Тег: Tatarkov

Please review this video by Alexander Tatarkov

The request is accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.00003084 ₿

It’s been a while since I listened to this author. He is still as wordy as ever and still doesn’t provide timecodes, but it seems I’ve become slightly more tolerant of this genre, so I resubscribed to Alexander’s channel. Sometime in my free time, I’ll listen to what he’s managed to say over the last three years. If you are subscribed to him and can recommend any specific episodes, drop the links in the comments, preferably with a brief introduction.

Essentially, for two hours, Alexander spends his time explaining a single thesis: that Putin’s regime looks like a clumsy cosplay of Hitler’s. Examples cited include the style of propaganda, Freikorps, concepts of Lebensraum and Lebensborn, ressentiment, and the fight against sects, same-sex relationships, and migrants.

There is no particular moral here, just a simple observation that this is another confirmation of the heuristic that farce tends to repeat tragedy.

In general, I like collections of historical anecdotes, but Tatarkov’s thoughts specifically always have a lot of room; there’s no point in listening slower than at 1.5x speed.

Animal cruelty under ancap. A question for Alexander Tatarkov.

Do you believe that child pornography and animal cruelty (torture and abuse of animals) would be fully legalized under libertarianism and anarcho-individualism in particular?

Semyon Persunov (question accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.00011718 BTC)

Answered by Alexander Tatarkov (original publication on Yandex.Zen and on Bastion):

Well, it seemed interesting to me not so much the question itself, but the fact that it is apparently asked by a libertarian, or even an anarchist.

It would be one thing if an apologist for the state had voiced it. We are used to that. Standard scare tactics like: “without the state everyone will shoot each other,” “without the state everyone will rape each other,” “without the state everyone will die because there will be no hospitals,” “without the state there will be no education or science,” and even “without the state women won’t give birth to children(!!!)” should gradually be squeezed out of the consciousness of the unaware through consistent and reasoned propaganda. Much like I do in the video “Why Do We Need a State?”. An anarchist and libertarian should sow the rational, the kind, the eternal, rather than inventing additional apocalypse scenarios that supposedly await us if we are left without the sovereign’s supervision.

After such questions, not only the average person, but even well-prepared individuals should get the impression that anarchy is a paradise for pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts, thugs, robbers, rapists, and murderers. And sane, adequate people in a stateless society will lead a miserable existence under siege, continuously escaping from all this zombie apocalypse.

Answering the question.

My favorite example. Very illustrative. I used it in the video about the right to self-defense:

If tomorrow at 06:00 Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder) were abolished and everyone were given an automatic rifle, the percentage of murders would not increase by even 1%. Because I cannot imagine who I would want to kill right now. In other words, a person doesn’t go around gunning everyone down not because the state forbids it, but for a million other reasons (morality, ethics, religion, laziness, impracticality). Well, simply put, I have absolutely no reason to kill anyone. And I don’t have much of a desire either… I mean, I have a gun in my safe. I’d have to get up, open the safe, load it, put on a coat, go outside, chase someone, shoot… And they might shoot back for all I know… Why on earth would I do all that???

At the same time, if a drugged-out, wide-eyed junkie were to break into my house with the clear intention of killing, raping, robbing, and dismembering everyone, I would, of course, kill him. And Article 105 of the Criminal Code would definitely be the last thing on my mind in such a situation. That is, if a murder does not happen, it does not happen not because a law exists. And if it does happen, the existence of a law has no effect on it.

Now, to the animal abusers. I’m not entirely sure if there is currently an article in the law providing punishment for animal cruelty, but I have no desire to abuse animals. Nor does the vast majority of people. That is, I don’t gouge out the eyes of puppies not because I’m afraid I’ll be fined 500 rubles, but simply because I don’t want to gouge out the eyes of puppies! And for what reason would I want to do that once the state is gone?

It should be understood here that in a stateless society, the state, its institutions, control, and repressive apparatus will disappear. But morality, ethics, empathy, reason, compassion, and mercy will not go anywhere. The first is not connected to the second at all. Consequently, there will certainly not be more thugs with the abolition of the state. There will be fewer.

And here is why:

Currently, if a person sees someone abusing an animal, they cannot punch the abuser in the face (well, okay, I, for example, might), because the abuser will snitch to the cops, and that kind person will be imprisoned. For the same reason, everyone walks past when a grandmother is being robbed, a resisting girl is being dragged into a car, or children are being raped. Because the state court stands guard over the interests of every thug. And the one who steps in faces jail time in 100% of cases if they so much as touch them with a finger. Therefore, right now they feel completely untouchable and safe, and they not only abuse animals, old women, girls, and children, but also post it all on social networks.

What would happen in a similar situation in a stateless society?

As I described in the video “Lynch Law, Agora Court, or State Court? The Right to Judicial Protection under Anarchy”, seeing such filth, I would boldly punch the animal abuser in the face, shoot the grandmother’s robber, the girl’s rapist, and carve up the pedophile-maniac-dismemberer. Next. I am invited to a Lynch Court. They ask why I punched the face, shot the rapist, and carved up the maniacs. Well, I say: “Just because… they were raping, robbing, torturing defenseless animals…” The judge asks the crowd if I am guilty and if I deserve punishment or leniency. The crowd says: “Good job, man! That’s how it should be! Let’s chip in for his bullets. The man spent his own for the common good! Now bring those thugs here! To the stake with them (on a pole, on an aspen… underline as needed).” Well, that’s basically it. Everyone is satisfied. Everyone is smiling. Except for the maniac and the thug.

Thus, Lynch Law (Agora court) is a guarantee that a stateless society will be not a paradise, but a hell for every thug. They will find themselves in the most disadvantageous position. Everyone will beat them, and there will be no one to stand up for them.

Consequently, the existence of some written law prohibiting animal cruelty or the rape of minors will simply not be necessary.

And in general, “legalization” without a state—what does that even mean!?!?!?! Well, yes. There will be no law issued by a parliament… But that is no guarantee that there will be happiness for animal abusers, pedophiles, and maniacs.

And it’s not as if I’ve just imagined these constructions in my head. Not at all. I had the chance to observe something similar personally in the early 90s, when I had the honor and pleasure of living and working actively in a private plot farm (LPH) in the Irkutsk region. So, there was 1 district police officer for every 4 LPHs (staff shortage). From us to the nearest LPH was 40 km. Everyone was armed (it’s the taiga). The vast majority of residents of the LPHs were former inmates, many of whom had served sentences such as that after which no one expects you and there is nowhere to return. And when, in my youth and ignorance, I mentioned a license (for weapons and hunting), they looked at me as if I were mentally ill. Either to pity me or to punch me in the face—I was speaking in incomprehensible words, but seemingly not using profanity…

Gunshots in the taiga are not rare at all. And whether a bear was shot or a cop—who was going to run around and find out about every single shot? Therefore, the cop tried not to step on anyone’s toes. He came once every 3 months, nobody had been killed, thank god, crossed himself and left. And if he started asking about licenses—well, again, gunshots… And, most importantly, hardly anyone would look for him. At the time, by law, searches stopped after 3 days. Because in 3 days, if not the wolves, the ants would eat the corpse. And if the corpse fell into a river, it was simply impossible to find.

And in this society, there were neither murders, nor rapes, nor thefts.

My favorite example with the pigs. Pigs there weren’t even locked up, let alone just wandered freely around the village. I asked a local why they didn’t lock them up. And the answer was a masterpiece: “And where would they go? They’re afraid to go into the taiga. They’ll be eaten there.” I didn’t specify that they’d also be eaten here. But the very question was clearly incomprehensible to him. I explained that someone could steal them… And again, they looked at me as if I were mentally ill. Pigs are all marked. And if all my pigs are intact, but there’s a smell of shashlik from a yard—then they’ll burn down my house and me inside it if I don’t manage to jump out. And if I do, it doesn’t mean my situation improves. Because no one will allow “ratting” (stealing from one’s own)!

So why on earth do we need laws and cops in such a scenario? Perhaps it was exactly there, at age 16, that I became an anarchist. Convinced. Because where there’s a cop on every corner—pigs were locked up with 3 locks and dogs were kept on wires. And where there are none at all, and the word “law” has a meaning not quite familiar to us, as well as the expression “settle it by the law”—there, locks on doors are unnecessary.

So, nothing bad will definitely happen to us with the disappearance of the state. All these wild delusions about the rampage of animal abusers, maniacs, pedophiles, murderers, and thugs—just wild delusions. To the one who asked the question, I recommend watching less state TV and reading less zombie-apocalypse literature.

How do anarcho-individualism and libertarianism relate?

анонимный вопрос

To get a vivid idea of anarcho-individualism, I can recommend listening to such an anarcho-individualist as Alexander Tatarkov. He speaks quite a lot about his worldview. As for us, we will discuss the differences with libertarianism.

The main postulate of an anarcho-individualist is that the individual determines for themselves how to build their life and their relationships with others, and any norms coming from the outside have the status of well-wishes for them; they have every right to fulfill them, take note of them, ignore them, demonstratively violate them, and so on. Naturally, the anarcho-individualist agrees that they bear full responsibility for their chosen line of behavior, but reserves the right to avoid this responsibility. The only thing in which an anarcho-individualist limits themselves is that they do not engage in the construction of power institutions; this is a taboo. Violating this taboo turns them into an ordinary Machiavellian.

It is not difficult to see that an anarcho-individualist, without violating their principles, can coexist with others in a state of Hobbesian war of all against all, sit in a lotus position achieving enlightenment, join any cooperative activity, or engage in ancapism as a private entrepreneur.

The main postulate of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership. A person belongs to themselves, which is quite close to the views of anarcho-individualists. But this also means the recognition of the institution of property, for if property is completely denied, there can be no talk of self-ownership, and if property is partially denied, it implies the permissibility of encroachments on self-ownership, such as coercion. Therefore, a libertarian, unlike an anarcho-individualist, limits themselves not only in the construction of power institutions but also in encroaching on someone else’s property.

Since libertarianism was invented, the phenomenon of property itself has been analyzed and is now usually interpreted as a whole bundle of various rights. A maximalist approach to property, where it is interpreted as an absolute unrestricted right to dispose of an object, is very convenient for drawing caricatures of libertarianism or criticizing it in other ways. There are a vast number of such attempts in the information field; among the most interesting, I would name the text by Laksi Katala, Fundamental Problems of Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-individualism is a convenient basic framework in which a person acts when building their relationships from scratch with an unfamiliar environment where the rules are unknown to them, or where rules have not yet been developed.

Libertarianism is the next logical step toward building a peaceful, prosperous society, where people generally recognize each other’s legal capacity, and thus can develop frameworks for determining property rights and their transfer.

I should note that libertarianism is not entirely synonymous with anarcho-capitalism. To understand the differences, I refer the reader to the corresponding chapter of Friedman’s Mechanics of Liberty: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Libertarian?

Principles of Agorism

My channel has a VK mirror run by one of the readers. I don’t monitor it myself, so if anything interesting appears in the comments, let me know in private messages. In particular, the description of a business idea for an agorist prompted Alexander Tatarkov, whose YouTube channel I have already recommended here once, to provide a detailed supplement, which I decided to put into a separate post.

I will allow myself to generalize a bit and formulate the main principles of agorism.

1. Work with a private client, not an organization. A private individual doesn’t care whether you paid taxes or not.
2. Work for cash. Only cash can be “black.” (a reminder from Ancap-chan: Bitcoin is cash)
3. Do not underestimate barter. On paper, no money passes through at all, yet each party gets what they wanted.
4. Corruption is not bad, but good. You have an agent in the enemy’s camp (the state). You are not giving money to the enemy (the state). You reduce the official’s dependence on the state by providing them with an alternative income. He is your accomplice. He will cover for you because you are the compromising material on him. And he is more interested than you are in ensuring your scheme is not exposed.
5. Sell things that are impossible to account for or count. For example, portions of lunches, or booklets, or business cards (printing).
6. The purchase of materials should also be in “black” cash.
7. Avoid cashless payments, even to a personal card. Let the client transfer money to someone you owe. My clients even paid for my daughter’s music school! This way, it’s as if you did nothing. Your creditor doesn’t care who paid your debts. And the state only collects taxes from one transaction.
8. A wonderful scheme involving the gifts of nature. No purchasing needed. The money is “clean,” completely black and untraceable. For example, in the 90s, we harvested cedar nuts. Sold them under the table for cash. It’s impossible to prove how much was sold.
9. Working with things that cannot be touched. For example, design. You create a design, you receive money. From whom, for what—try and figure it out. You might not have even seen this person! They sent you the order via WhatsApp, received the sketch by email. They topped up your phone balance for payment.
10. And various on-site or at-home services. Like computer repair, manicures, apartment renovations, dog training/walking. Even if the tax office comes to you via an advertisement, you say that there have been no clients yet. When the first one appears, I’ll get a patent. Proving that half the city is served by you can only be done through an informant. Well, you just have to work properly so that no one informs on you…

Something like that. This is the first thing that came to mind. Much of it is from personal experience in the 90s. I consciously discarded criminal schemes. Perhaps I missed a lot. The main thing here is to outline the direction of thought.

What to spin state bans on

As I wrote recently, a wave of criticism regarding its inefficiency in fighting the pandemic awaits the state in the near future. However, it is precisely in Russia that the state acts in such a peculiar way that it receives a barrage of criticism in a slightly different key. The Russian state is enthusiastically helping the infection spread as widely as possible, while with equal enthusiasm bankrupting its poorest inhabitants and helping the wealthiest with money. In short, everything is as usual, but in an especially exaggerated form.

I heard a good selection of grievances against the state from Alexander Tatarkov. He is a rather original anarchist with an interesting and quite constructive view of the world (one major flaw: he is excessively talkative—listening to hour-long monologues is often an excessive luxury for me). What is interesting about this video is that these are practical grievances from the perspective of an ordinary citizen—this can be effectively replicated in conversations with those very same citizens, and they will nod in agreement and throw in just as many more examples, so it is useful to master this style of rhetoric.

Alexander is particularly irritated, of course, by the actions of the cops, as the most harmful and senseless. All these precinct officers walking door-to-door, picking on drivers of private cars—though it’s hard to imagine a place more epidemically safe—harassing pedestrians with idiotic demands to prove their right to be on the street, and so on. After listening to these grievances, Bitarch, by the way, immediately put forward his constructive proposal, suggesting sending the security forces into quarantine—this is done by simple methods of telephone terrorism, only instead of a mined object, a specific police officer with such-and-such a badge number is used, and as the means of mining—an infected citizen.

While Alexander complained about the direct harm from the state, it didn’t bother me that much, but then he mentioned that the fashion for masks sharply reduces the danger during, for example, robberies, and this is far more unpleasant for ancap ideology. Therefore, I would like to separately address everyone who will be driven to poverty and despair by the state’s actions in the coming weeks. If you decide to commit thefts or robbery—please rob the state. Firstly, it is more ethical, since the state has no legitimate property and cannot have any. Secondly, it is safer, because no one will protect state junk that desperately. Thirdly, government employees are far more likely to be sitting at home and therefore will not suffer in any way during the robbery. Fourthly, if you are caught, public opinion will be far more favorable toward you than if you had robbed your fellow sufferers.

However, I would prefer that it not come to this, and the only thing that can prevent such a catastrophic scenario is the blatant violation of the self-isolation regime by citizens. As in, dear state, since you do not intend to compensate us in any way for the ban on working, we don’t care about your ban. Since Putin suddenly remembered that Russia is a federation and announced that specific measures to fight citizens should be introduced by regional heads, there will surely be more sane governors who will either manage to carve out funds from their meager budgets to encourage people to stay home, or try to let any measures that kill the economy of their domains slide as much as possible and turn a blind eye to the fact that citizens continue to earn money. And good practices tend to be borrowed if they receive positive reinforcement. So it is worth encouraging your mayors and governors with a kind word if the comparison with neighboring incompetents truly looks in their favor, and it also makes sense to remember more severe instruments of pressure.

No one but ourselves will find the balance of freedom and security that is most suitable for us. We shall seek it.