Тег: Safety

Indefinite Protest, Part 2

The main problem with this type of campaign is that it usually doesn’t articulate what goal is intended to be achieved, what means should be used, what means must under no circumstances be used, and how the available means can be used to achieve the stated goal.

What follows are purely theoretical reflections on what kind of long-term campaign could be effective.

  1. Several goals of different scales are set, the implementation of which is possible simultaneously or quite quickly. For example, the goal “resignation of the government” passes the criterion, while “abolishing corruption in Russia” does not. The simplest and most achievable goal is published, and it is announced that its achievement is the condition for ending the campaign. If the goal is not achieved, but the campaign has gained sufficient momentum in the opinion of the organizers, the next goal is published; thus, as the number of participants in the campaign grows, the stakes are raised, and this increases the probability that after some time the authorities will agree to fulfill a demand that was stated among the first, even though the protesters’ demands have since moved far forward.
  2. The means that will be used by the protesters and the means that will not be used are determined. For example, it is stated that roads will be blocked, entrances to government institutions will be blocked, government request-reception services will be DDoS-ed, leaflets will be pasted, graffiti will be drawn, and other non-violent actions relatively safe for those performing them will be carried out. It is also stipulated that protest participants will avoid at all costs: direct clashes with the police, destruction of private property, and violence against citizens. If someone practices such things, they are a provocateur and have nothing to do with the protest; we will not hand them over to the police, of course, but we will try to discourage them.
  3. An open invitation is published for those wishing to join the protest in other cities—with their own goals, but with a commonality of methods. Thus, in one city, one can start with demands for the immediate termination of administrative cases regarding the September 9 rally, while in another, one can immediately demand that United Russia deputies officially representing that region in the Duma vote against the pension reform bill in the second reading. It is important that in each city, the demand relates specifically to things that can be done in that particular city. Even if a deputy lives in France but was elected from here—demanding a press conference in the district from which he was elected, with a promise to vote against the reform, is a completely feasible thing for the residents of that city.
  4. Unlike rallies, in such campaigns there is no point in complying with government requirements regarding de-anonymization—on the contrary, any means of disguise are quite appropriate, as long as they do not hinder escaping from the police. It is important for every participant in such campaigns to be able to join at any moment and leave at any moment without risking anything. The whole point of such methods is to bear minimal costs themselves, but force the state to bear disproportionately larger costs.
  5. But, besides those who will disrupt state activities on the streets, respectable politicians are also needed who, without personally making any hint of anything illegal, will publicly grumble: look, this is what you’ve brought these miserable people to; you’re lucky their protest is completely peaceful, don’t push them to sin, make concessions, and then the people will calm down, do you really want it to be like in Ukraine? The work of such people is also extremely important; there is no need to label them as collaborators and the like—they help the authorities find a justification for themselves to make an unusual effort and bend to society.
  6. And after the success of the campaign, it would not hurt to loudly announce the victory, enter a memorable date into the annals, and celebrate it regularly, with a clear message: we can do it again.
we are in misery, but in Yerevan it’s a holiday

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

That guy wants to create a nuclear bomb under libertarianism (since no one will forbid him from creating it or buying materials for it) and blow it up, how to avoid this scenario?

anonymous question

In the previous post, the question was phrased ambiguously, and it seems the author has clarified it, so now the answer will be slightly about something else.

It’s quite funny, but as far as nuclear bombs are concerned, all libertarian principles are working right now.

In the realm of relations between states, there is de facto anarchy; law is decentralized, governed by the willingness to bear the costs of certain actions, the institution of reputation, and other concepts dear to the ancap heart. When libertarianism is fully implemented in human society, the mechanisms will remain exactly the same, only instead of states, there will be other legal entities, without a territorial monopoly on aggressive violence. They will be equally able to negotiate among themselves on the transfer of technologies and materials, on mutual control measures, on measures to limit access to the nuclear club, on sanctions for violating the non-proliferation regime, on the ban on detonating bombs wherever they please—and similar things we are well acquainted with from media headlines.
If even such ferocious thugs (from the perspective of their relationship with the law) as states manage not to detonate bombs in populated areas because they are constantly staring each other down, then under libertarianism, on average far more sane legal entities will be able to reach effective agreements among themselves.

Again, a nuclear bomb is an effective means of inflicting damage on a large territory, and under ancap, large territorial jurisdictions are extremely unlikely; most likely, they will be contractual, or even arise situationally for each specific legal conflict.

That is, the point of the combat use of nuclear weapons will be near zero; only the scientific and entertainment value will remain. Yes, those very recreational nukes. In deep space—why not.

boom!