Тег: Values

Watched Milov’s video, letting my inner libertarian out for a walk

Yesterday, I put on a video by Milov to listen to before sleep, but I fell asleep before reaching the scandalous phrase about the inner libertarian. I had to start it over in the morning.

In short, Vladimir’s thesis boils down to the idea that it is not always appropriate to take the side of big business when it is in conflict with a state defending certain political interests, especially when big business is lobbying for its own interests. And if your inner libertarian only knows how to say “everything private is good, everything state-owned is bad,” then kill it and grow another, more adequate one. Because values are subjective, and nothing is “good” or “bad” in a vacuum; these terms are always attached to a specific interested party—specifically, who exactly benefits and who exactly suffers.

Is it good for the German gas consumer that their country will receive cheap fuel supplies with massive excess transport capacity? Obviously, it’s good, and from Montenegro, I can only be happy for them. Is it good for a Pomeranian worker that a new employer comes to their land and creates many high-paying jobs? Yes, it’s wonderful for them! Is it good for a Ukrainian worker that their local job maintaining the pipeline is under threat of abolition or at least salary cuts? Nothing good about that. But is it good for them that they can travel to Germany without a visa to maintain the pipeline being built there, already earning a German salary? You bet! True, they will have to compete with Germans, and here, if the German tries to use state protectionism, the Ukrainian will suffer.

Is it good that gas is extracted in Russia and a transport network is built allowing its delivery to various corners of the world? This is an incorrect question. The question does not specify the subject for whom we are making assumptions—whether it is good or bad for them. For Putin, it’s good—the geopolitical club is long, heavy, and shiny. For the rotational workers laying the pipes—it’s great. For Gazprom shareholders—it’s questionable, because the commercial profit from the project is unclear; it’s less about money and more about geopolitics. For Russian citizens counting on some taxes from this Gazprom—don’t count on other people’s money and you’ll sleep sounder; and what are you even doing in Russia? Get out of there, following me and Vladimir Milov. The inner libertarian sticks its head out and gives the budget workers the finger.

In short, a huge thank you to Vladimir Milov for promoting libertarianism. Navalny is in prison and can no longer, as before, send us to forced labor, so Milov has to take the heat. It’s okay, he’ll manage.

Predatory Things of the Century and Their Digital Immortality

Once, depending on my mood, I wrote a short review of three books by the Strugatsky brothers, among which was Predatory Things of the Century. In that book, among other things, there was a description of a certain secret order of patrons who found pleasure in stealing masterpieces from museums and then secretly destroying them in a solemn atmosphere. In the sixties of the last century, the Strugatskys managed to predict modern society quite well. And yesterday, on the MyGap channel, I stumbled upon an almost literal embodiment in our world of that very order of patrons.

A blockchain company burns a painting worth 95 thousand dollars on a live stream. What is the difference from what the Soviet sci-fi writers predicted? The difference, naturally, is that the company bought the painting honestly, and there was no need to burn it in secret; on the contrary, it became a public action. What can you do—while having an amazing intuition for social trends, the Strugatskys happened to be quite out of their depth in economics.

Burning a painting followed by the issuance of a unique token containing its digital copy and denoting ownership of it demonstrates how value arises from rarity. If the token were linked to an undestroyed painting, it could be thrown away, and one could simply settle for factual ownership of the painting without any certificate. It is precisely the fact that the token is left all alone that gives it value; otherwise, it would be an unnecessary tag.

I can easily understand how all of this blows the minds of the adepts of material production, who are convinced that humanity has fallen victim to digital delusions. But there is nothing to be done: the substance of value is not contained within things themselves. Value is in the consciousness. And consciousness is fickle, quickly loses interest in routine, and clings to everything fresh, rare, and unusual. The more sophisticated the consciousness, the harder it is to find such rarity. The more abundant the society, the harder it is to lure consciousness with the ghost of scarcity to suggest that this particular entity is rare and valuable. And so we have lived to see these patrons. What’s next on the Strugatskys’ plan? Sleg?

Is a state necessary, what functions can (should) it perform, and why is minarchy not enough?

anonymous question

You know, one could trivially answer that the state is unnecessary because — and then follows a long list of problems it causes. One could refer to the fact that the smaller the scale of state intervention, the more the economy flourishes. But values are subjective, and one cannot answer for everyone that the state is unnecessary. There are plenty of people who love having a boot in their backside right now, and many demand that it be shoved even deeper. Minarchy isn’t enough for them; they want socialism; they were taught in school that under socialism there is liberty, equality, and fraternity, or at least order and security.

voluntarily and with a song!

Nevertheless, such an approach doesn’t work as an argument either. There is always a high percentage of conformists in society who will approve of the status quo, no matter how strange it is, so claiming that the majority sincerely and actively desires the state—to the point that they would come out to defend it—would also be rash.

Asking state representatives whether the state is necessary, and how about shifting a bit here to free up a small plot for ancap — well, that would be completely naive.

So, to get a correct answer to the question of whether the state is necessary, one must first achieve the appearance of a normally relatively pure ancap somewhere, and then let the market decide via migration and monetary flows. If people wishing “to make the state great again” consistently appear under ancap, then the state is necessary. For example, simply because one needs to have someone to grumble at. But if after a generation of living under ancap, the state is perceived as a strange, ancient, barbaric institution like trial by ordeal or some other omerta, then it means the state as such is not needed by humans; it’s just that it happens to exist now, and many put up with it.

Which is better: a state contract army, or a private one?

anonymous question

As economic theory teaches us, values are subjective. Therefore, the question of “what is better” should always be accompanied by a clarification: better for whom. To avoid writing a long-winded essay, I will proceed from the assumption that “better” should be for the person in whose interests the army fulfills its primary purpose.

In modern international law, private warfare is prohibited, so a private army can primarily operate as a subcontractor for a state army. At least, if we are talking about a classical army using live manpower armed with lethal weapons. Thus, it is clear that a private army is better than a state army for those tasks that the state prefers to outsource. In essence, the only thing a state army would not want to outsource under any circumstances is the embezzlement of budget money. And a state contract army most willingly outsources those tasks that it handles worst: protecting civilians.

Due to the very mechanisms of its funding, a state army acquires quite typical traits, which is why state armies are, to a certain extent, very similar to one another. Private armies perform market tasks in a wide variety of niches, and therefore can differ greatly from each other. In some places, the market needs cheap light infantry capable of dying in droves without stressing the taxpayers, and a conditional Wagner comes to the rescue. In other places, the market needs the protection of communications, and it is helped by slightly more technological guys skilled in communications and logistics. Somewhere, it is necessary to wage cyberwarfare, and a private troll factory is opened for this task. Somewhere, the market needs intelligence data for publication, and a company like Bellingcat appears.

You might ask, what do the last two cases have to do with war? With equal success, one could ask what Shahed explosions have to do with war. By the way, these are also an excellent example of private armies: they are inexpensive and work effectively. It’s just that their task is rather specific: supporting the advertising campaign of a terror sponsor.

Alright, so for which tasks, other than budget embezzlement, are state contract armies actually more effective than private ones? Paradoxically, despite their complete inefficiency in protecting non-combatants, state contract armies are more effective at creating a sense of security for the citizens of the country to which the state contract army belongs. This is precisely what allows them to be so effective at embezzling the budget, since the taxpayer agrees in advance to the high cost of the army, as long as there is no war.

Does justice exist?

anonymous question

I would define justice as the outcome of a certain chain of events in which adherence to libertarian principles brought profit, and non-adherence brought loss.

People, as a rule, want to live in a just world. Since not all events in a person’s life are linked to their own efforts, they occasionally find themselves in a situation where completely irreproachable behavior leads to sad consequences. Various curious mechanisms, such as afterlife retribution, karma, and so on, are used as a means of psychological defense against such frustrations.

In other words, a person is free to arrange events into a chain in an arbitrary manner, and it is quite natural for them to do so in a way that the outcome of events in the chosen chain turns out to be just. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, continued to live peacefully, then a river carried the offender’s corpse past — justice prevailed. Lived peacefully, suffered from an offender, died. Now they will surely be rewarded for a righteous life, and justice, once again, will prevail.

So — yes, justice exists, and it exists in people’s heads. Just as the state and other mental constructs exist in people’s heads.

Although the value of bitcoins is completely subjective and exists only in people’s heads, the bitcoins themselves objectively exist in wallets. If you like the channel, rewarding the author with a donation would be perfectly just. Send it here: 
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Is that which is done with soul more valuable?

Anonymous question

Someone who values things made with soul more will, all other things being equal, prefer that which is made with soul.

But in general, claiming that something made with soul is more expensive is incorrect. Perhaps the master who worked with soul sees a kindred spirit in the buyer and sells it cheaper. Perhaps a soulless thing is released under an expensive fashion brand. Perhaps something made with soul requires unique spare parts, while standard stamping is cheaper to maintain. In other words, there are countless factors influencing value, and highlighting only one of them as the leading one serves didactic purposes rather than demonstrating a practical regularity.

What could be more precious than a kitty made with soul?

I wouldn’t refuse soulless bitcoins, by the way
1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Do you think machine translators will replace people in the near future?

anonymous question

I think that even cat-girls won’t be able to replace humans as long as humans remain the measure of all things)))

If we are talking only about the narrow function of translation, then people, as they usually do, will leave all the tedious stuff to machines, while they themselves will translate poetry and other highly artistic works, simply because it is a pleasure in its own right—why give that up to some machines?

mega-translator

How can you be tamed?

Anonymous question

Many believe that any girl can be tamed: get her hooked on sponsor money, dominate her with status, take her in a hard raider-style takeover… The first method is the most dangerous; it can actually work if the one doing the taming acts carefully. I very much hope to recognize such things in time. In essence, it is enough to keep one’s eyes open and remember one’s own values: when choosing between achieving tactical goals and values, one should always prefer values.