Тег: Statism

Can you give recommendations for psychological help for unhappy libertarians suffering from statism?

And if possible, please provide contacts for verified psychologists who work with this topic.

Nihilist (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.0005 ₿)

In my book about ancap, there are two chapters on this topic: Problems Within Us and, accordingly, Eliminating Problems Within Oneself. In short: from early childhood, our lives being completely dependent on our parents leads to paternalism being something familiar and natural to us, while the drive for freedom, the readiness to take full responsibility for one’s life, and other libertarian things manifest gradually, not in everyone, and not fully. The state exploits this vulnerability, giving rise to statism, which is a form of abusive relationship. This means that statism within oneself must be reflected upon, worked through, and one must learn to outgrow this childhood trauma. And that is exactly when the author of the question knocks on my door, asking for recommendations on this matter, as if I were a verified psychologist and not an armchair theorist.

And I have great news for you. I am not a psychologist, but the market is full of psychologists. Among them (I should mention right away that I have no firm confidence in this precisely because I am not a psychologist and have never used their services) there are not only charlatans but also true professionals of their craft. And if you give them a task, even one that sounds quite unusual to them, they might, of course, bail and go into denial, like DeepSeek when asked about what happened in Tiananmen Square, or they might actually start doing their job.

So, here is my recommendation for psychological help for those suffering from the statism of their own brain. Go to a psychologist and present the problem: “I cannot seem to get out of an abusive relationship. The abuser uses me at their discretion, imposes rules on me that constantly change, and refuses any firm commitments. I owe them simply by virtue of being born, but they owe me nothing. They demand love from me and constantly belittle me in petty ways. They take my money and constantly instill the idea that I cannot survive without them. And while I logically understand that I need to run away from this monster, I truly struggle to imagine life without them. Help me get out of this dependency.”

Then, once the psychologist states that they are ready to handle a task of this sort, all that remains is to add that this abuser is the state. At this point, the psychologist will likely experience a slight freeze, but then there is a chance that, having already begun to think about the object of dependency in their professional terms while describing the task, they will by inertia begin to think of the state in the same way. And that is exactly what we want! They will get a truly interesting problem, you will get professional help, and the state will lose two statists: you and the psychologist. Moreover, after this, you will be able to recommend them to others suffering from statism—and then the second part of your question will also be answered.

Why haven’t libertarians been herded into concentration camps and burned to fucking death yet?

Nikolai von Neuburg on the Volga

To this short, joking question, I have a short, joking answer: we tried, it doesn’t help.

Now, slightly more seriously and in more detail. Under socialist regimes, systemic violence against any entrepreneurial activity is practiced, but this usually manifests as the suppression of any personal initiative—since personal initiative is usually aimed at personal gain, which is too easily interpreted as entrepreneurial activity. The result, naturally, is the degradation of the society under the rule of any such regime, the gradual loss of active support for the regime, and ultimately the transformation of the regime into something freer. Indeed, where would active support come from for a regime that suppresses personal initiative? The further it goes, the more the support for the regime will be coerced, and that is a rather fragile state.

Alas, when such a regime collapses from its own inefficiency and lack of active support, it leaves behind an apathetic society of people with a suppressed sense of self-worth, but who are excellent at envy, undermining others, and pulling back anyone who stands out. Such a society is easy prey for any political regime. If lucky, a more or less libertarian one. Usually, of course, there is no such luck, and the new regime turns out to be only slightly less dismal trash than the old one.

What further complicates the task for connoisseurs of class purity who want to send all libertarians to a concentration camp for subsequent incineration is that libertarians are usually slightly more proactive, and tend to establish their own libertarian concentration camp, relocate there, and flip the bird from there to all those who for some reason dream of burning them. In my concentration camp, Montelibero, there are of course not as many libertarians yet as in the Free State Project concentration camp, but they have also settled in quite well. The summer sun, of course, is trying to burn us to hell, but some find refuge in air conditioning, some in swimming, and some actually like it. As they say, Jedem das Seine, which translated into Montenegrin means Jedem čevap, a ti jedeš nacionalni ponos.

By the way, if you are a Russian libertarian and prefer to eat ćevapi rather than national pride, then a relocation assistance offer to our concentration camp has recently appeared specifically for you. Take advantage of it before you are locked in an RF concentration camp.

What every supporter of the security forces must understand

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The existence of compulsory coercive power in society is most often justified by the need to solve certain tasks using violent methods. At the same time, it is assumed that people will still possess some freedoms and rights to a significant extent. I am sure that the etatists themselves—supporters of coercive power—want to have freedoms and rights, and want to be treated as individuals and be taken into account. It is unlikely that anyone, even among representatives of rigid etatist views, would want to turn into a willless slave or state property, whose entire life is strictly controlled without being given any freedoms.

Of course, etatists make a great mistake in counting on the fact that coercive power will treat them with respect, will take them into account, and will somehow limit itself. The coronavirus pandemic clearly showed how the world’s top-ranked democracies, such as Australia and Canada, can almost instantaneously turn into authoritarian regimes, and authoritarian China can turn into a brutal dictatorship where people are treated precisely as state property, livestock, and expendable material. History also contains many cases where governments, even those quite democratic and liberal in their orders, deliberately neglected the freedoms and rights of people, or even persecuted and killed ordinary citizens.

Any etatist, even one adhering to the concept of a minimal coercive state, must renounce the recognition of any freedoms and rights for themselves in order to be consistent in their position. At any moment, any coercive power can do whatever it wants with a person. It cannot be limited solely to the performance of some specific tasks. If it has at its disposal agents capable of committing murder to fulfill one specific task, it means they can do so for any purpose whatsoever. A stationary bandit only needs a pretext or a reason to give the corresponding order. Does anyone disagree that this is exactly how it works?

Continuing to hold etatist views, a person must admit that within the framework of their preferred system, they will be treated as state property, livestock, and expendable material. Coercive power can neglect any person, or even deliberately sacrifice them. It may, of course, stand up for the protection of ordinary people, but only in cases when it is profitable to do so. And if it suddenly becomes profitable to neglect or sacrifice people, that is exactly what will happen.

Even direct democracy will not save them, where in theory the majority can still “dispose of” the minority, and in practice, this can be done unilaterally by a very small number of executors of the democratic will. For example, this will be done by some coercive structures, whose direct employees and managers will, of course, never be the majority. Nothing will prevent such a body from committing any act of violence, unless the citizens themselves are massively armed and ready to defend against encroachments on their lives.

If someone considers themselves an individual, wishes to possess freedoms, rights, and choice, then they categorically should not adhere to even minimal etatist views. Otherwise, their position will be absolutely inconsistent.

What matters is not what people strive for, but how they do it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The fundamental difference between the idea of a free society and any statist ideology is not which specific model of social organization their proponents strive for, but the methods they use to realize these aspirations. If the difference consisted only of end goals, there would be no fundamental difference at all. Indeed, any model of socio-economic organization and system of relationships between subjects can be implemented in a free society based on the principle of non-violence, voluntary agreements, and within the framework of free associations. In contrast, political ideologies always propose one specific social model that must be mandatorily implemented for all people, including through violent coercion.

When people encounter an idea of social organization that is unfamiliar to them, they almost always start asking questions such as “how will such-and-such a problem be solved within the framework of this idea.” Such an approach to understanding ideas is not surprising, as most of them offer a specific and single solution for everyone. People are used to the idea that a universal goal must be chosen, mandatory for everyone under threat of violence. However, if one tries to explain the ideas of freedom within these boundaries, it will likely fail—the listener will evaluate your answer based on their own preferences and conceptions of possible solutions, which may not coincide with your positions at all. Obviously, in their eyes, this will make the ideas of freedom appear unattractive, or even completely untenable.

Of course, modeling possible solutions is important, and the resulting answer can still serve as a convincing argument; however, it cannot be anything more than a supplement to the main argumentation. And the main argumentation itself must show people what was mentioned in the previous paragraph—that a specific and mandatory solution does not exist!

But how, then, will a particular problem be solved? Very simply—in the way the person themselves wants, based on their own preferences and views. In whatever way each person approaches the solution to their problems, that is how they will be solved. As for questions and problems common to many people, they will be solved based on how people agree to solve them. Each person can unite in associations with other people to create their own social order, which extends to the members of that association.

Therefore, it is necessary to ask the listener how they themselves would solve a particular problem if the ability to make the decision were in their own hands, and if the implementation extended to those who have corresponding agreements with them or participate in the same association. Their answer to your question will also be an answer to their own question. Only in this way can the idea of a free society be explained most accurately and attractively. Only then can it be conveyed that it consists of a method—freedom of activity, agreement, and association, as well as non-violent coexistence—while the goals themselves can be completely different.

Of course, this will not sound convincing to those who unconditionally believe that the realization of their personal aspirations, or the aspirations of some association sharing their views, requires the violent coercion of other people to accept their ideals. In such a situation, it is likely necessary to use arguments demonstrating the negative externalities of violence and discrediting it as a phenomenon as a whole. But if even this does not sound convincing, then all that remains is to end the conversation. After all, explaining something to people who have strong violent convictions (or even tendencies toward committing violence) is simply pointless; they can only be pressured by condemnation, ostracism, and various sanctions, and one should prepare to defend oneself from them, for they will seek to force you into submission by power at the first opportunity.

The Gilded Age in the USA and Its Crises

Alright, I admit, the Fed messed up. Let’s assume the Federal Reserve really did inflate financial bubbles during the war and even after, which led to the depression of 1930-39. But what about the panics of 1873 (and subsequently the long depression of 1873-79), the devastating 1893 and the prolonged depression until 1896, and the short-term 1908. There wasn’t even a hint of a Fed back then.

Moreover, I am placing more emphasis on the depression of 1893, as it was the most terrifying in scale and damage (surpassed perhaps only by the Great one). The unemployment rate reached 17-19% at its peak! And all this happened during the administration of Grover Cleveland, who is considered the most libertarian US president. He was for: low taxes and non-interference in the economy. And against: high tariffs (which were simply enormous at the time!), business subsidies, pensions and material aid to victims (for example, he refused to allocate $100,000 to farmers in Texas affected by crop failure in 1887). And he gave a f… that is, he vetoed unconstitutional (as he believed) laws that Congress wanted to push through. By the way, what do you think of him?

An anal magician

And once again, Pavel Usanov comes to my aid in answering the question. Last time, I referred to his 2014 preprint The Great Depression and the New Deal — Lessons for Today. This time, I will refer to a more recent 2018 preprint The Gilded Age and the Progressive Era in the USA: Lessons for Today. Here, by the way, is a video in which he gives a report on this topic:

And as the older brother who explains everything in much more detail, but whom few will read, this time we have the book by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. I will be taking illustrations from there.

The Crisis of 1873-1879

We see that during this time, the decline in business activity was accompanied by a decrease in the money supply, a drop in prices and — attention! — an increase in real income. In other words, production grew at a frantic pace — and this despite deflation (the reasons for deflation are well known: the US was returning to full convertibility of dollars into gold after issuing a huge number of unsecured greenbacks during the Civil War years). Thus, deflation does not necessarily lead to a slowdown in production. In general, calling this period a depression is somehow strange; rather, it was simply a structural reorganization of the economy under conditions of rapid economic growth and a decrease in the money supply. In the twenties of the 20th century, there was also frantic economic growth — but it was accompanied by the inflation of the money supply, which I wrote about when answering the question about the Great Depression.

The Crisis of 1893-1896

The crisis was preceded by a significant increase in the money supply, from 210 to 308 million dollars in Treasury accounts over the period from 1879 to 1888. This was due to the growing number of supporters of “soft money”: the return of greenbacks, i.e., unsecured treasury notes, or the unlimited issuance of silver dollars (it was precisely at this time that silver began to depreciate sharply because its mining rates increased). Meanwhile, the bimetallic standard assumed a fixed ratio between the price of gold and silver. Anyone interested can read about what arbitrage opportunities this hides in popular form in chapter four of the fanfiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. What happens when the state persists in maintaining the bimetallic standard can also be read in Saifedean Ammous’s The Bitcoin Standard, which summarizes the experience not only of the USA, but also, for example, the Chinese Empire.

Add to this that, although the USA did not yet have the Fed at that time, there was unregulated banknote emission by approximately 8,000 banks under conditions of fractional reserve. Therefore, once all these factors of monetary expansion had worked for long enough, any shift in market conditions was sufficient to trigger a banking panic. This happened in 1893. Under fractional reserve conditions, this inevitably meant the bankruptcy of many banks. The money supply shrank sharply, followed by a decrease in the volume of investments.

At the same time, although unemployment grew to significant levels and incomes fell at the peak of the crisis, the market adjusted very quickly to the new conditions, and soon it fell again. So here too, we see a trend: the crisis passes quickly if the state does not twitch and does not try to cure it with regulation. The illustration shows a classic V-shaped crisis structure: a rapid decline, a rapid recovery. Real income recovered to pre-crisis levels as early as 1895.

The Crisis of 1908

The same thing: credit expansion (the money supply grew from 261 million dollars in 1897 to 339 million dollars in 1906), a banking panic, the V-shaped nature of the crisis, and just over a year to recover to pre-crisis indicators.

Grover Cleveland (President in 1885-1889 and 1893-1897)

As is easy to see from the dates of the presidency, the crisis of 1893 could not possibly be Cleveland’s fault, because he had only just taken over from his Republican predecessor, Benjamin Harrison. Thus, he should rather be credited with the rapid exit from the crisis, and the record number of vetoes he placed on bills passed by Congress contributed exactly to this: he prevented the inflation of government spending (Warren Harding reacted to the crisis of 1921 in exactly the same way later — and with the same success), advocated for the reduction of tariffs, killed a bill on the emission of additional silver dollars, and solved the problem of the Treasury’s gold reserve by attracting private capital — a syndicate of several financiers simply bought up a sufficient number of bonds.

Cleveland turned out to be the only president in US history who managed to serve two non-consecutive terms — and this characterizes the intensity of the passions that prevailed at the time around the question of what is more beneficial: Laissez Faire or economic regulation. Unfortunately, Cleveland’s fight against the growth of statism ended up being lost: while under him the Democratic Party, in contrast to the Republican, remained practically libertarian, later the Democrats were consumed by the merging supporters of Mikhail Svetov the Populist party, and since then, instead of a choice between freedom and statism, US citizens choose between a giant enema and a shit sandwich.

Arguments for Well-Meaning Etatists

I often have to use a phrase like this in arguments with impenetrable estatists:

“By supporting the state, you are initiating violence, including against me, therefore the Doctrine of Deterrence (DD) will be applied to you until you stop!”

Could you write a post on this topic, arguing why this is exactly the case?

Bitarch

Allow me two quotes. The first is from the movie “Brother 2”: “Strength is in truth”. The second is from Mikhail Svetov: “You can be a thousand times right, but what’s the point if you are powerless?”

At the same time, the character who uttered the first tirade preferred to assert his truth through the use of force, while the author of the second statement limits himself exclusively to conveying his truth to people in verbal form. Both, despite the apparent contradiction between word and deed, succeeded in their endeavors.

What is this supposed to tell us? That—and here I will bring in a third quote, whose author is traditionally Al Capone: “You can achieve much more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone”.

Now then. When you threaten an estatist with the doctrine of deterrence, you are essentially saying to him: “dude, I have a gun, therefore I am right.” Meanwhile, he is convinced that strength is in truth, and the truth is that he personally did not initiate aggression against you, but merely verbally supported the state. In other words, you are threatening a person with retribution for words, and with rather vague claims at that, since anything can be declared as support for the state. For instance, many Ukrainians accuse Russians of supporting Russian aggression in Ukraine simply by the fact of Russian citizenship (and the incorrect use of prepositions, of course).

As a result, the estatist gets tense and looks for a way to deal with you, for example, through the state. And, I suspect, it will be especially frustrating for you if he manages to find a way to deal with you, but you cannot do the same to him. In other words, not only did you threaten a person with a gun, but it was a gun you didn’t even have. And here I will allow myself a fourth quote, a quite insulting one, from a character in the comedy “Spizdili”: “Just as a brainless dick should—you don’t understand the situation, and now you’re starting to shrink, and your little balls are starting to shrink along with you—and that’s because on the side of your gun it says—TOY, and on the side of my gun it says DESERT EAGLE .50”.

In order for an estatist, if not to side with you, to at least recognize your right to criticize the state, you first need to demonstrate exactly how it has wronged you. Moreover, complaints in the vein of “I may be evading taxes, but VAT is still included in the price of some goods I buy” are, of course, unconvincing to him. Similarly, pointing out that your grandfather was shot under Stalin will only serve as a supporting argument: first, it didn’t happen to you, but to a person you didn’t even know personally, and second, one can always claim it was a different state. The ideal approach would be to find a story where the state infringed specifically upon your rights, and did so lawlessly, in violation of its own laws, and where no truth could be found through other state agencies. “I was picked up at an unauthorized rally and had my leg broken”—again, this fits poorly unless you are Konstantin Konovalov—for him, this is a perfect case: he had nothing to do with the action, was detained three hours before it began in violation of the police law, suffered bodily injuries—and to top it all off, the court fined him. If you can find something equally convincing, the estatist’s sympathies will, of course, be on your side. To start with, it is important for you to demonstrate that the state is not just a bandit, but a lawless bandit who does not play by the rules.

Next, it would be a good idea to say something like “you understand it all perfectly yourself, I’m sure similar shit has happened to you too,” and let him tell something from his own experience. In Russia, it is customary to play the victim and complain about life, so the interlocutor will likely feel awkward if it turns out that the state’s boot overlooked him, and he will either make something up, or remember something that happened to acquaintances or leaked into the press.

And only then does it make sense to lead the interlocutor to the thought that if a bandit does not play by the rules, then what right does he have to demand that people treat him according to the rules. Therefore, hiding money from him is a virtue, and helping others who have been crushed lawlessly is a good cause, and those who support these thugs are shameful bastards.

And for dessert, you can savor stories about how people are fined for improving their own neighborhoods, how punks repair playgrounds, how the founder of Vimpelcom funded science only to be declared a foreign agent—in short, lead the former estatist to the thought that state people only know how to cut ribbons, while in fact, people provide all the benefits for themselves, and are even forced to bypass the traps set by those very state people.

There are no impenetrable estatists. At least not in Russia.

In amperes, brother

“The Ten Plagues of Egypt” as an Example of Deterrence Doctrine

Bitarch’s Column

One may have different views on the truthfulness of the stories described in the Bible, but that does not negate their philosophical meaning. A rather interesting idea was described in the Book of Exodus, known as the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In essence, it describes the idea of applying a strategy known today as “deterrence by punishment” or the deterrence doctrine (DD), two millennia before the research of the RAND Corporation in the mid-20th century.

This biblical plot, in modern terms, describes a struggle for the right of a specific minority group to secede from a state. For those who have not read the Bible or no longer remember the details, let us recall its essence. In Ancient Egypt, the Jews were in a state of slavery; the Pharaoh categorically refused to let them go. Moses, the leader of the Jewish community, threatened the Pharaoh with misfortunes for himself and his subjects until he agreed to release the Jews. These misfortunes (“the Egyptian plagues”) became increasingly severe each time—from the completely harmless reddening of the Nile’s water and the plague of frogs to the death of the firstborn children of the Pharaoh and his subjects. Nine times the Pharaoh refused to release the Jews; on the tenth, he let them go.

Thus, the Pharaoh continuously initiated aggression against the Jews by keeping them in slavery. The costs of keeping them were minimal, and the profit was enormous. After Moses began the “deterrence campaign,” the Pharaoh’s costs gradually increased (accordingly, the profit and moral satisfaction from keeping the Jews began to decrease). At a certain point, the cost of retention exceeded the total profit from their retention, and the Pharaoh gave up.

How can this be applied to modern times? Very simply—consider all supporters of etatism to be your enemies, who constantly initiate aggression against us through the institution of the state. Constantly increase the costs of initiating violence until the benefit from a salary, social status, or moral satisfaction becomes less than the damage that will be inflicted upon them.

Is someone calling to beat opposition members with chains? Their photo, name, and address appear in the public domain, and such a person’s peaceful life comes to an end. Do old women from Putin’s squads barge into your office? You have every right to use at least pepper spray against them (although, of course, it would be safer to hold a security license and a contract with Navalny’s headquarters, where these women are barging in). Do teachers at school call you a fifth column and enemies of the people? Their photos appear in hallways, the lock on the front door somehow strangely jams, you have to buy solvents to clean the door and walls, wake up to snowballs hitting the window, and so on.

Of course, this is not enough, for Moses not only asked the Lord to send plagues but also exhorted the Pharaoh. So, one must not only express their “fuck you” to the supporters of the state but also explain the desired alternative and encourage repentance; otherwise, the sent plagues will be seen by them as meaningless harassment, and this will only harden them or drive them into the depths of apathy.

Anarchy, panarchy and etatism

John Zube (John Zube), 1986

Summary by Aegis Mirijam

The full English text is taken from the website panarchy.org – the largest library of texts on panarchy.

Anarchy and Panarchy are not two opposing forms of social organization. In fact, Panarchy is primarily a method of solving the problems of social organization, and through these methods, anarchy, as well as statism or communism, or any possible social model, can be realized and implemented by those who share the idea.

Panarchists call for freedom of action for statists, as well as for all others. Everyone could have the regime and conditions they chose; in that case, they would no longer need to fear or fight one another. No more forced “marriages” with any government, army, trade union, or school. Every individual should be free to secede from any of them by making a unilateral declaration and to join or establish any alternatives they may like, always at their own expense and risk.

Panarchism is nothing other than the freedom of disconnection and connection, consistently applied in spheres where it has not yet been realized, namely in political, economic, and social relations.

Libertarians say: Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government have government; but let those who believe in freedom have freedom and do not force them to accept a religion or government they do not want.

Charles T. Spreading

Anarchists should not threaten their faith with destruction, but they may try to convey it to them through their words or their own joint and competing examples of living.

There is no difference between consistent libertarianism and anarchism. Their common foundation is voluntarism, self-reliance, natural rights and freedoms, individual sovereignty, and free choice. It is only a matter of consumer sovereignty in relation to so-called “government services.”

Full suffrage includes the right to vote for oneself outside of any compulsory political, economic, and social system and in any system that corresponds to one’s own individual choice or invention, and to have, in addition, all other electoral powers you wish to have — but only among like-minded volunteers.

The opposition of party politics to party power does not require the opposition of political, economic, social, and military policy to individual separatism, but rather requires such consistent opposition to territorial statism and extraterritorial autonomy. Only complete extraterritorial autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice, and freedom for all.

Panarchism proposes providing the possibility of conscientious objection to military service, compulsory taxation, trade unions, school attendance, and other specific compulsory practices, but also an overarching objection against all compulsory, exclusive, territorial, political, economic, and social systems, institutions, and practices. The practice of panarchism implies individual secessionism and personal or non-territorial legal organization on a voluntary basis, regardless of whether the secessionists and voluntary partners are anarchists or statists.

Panarchists will also be mistaken and repeat mistakes. But they will do so with a decisive difference:

Their mistakes will be made only at their own expense, not at the expense of politicians, bureaucrats, and ruling parties, largely at the expense of other people, even dissenters.

Panarchy also relies on the full recognition of all individual rights — to the extent that they are known, publicized, and understood. Since individual rights offer only options or spheres of free action, no matter how natural they may be for fully adult and enlightened people, they do not obligate people to use them to the full extent.

The goals and means of panarchists could be summarized with statements such as: statism for statists, anarchy for anarchists, free trade for traders, protectionism for protectionists, non-violence for pacifists, defensive force for those who see its justification against initiated aggression, capitalism among consenting adults, and any type of socialism for those who desire it for themselves.

Panarchy, once realized, will give anarchists the opportunity to enjoy anarchic relations with each other, right here and now, without interference from statists. Moreover, once anarchists accept panarchist tolerance, they will have a common platform with statists and all other minority groups who wish to maintain or implement various ideals among themselves, following panarchy.