Тег: Strategy

Minarchists are wasting their time

Bitarch’s Column

In Western Europe, especially in German-speaking countries, minarchist (classical-liberal) parties have existed for many years. The ideology of the LPR and, in particular, Mikhail Svetov, is very similar to the ideas of the Swiss FDP.Die Liberalen, which is not surprising, as he praises Switzerland in almost every lecture as the country closest to libertarianism.

In reality, he only provides facts taken out of context, omitting the prevalence of ever-increasing regulation and taxes that are not symbolic at all. This is not surprising—the influence of FDP.Die Liberalen on Swiss politics is not that great, and in recent years it has garnered only slightly more than 15% of the votes in parliament. Compared to other countries, in many of which minarchist parties are not represented in parliament at all, this is a decent result. But to build a libertarian society through election victories, this is completely insufficient. A similar picture exists in Germany—the results of the local FDP are even slightly more modest than the Swiss ones, remaining at around 10% for many decades.

Evaluating the prospects of the LPR in Russia, it is worth noting that in our society, the ideas of minarchism are even more marginal than in Europe. This party is unlikely to even enter the State Duma, let alone have any significant influence on state policy. Minarchists in Europe failed to achieve this over decades of active political struggle, and it is completely foolish to hope that it will be different in the RF.

To promote libertarianism, the path of party struggle clearly cannot be the only one. Hoping for a gradual transition to a free society through minarchism is also meaningless. In my opinion, a more realistic approach is to educate people with the ideas of a free society and the model of extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (ECJ) as a transitional model to a free society with a full NAP.

There is an LPR cell in Novosibirsk. I got the impression that you used to have common interests with them, and then you distanced yourself slightly.

The explanation “so that the tyan’s opinion isn’t confused with the party’s official position” isn’t very clear to me. A tyan is a tyan, a party is a party, who would confuse the two? Can you break it down for me, like I’m an idiot, what the reason is?

John Griffith (response paid in the amount of 0.0025 BTC)

I have already answered once briefly about my understanding of the inner workings of the LPR. By design, a party is an organization engaged in organizing the political struggle for seats in government bodies. Those who join the party solely because of their libertarian views feel somewhat uncomfortable in it; to them, all this political struggle may even seem like utter foolishness. This creates completely unnecessary friction within the party.

Nevertheless, no bottom-up organized party can achieve success without numerous supporters who will provide funds for its activities in the background. And not so much through direct donations, but through the purchase of merchandise or tickets to public lectures. But their main task is to serve as agents for promoting libertarian ideology in society.

All these people, far removed from the political struggle, nevertheless want to know that they represent a strong and numerous community. The party, however, cannot and should not organize an entertainment program for them; that is not its task. From this, a demand naturally arises for the appearance of many diverse libertarian associations: shooting, cryptocurrency, educational—or even just small social circles without any specialization, which, for example, inevitably arise among the audience of one blogger or another.

The party, however, needs to determine whether a particular group is part of the party structure or is autonomous. And if it is autonomous, to what extent the party can afford to be associated with it. After all, it is through such associations that it is very convenient for the state to dilute the libertarian agenda. Yesterday some Enteo is smashing exhibitions, today he calls himself a libertarian, tomorrow people, hearing about libertarians, think they are all psychos like Enteo.

Hence all this party vigilance regarding whether a particular opinion leader calling themselves a libertarian is worthy of the name, and if someone says something, for example, about the ideas of one of the prominent party ideologues, whether to consider this still an intellectual discussion or already an intra-party split. Don’t judge these guys harshly; maintaining a single coordinated party position on key issues is indeed an important task for the political struggle.

But at the same time, the richer and more diverse the libertarian community is, the harder it will be for a conditional Enteo to draw attention to himself. Decentralization saves from the hijacking of control much like it saves a blockchain from fraudulent transactions. And in this case, there will no longer be a great need for a single centralized validator of publicly expressed views, such as a party, and only pure political activity will remain with it. As for now, I’d better stand aside, since my views in many ways do not coincide with the party program, so why stress good people and insist on the official status of the project? A confederative principle of interaction in our case is exactly what is needed.

Distanced herself…

Why is counter-economics much more effective than insurgency and armed struggle?

Bitarch Answers

For most people, a radical change in the socio-political formation of society is usually associated with a revolution, which occurs through armed struggle and the overthrow of the ruling regime. However, people miss the main point—upon coming to power, revolutionaries carry out mass purges of their former opponents, creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred in society (for example, the Red Terror during the Civil War, and later the Stalinist repressions). Often, the revolutionary government itself is overthrown by the opponents of the revolution, and its achievements are destroyed (for example, the Jacobins during the French Revolution). All this happens against a backdrop of famine, economic collapse, and technological degradation. It should also not be forgotten that people acting from the underground do not shy away from using violence. We want to build a libertarian society, that is, a society based on voluntary relations. But here is the problem—people accustomed to violence and a violent (military) hierarchy will most likely use familiar methods against dissenters even after their victory. Simply because they do not know any other way!

There is another, more effective and humane way to reach a free society (voluntarism, ancap)—counter-economics. This is exactly what I advocate for, and I hope for the gradual non-violent construction of such a society.

First and foremost, of course, the ideas themselves must be conveyed to people (taxes are theft; the state is a stationary bandit; it is possible to do without it by replacing its institutions with competing public organizations or extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions with voluntary membership). The state exists in people’s heads as a model of behavior, so it must first be eradicated from there. The more promotion channels we master, the better—leaflets, graffiti, social media groups, online and offline advertising, lectures, videos, books, etc.

I want to convey the main idea to people—the state itself creates no value and exists exclusively through taxation. Even income from the sale of oil and gas is, in reality, tax payments. The fewer taxes the state receives, the weaker it becomes and, accordingly, the fewer resources it can spend on suppressing protests and repressing its opponents.

How can an ordinary person enter the fight against the Leviathan without fearing repressions on its part? The answer is simple—minimizing tax payments and maximizing the extraction of state resources through social services (using any opportunity to obtain benefits, tax refunds, social housing, food stamps, discounted travel passes, etc.).

If possible, one should agree with the employer to have the entire salary paid “under the table.” An alternative option is to switch from an employment contract to a service contract (meaning you become a separate contractor for the employer company and save significantly on taxes and, surprisingly, this is one hundred percent legal). It is also worth learning how to use cryptocurrencies, buying food and things at local markets and from private sellers (rather than in a store where you pay VAT), and using the services of private providers and craftsmen (who do not provide cash receipts).

The state already senses something is wrong, and not long ago it declared a hunt for the self-employed. Well, let it run: the costs of collecting such taxes will far exceed the volume of funds collected.

Agree, it is an extremely optimistic picture: the Leviathan has perished, and man remains

What to do if a friend and ally promotes a policy of authoritarianism and political regulations?

Is this a reason not to interact with him in any way other than through formal tools, as Mikhail Svetov enjoined us? Even if it is a friend, even if he is against Putin?

Vasily

I am not such a purist in this regard. Before the Adam Smith readings, I published a selection of my favorite materials from there, and my first item was a report by Dmitry Butrin “Non-cooperative Games”, about how important it is not to make a squeamish face when mentioning minor tactical successes, about how the drive for complete and final dominance over all ideological rivals looms over all Russian politics, and how important it is to know how to build coalitions.

Of course, if you promote hatred of the nomenklatura, then for your reputation as a fervent lustrator, it is very important not to get tainted by any informal relationships, even with the liberal opposition, unless it has passed a strict check for ideological purity. But if you plan, for example, to run for deputy, the ability to negotiate, both formally and informally, will be invaluable. To know where to start dismantling the system in your own small area, you need to study how the system works in that area. For this purpose, it is quite acceptable not only to hang out at the birthday party of a liberal radio station, but even to go and work as an assistant to a Communist deputy.

If people are to be judged by their deeds, then they should be judged by their deeds. Having a drink with someone at a party is not a deed; it is leisure. I had a short romance with a guy from some paramilitary nationalist group—there are countless such groups, I didn’t even remember the name. We constantly argued about political topics, and he honestly stated that if they came to power, it would be at the cost of great bloodshed, and that we liberals would be hanged from lampposts immediately after the government was executed. Did this interfere with our relationship? No, not at all. Did it affect my views? Yes, it did; I came to better understand the worldview of these guys, their concept of justice and national pride. If a minarchist scenario is realized in Russia, the knowledge gained will allow me to avoid hanging them from lampposts, because these cats can be prepared in a different way.

Also, at his insistence, I struggled through B. H. Liddell Hart’s “Strategy of Indirect Approach” (hello to Belisarius from the previous post), but that is a slightly different story.

Sir Basil, as it were, says: Mikhail, do not go head-on

How will the transition to ancap be carried out in general, and in Russia in particular?

анонимный вопрос

In the post about ancap and minarchism, I described two possible ways of building ancap: the political and the countercultural. The political approach boils down to reforming the state into a minarchist state, and then further reducing it through political means up to its full formal dissolution. The countercultural approach boils down to a factual refusal to use the state, and especially a refusal to provide it with any resources whatsoever, from money to brains.

In a poll on the most promising method, my readers preferred the political method, although a significant number of votes went to the view that one should first achieve the maximum possible through political means, and then use the countercultural method to finish off the weakened state mechanism.

Personally, it seems to me that there will be more and more ancap in our lives as people learn to hide their income from the state more effectively and grow wealthy faster than they are plundered. A poor person may still hope that the state will rob the rich and give it to them. A wealthy person only needs to be left alone; they will figure it out themselves.

It is very important that working for the state be humiliating and serve as a demonstration of incompetence, while working for a private individual signifies both respect and prosperity. For this, it is important that entrepreneurs and their employees realize the unity of their interests: the less the state gets in the way, the more those who work will get. And this is achieved only through the widespread penetration of ideas.

The temptation of the political path is that a politician can lead society to their desired result almost by force, whereas the method of cultural transformation assumes a broad acceptance of libertarian ideas by society. It is also important to understand that any failure of libertarian political reforms hits the image of the ideology (look what those damned liberalasts have brought the country to!), and any success is easily converted by the state into its own strengthening (you’ve grown rich—now share!). Meanwhile, public sentiment cannot be uprooted so easily, which is why the path to approximating ancap through it is much more reliable.

This is the kind of tax collection graph we need

How and to whom to sell libertarianism?

анонимный вопрос

Libertarianism can be sold to everyone, but, of course, in different ways.

The simplest and most obvious approach is to sell it to those who are already ready to buy, they just don’t know it yet. That is, simply explaining to spontaneous libertarians that they are indeed libertarians, and why their worldview is not something terrible or selfish, and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of it; in short, buddy, you’re not a faggot, you’re gay, and that sounds proud. In principle, this is what I do. I wait for a question, I answer it. Then others, having heard such a question, refer to my ready-made answers, or may even simply say, “look at Ancap-chan, there was probably something on this topic.” Although, if we develop the market metaphor, I have less of a sale as such, and more like after-sales support.

The most important thing to convey to such buyers is the benefit of identifying themselves as an open libertarian. For some, it will be relevant to gain coherent notions of the theory, and thereby systematize their understanding of the world, which they can then apply to any life situation themselves. For some, it is more important to feel among like-minded people. For some, feelings are not enough, and they are set on joint activity. Talking about the merits of a product to an attentive, interested client is easy and pleasant; it is enough to have confident knowledge of the product.

It is harder to sell libertarianism to those who generally have an active life position, a sense of justice and self-worth, but whose theoretical background conflicts with libertarianism. For these people, materials like conditional “secular lectures” and five-minute briefs, as well as other educational videos, work well as a start. Then come specific questions, which can lead to explanations of any level of detail. It’s not a fact that you’ll manage to sell your product, but you will leave the client with the impression that the product is generally not bad, and that libertarians themselves are decent people and it is perfectly fine to deal with them. Thus, social democrats, social liberals, ancoms, all sorts of gender activists, ecologists, and whoever else are gradually drawn into our orbit.

It is impossible to fully sell libertarianism to those who are beneficiaries of the current regime, realize it, openly admit it, and approve of this order of things. “I served on a submarine, now at 35 I’m retired, and you want to deprive me of both money and the realization of my moral superiority—fuck off.” To such people, one can only subtly drop individual theses in areas that do not conflict with their platform. For example, the aforementioned submariner can perfectly well absorb the libertarian approach to weapons.

And it is completely useless now to sell libertarianism to those who, under any regime, will approve of the status quo out of considerations like “just in case something happens,” “we’ve never lived rich, no point in starting now,” and so on. As long as Kiselev is on the first channel, they are deaf to our arguments, and when we end up there, they will take our side simply because the bosses know best. The most that can be done regarding them now is to stay in their sight, to loom somewhere on the edge of their consciousness. So that when reforms begin, Praskovya Ilyinishna remembers that she heard something about us, and explains it to Pelageya Kuzminishna herself: “don’t be scared, they aren’t Bolsheviks, they’re libertarians, they’re peaceful, they’re for being able to trade sunflower seeds without patents.” And she would reply: “ah, libertarians! Being old, I thought I heard ‘proletarians.’ Well, if they’re libertarians, then alright.”

these are not pensioners, these are proud entrepreneurs

Added some interactivity

I want to get some idea about you, so I decided to add a surveys section to the site. I will store all the surveys that ever appear on the site there, while new ones will always be published as separate posts.

To start with, here are a couple for you.

The first survey places you on the political compass as seen by libertarians

Ваша идеологическая ориентация
Results

The second survey concerns the methods of building ancap, briefly discussed in the post about ancap and minarchism.

Какой метод построения анкапа видится вам более перспективным?
  • Add your answer
Results