, then judge yourself. You did not attack, kill, or rob. You wrote or spoke words that you will then reproduce in one way or another. People who have not seen you will judge you by these words. Will they want to accept help from a person who praises a system that sent them to the bottom of life? Everything stated in the question has no relation whatsoever to the prohibition of aggressive violence. If, in your opinion, you are lying and then performing good deeds to redeem your own guilt, then you are doing double work. If you believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the person who deserves to be exalted, while performing good deeds, then “blessed is he who believes,” and your conscience is clear. If this is how you earn money, then your judge is your conscience. In short: this has no relation to the NAP, based on its definition. But the NAP is the primary, not the only principle.

And yes, I would not use the techniques of a Baptist preacher to influence your opinion; that would be dishonest.


Readiness for ancap

1. What qualities does a person need to live in ancap? And to build it?
2. Given that full freedom will be provided — are there any customs or traditions that could more or less objectively negate such qualities in some perspective (and which should be avoided for practical reasons)? For some reason, as an illustration of this, Svetov’s favorite Amish, who reject technical progress and are quite isolated, come to mind.

Atomic Tram

It seems that in the dispute between Marx and McCloskey, you are on the girl’s side, and like her, you believe that having a certain technological framework is not enough to transition to a certain type of society, but a certain ideology is also needed. I also think this is the case; otherwise, my activity in instilling ancap values in people would be pointless.

I see two such key human qualities. First, a strive for freedom, otherwise where would anarchy come from? Second, a strive for wealth, otherwise where would capitalism come from?

Without the first, we easily get a classic pyramidal society where it is normal to be humiliated and to humiliate others — for the sake of grabbing a piece for oneself. Without the second, we will have an excess of conservatism, where anyone who achieves slightly more success than others would rather throw a party for the neighbors, where all the surplus is eaten up, than invest these funds to achieve even greater success in the future. Google what a potlatch is, and you will get a good illustration of what I mean.

And from here we smoothly transition to the second part of the question.

We have a society of people who value their freedom, strive for wealth, and therefore built an ancap around themselves, meaning a free market, which is then supposedly meant to resolve anything. What human quality, not contradicting the two basic ones for ancap, could gradually undermine them and lead to the destruction of a free market society?

Perhaps I can call such a quality oversensitivity. If a person is too bothered by too many things in other people, it will hinder cooperation. Yes, he may still be freedom-loving, yes, he may still strive for wealth, but he’s surrounded by such assholes! One person’s child tortures a cat; how can you buy groceries from him? Another has disgusting musical tastes, so he shouldn’t even hope for interior design. The third is a sexist; it’s a disgrace to even shit on the same hectare as him. And so the person begins to rush around, wondering where to run and where these wretched little humans will finally stop irritating him.

So ancap also cannot do without a certain healthy thick-skinnedness. The institution of reputation, so loved by ancaps, is the Trojan horse capable of “resolving” even the market!

Look what a cute institution!

From the perspective of AES, why does the “pump and dump” price manipulation scheme on exchanges not need to be regulated?

анонимный вопрос

I have already analyzed this topic in quite some detail, so it wasn’t even clear what else to add, but then I wrote a post about behavioral economics.

The “pump and dump” scheme exploits the bounded rationality of economic agents and, of course, information asymmetry—in short, those very “magic bullets” that government regulators love to cling to when they need a justification for regulations.

As long as such a scheme is practiced by private individuals on exchanges not affiliated with them, this is, firstly, behavior that is difficult to distinguish from honest trading, and, secondly, it does not guarantee profit, but carries risks just like any other trading strategy.

If an exchange is caught in such activities, it leads to a loss of volume—serious players prefer more serious platforms. For example, Bitfinex, a fairly old exchange by cryptocurrency standards, was suspected of manipulating the Bitcoin price by using the Tether stablecoin it issues, which may have had incomplete backing. As a result, the exchange that was once first or second in the world by volume has now slipped toward the end of the top ten, and a couple of new popular coins have appeared in the stablecoin market, which first and foremost underwent a full audit for one-hundred-percent dollar backing. Bitmain tried to manipulate the Bitcoin Cash price and almost went bankrupt because of it. Obviously, many are haunted by the laurels of George Soros, who successfully played against the British pound, but this is a bad topic for a long-term game.

The institution of reputation rules better than any regulators.

How will things stand with documents under ancap?

For example, a passport, a death certificate, and so on. Will they be issued, and if so, by which organization, and if not, what will replace them?

анонимный вопрос

Probably, if an IT specialist were to tell the history of mankind, the whole thing would boil down to who issued certificates to whom and how…

Any communications in a more or less complex society inevitably run into the problem of trust. Information is transferred from node to node via unsecured channels using an unknown number of intermediaries. Natasha Rostova, tripping while stepping out of a carriage, turns into Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol sitting on a branch after a chain of retellings. Lieutenant Kizhe appears out of nowhere. Orwell writes from Spain about how war reports are composed without any link to real events. Chinese generals use the corpses of their own peasants for reporting purposes because it is easier than winning battles against a real enemy. Russian FSB agents repeat the feats of Chinese generals. And all of this is called the Byzantine Generals’ Problem—which, as is not hard to guess, tells us that the Eastern Roman Empire also had some difficulties with data reliability.

The state solves the Byzantine Generals’ Problem by creating cross-verification procedures, duplicating communication channels, and similar measures. Nevertheless, we frequently encounter episodes where a migrant in the EU had fourteen identity documents and received benefits for each, or conversely, a Russian pensioner spent several months proving to the state that he had not died, as written in the documents, and was still entitled to his pension, or Petrov and Boshirov turn out to be Chepiga and Mishkin.

Fortunately, all the technical means to solve this problem under ancap are already available. In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto described a mechanism for solving the Byzantine Generals’ Problem through blockchain. A distributed public ledger stores unfalsifiable and indelible records thanks to the greed of miners and the suspicion of network node owners. And even earlier, asymmetric encryption made it possible to solve the specific problem of abandoning trusted intermediaries in data transmission, and now we communicate in secret chats, knowing that even Durov does not have the encryption keys, let alone Comrade Major.

With a competent approach, it is possible to ensure almost complete certainty that digital data will be preserved without distortion and will fall only into the hands of those to whom it is intended, while for everyone else, it will be nothing more than information junk. The trusted intermediary problem arises only at the stage of digitization. Yes, we can be sure that a document is certified by Alice’s signature, but we have no idea whether the signature has been compromised, whether Alice was under duress, and what kickback she received for her signature. So the problem of offline reputation will not go away even under ancap, but at least you will always know for sure that if Alice has certified a document with her signature, you can trust the document to the same extent that you trust Alice in general—both her competence and her ability not to fuck up her private key.

Perhaps the most well-known example of implementing passports and other documents associated by statists with the state, but without the state, is bitnation. States that look benevolently toward minarchism, such as Estonia, are already cooperating with the project, but any private company could do this with equal success.

In the photo: the most famous of the Byzantine generals and the most famous of the Byzantine emperors (the second one is just tagging along)

With a free market, there will be cheap courts too, and then will the phrase “to hell with it, it’s cheaper than suing” not work?

Clarifying question regarding the post about vigilantism under ancap

I mentioned an example where a person resorts to vigilantism: relatively small damage was caused to them, the other party refused to compensate immediately, and instead of seeking formal compensation, the person simply causes proportional damage, and the opposing party accepts this, believing it would be cheaper than going to court. You object: that in a free competitive market, it will always be possible to find a reasonably affordable court, meaning the argument that swallowing the offense is cheaper than litigating will prove invalid.

In the case of a restaurant display window that I broke, it is true that the restaurant manager requires minimal effort: one call to the insurance company. Then an insurance agent arrives, records the damage, reviews the camera footage, processes the insurance payout, and then searches for me via the video recording and files a lawsuit, while the restaurant is seemingly no longer involved.

The problem is that while I will, of course, pay the insurance claim without question, I will subsequently create such a stink about the restaurant that they will regret it. These people dared not accept the verdict of my court, meaning they still believe they were right to overcharge and be rude to me; well, that is a very compelling reason to trample their reputation. They have nowhere to run—it is a stationary establishment where visitors go to spend time comfortably, and there are countless ways to ensure the restaurant’s clients experience discomfort. And the restaurant management does not want such problems, so if they can calculate such situations even one step ahead, they would prefer to replace the glass at their own expense without contacting insurance and apply sanctions to the waiter who was rude to me.

That is how my broken windows theory turned out.

Continuation of the discussion about reputation

Bitarch replies:

You wrote a review of my reputation proposal, but it seems you didn’t understand the exact essence of the idea. You write:

As for the system you proposed, people will be willing to take its recommendations into account only if, for some reason, it becomes very important to them that a person, for the sake of increasing their reputation, be willing to contribute to charity.

The main goal of the system is not to show one’s generosity to others, but to create a mechanism for the value of a reputational entity, which will then be a pity to lose. Game theory comes into play, making deceiving other people economically disadvantageous. The original idea was proposed by the developers of the OpenBazaar project; I modified it for application in real society.

Reputation Pledges
OpenBazaar implements proof-of-burn in a different way. On the OpenBazaar network, users can choose to be pseudonymous, meaning you don’t know their true identity. As such, it can sometimes be difficult to determine if they are trustworthy or should be avoided. A reputation system is important to help inform the network of which participants have acted honestly in the past, and which haven’t. There are several facets to the OpenBazaar reputation system, which is still being built, and you can read about the overall system here. One part of this system is Reputation Pledges. This means that a user has chosen to prove their commitment to their OpenBazaar identity by burning a certain amount of bitcoin. The act of burning coins shows the network that the user is committed to their identity because they’ve now expended resources on it, and if they incur a negative reputation then those resources will have gone to waste.


https://openbazaar.org/blog/proof-of-burn-and-reputation-pledges

Indeed, that’s roughly how reputation works. “No one remembers McFlurry the bridge builder! But once I fucked a goat…”

Thank you for the clarification that charity in the proposed engine is not that important, the main thing is the willingness itself to confirm one’s reliability through the expenditure of resources. This could indeed prove important for an outsider to gain traction on a particular trading platform. They could spend money on advertising, or instead, or in addition, spend it on boosting their karma, and this would also perfectly demonstrate their willingness to play fair.

But I thought it important to note that it is pointless to try and stretch any such mechanisms to fit all cases in life. A person can be honest and respectable, like Alexei Karenin, but his wife will still throw herself under a train because in her eyes, he is an inhuman machine.

— I don’t understand why you hate me so much? What have I done wrong to you?
— Fuck a goat, Onegin!

Reputation under ancap, part 2

Yesterday I published a model of a reputation engine for ancap that was submitted to me for review, and today I will tell you what I think about it

I will start, as usual, with a definition. Reputation is the conclusion drawn by a potential counterparty regarding a certain subject and the prospects of interacting with them, based on the full extent of their knowledge about that subject. Thus, reputation is not a property of the subject. My reputation in the eyes of socialism-chan and my reputation in the eyes of minarchism-chan are two completely different reputations, and the difference between them is no less than the difference between the concepts of “execution” and “a fine”.

Many have heard about the Chinese social credit system. The state collects a vast amount of the most diverse data about a citizen, then using an incredibly complex and opaque algorithm, it puts two and two together and concludes how reliable this citizen appears to be to the state. The higher the rating, the more freedoms it is willing to grant the citizen; the lower it is, the more it restricts them. The goal of this entire system is social engineering—the cultivation of the perfect human of the future. I don’t know if market offers for “boosting” ratings have appeared yet, but if not, they simply must appear soon.

Everyone knows about the Russian Unified State Exam (USE) system. The state forces schoolchildren to take a test of monstrous proportions, and then forces universities to admit applicants based on a single criterion: the result of this test. I don’t need to tell you what phenomenal results are demonstrated in this test by natives of certain national republics.

Examples can be multiplied, but I think it is already clear that the forceful imposition of one’s own assessments of someone’s reputation on others is not the true Tao. It’s not even about the fact that such systems will be attempted to be cheated, but about the coercion itself. In ancap, however, any system that collects certain data about people and derives assessments from it can be implemented only if people voluntarily begin to use that system.

How do I envision a near-ideal reputation system? Something like this:
— Siri, look at the proposal from Bitarch; can this guy be trusted?
— I have performed an express analysis of the proposal itself and what is available about Bitarch in open sources. Based on your previous preferences, Ancap-sama, the probability that you will trust him is 85%. The probability that he will betray your trust should cooperation begin is 7%. You specified a trust threshold of 80%; may I respond to him affirmatively, or would you like to review the details?
— Give me the details.
— Hi!

Of course, just as people try to get the maximum score on the USE or the maximum social rating in China, they will want to optimize their requests for the reputation assessment system I use—in this example, Siri. But they will strive to earn my trust in the same way now, when a lot of data has to be collected manually.

The more routine I want to remove from my life, the more typical decisions will be entrusted to my virtual consigliere. But first, one way or another, I will have to train this neural network on my preferences; otherwise, the result is unlikely to consistently please me.

Siri, scratch my back, please!

As for the system you proposed, people will be willing to take its recommendations into account only if it somehow becomes very important to them that a person, for the sake of increasing their reputation, be willing to contribute to charity. I doubt such a quality would concern me if, for example, I am looking for a one-night stand or choosing a model of hiking boots. But if I need to find a home for a litter of homeless kittens, then that’s a different story.

Reputation under ancap

Bitarch (topic disclosure paid in the amount of 0.005btc)

Today I have an unusual format. In essence, this is not about answering a question, but a review of a full, detailed proposal. Therefore, I would like to split the topic into two posts. Today’s post will outline the proposal itself, and in tomorrow’s, I would like to provide a detailed overview of the topic of reputation and the construction of reputation systems. Discussion in the comments is highly welcome.

As we all understand, under ancap, the institution of reputation will play a significant role. Imagine that a person is not yet well-known in the community or wants to atone for their past “sins” by creating or restoring a reputation. There is an organization or a blockchain project to which this person can make a donation and receive in return an ID with reputation points. They can show this to other people when conducting transactions to increase trust. If they cheat, the victim can file a complaint with this system, and the fraudster will lose the reputation points for which they previously made a donation (more precisely, their ID with negative reviews will be useless for concluding deals in the future). To exclude fraud on the part of the victim, the reputation service may also require them to make a donation of a similar amount (and they will also make their own reputation ID useless if they lie and are caught). The result is a reputation system in which it is not profitable for the parties to deceive each other from the perspective of game theory. The donations received can be directed toward funding public goods (schools, hospitals, roads, science, ecology, etc.), simultaneously finally dismantling the main argument of statists against libertarians: “If a person has no insurance and no friends, who will take care of them in old age, provide medical treatment, free education for children, and so on?”.

How do you evaluate this system?

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream