Тег: Worlds

What ways exist to rehabilitate people in the eyes of the libertarian public in the case of a complicated background?

For example, what if there were some relationships with “United Russia” in the past, or if non-libertarian laws were promoted? In general, what do you advise such people to do? Is damaging those in power through compromising materials or lawsuits the only format? And what if those in power were not comrades of any sort, and there is no compromising material on hand? Perhaps reversing the adopted bad laws would also work? Maybe something else?

Sergey Sushinsky

This is a very complex topic if viewed through the prism of holistic constructs like the “libertarian public,” but it becomes much simpler if one does not deviate from the principle of methodological subjectivism. It is impossible to please the public as a whole; it is impossible to stain your reputation in the eyes of absolutely everyone, and to an equal extent. To some, Stalin is a bloody tyrant; to some, the father of nations; and to some, a weakling who failed to crush the hydra of counter-revolution.

There are very intolerant libertarians, at least in their public rhetoric. Judging by your mention of compromising materials on government representatives in your question, you clearly meant, among other things, “how to curry favor with Mikhail Svetov if you are Dmitry Gudkov.” You can’t. Svetov is just as biased as many others, and will similarly fit the arguments to his pre-existing opinion. This works both negatively and positively; any conditional Svetov will inevitably have a “inner circle” that is forgiven more than outsiders. This is normal, in the sense that it is determined by our biology.

From the outside, of course, one can indeed imagine horrors. If these guys are so strict with a person whose father voted for bad laws and who did not disown him, then what will they say about a person who personally lobbied for bad laws?

In fact, however, people are quite inclined to respect those who act in accordance with their convictions, and when those convictions change, those who honestly admit it and declare their new agenda, providing a justification for why it appeared.

You believed smoking was an evil and lobbied for anti-tobacco laws. Now you believe smoking is an evil, but you consider anti-tobacco laws an even greater evil. This is a perfectly natural evolution of thought, and you naturally seek arguments now against the lobbying of anti-tobacco laws. You collaborated with United Russia, realized that it was not only futile but harmful, and now you seek ways to shake its monopoly. This is a far more understandable, consistent, and respectable position than having no position at all, or simply claiming that no one can be trusted and there is no point in trying.

Take Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly: he used to be involved in public politics, and now he has not only cooled toward it but considers the pursuit harmful. I believe he is wrong, but given the difference in experience, I fully admit that I might be the one who is wrong. We have noted our disagreement, and I hope that for him this will not be a reason to “cut me out of the movement,” as especially intolerant people like to do. If you encounter such people, simply understand that using simple oppositions saves a great deal of mental effort, and do not force them to strain themselves where they don’t need to. On the other hand, they can use their thinking to the fullest where it is more justified for them, and division of labor is great, even if it is the division of brain labor between separate tasks.

I am not a neurobiologist, and it is difficult for me to say what this brain is busy with now, but in any case, that is its private business

Is it okay to punch someone in the face if they threw shit at you?

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, you are only secondarily concerned with how a proper ancap should appropriately react to such a thing during an ancap (the correct answer: it’s not mandatory, provided you see an opportunity to hold the attacker accountable while maintaining greater dignity). More likely, you want to understand what a specific Svetov could have opposed against a specific attack in a specific Putinist Kazan.

And here, of course, it is important to have accompaniment. Since such symbolic actions, logically, may be recorded on video by the attackers’ accomplices, it is primarily important not to give them the opportunity to obtain footage that portrays the victim in an even more unflattering light, or worse, provides grounds for criminal charges. Therefore, the object of the attack must not chase anyone or attack anyone.

Meanwhile, a private individual who happens to be a witness to the attack by pure chance could well catch up to the attacker, detain them, and take a close-up photo; after that, it would be possible to sue them, as a photo is usually sufficient nowadays to establish identity through open sources. Of course, in Russia, and especially in sultanates like the one in Kazan, the investigation could easily fail to find the suspect, even if their full name, address, and phone number are handed to them on a silver platter, and the case would remain open against unidentified persons. After all, there has been no news regarding the investigation of the attack on Svetov in another sultanate—Kemerovo. But if people with authority were working there, then here the attackers are quite vulnerable. And (finally answering the direct question) after it turns out that it is impossible to legally hold them accountable, you can—and it is even highly desirable to—beat their faces. But this should not be done by Svetov, but by some unidentified persons who are in no way connected to the incident and simply learned about it from open sources. Well, what can you do; some people don’t like political activists, and some don’t like thugs.

without a vest(((

Ukraine as a trendsetter

Until now, this predominantly theoretical channel had only one post dedicated to the Ukrainian presidential elections, where I informed readers about the nomination of libertarian Gennady Balashov. But, as we all saw, a slightly different person won in the first round—Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the main character of the series “Servant of the People” about a populist’s journey from the people to the presidency.

If the world’s leading movie empire keeps even a slight eye on foreign election technologies, then I think a decision is already ripening in the depths of the Democratic Party to suggest that Kevin Spacey, the main character of the first five seasons of “House of Cards,” run in the primaries. Who, if not him, is capable of defeating Trump in 2020?

But those are overseas affairs, not very interesting. Meanwhile, here in Russia, and moreover, among Russian libertarians, we have our own professional screenwriter. How about filming a TV series “The New Federative Treaty” by 2024? I usually get lost in front of the camera, but here I’d even agree to an episodic role as “the girl with the sign.” I’ve already thought of the sign. It will feature Zalina Marshenkulova and the caption “Federation Pose: people on top.”

By the way, about the signs. The episode, of course, should be filmed at Lenin Square in Novosibirsk (the central square where almost no one is allowed except communists), and this is also an interesting technology that I haven’t heard of before. Imagine the announcements: “The filming crew of the series ‘The New Federative Treaty’ invites those wishing to appear as extras in the role of rally participants. Filming will take place then and there; the square accommodates up to 10,000 people. We cannot provide payment, but every participant will receive a souvenir badge. Please bring your own posters, flags, and other attributes.”

Switch from the Moscow bottle to the federalization of Siberia

The Achilles’ heel of territorial communities

Bitarch’s Column

Mikhail Svetov and many other libertarians often propose the model of territorial communities. These are, in essence, ordinary states (or federal subjects) with a territorial monopoly, but created “from scratch” by a group of settlers who share certain values.

Besides the obvious drawbacks of a state with a territorial monopoly, there is another very important problem in this model that, for some reason, is not publicized. The essence of it is that the values of the founding generation may not be passed down to descendants (this is practically guaranteed to happen, if not in the second generation, then in the fifth). Even when a small number of people in this community deviate from the founders’ values, the community government will have to take them into account, diluting the ideological integrity of the original project and turning the community into an ordinary modern state.

Don’t believe it will happen? Look at the history of the USA! There, too, the colonies were initially settled on religious and ideological principles. Modern states have preserved practically nothing of this, having turned into the same kind of centralized state that the colonists once fled from in Europe.

Ancap-chan’s Comment

Over time, any social associations—whether states, communities, enterprises, political parties, or interest clubs—either collapse or change beyond recognition, preserving at best their name. Transience in time can be called the Achilles’ heel of any entity existing in time, and territorial communities do not stand out from the general background. It is enough for the community’s founders that this community exists for some time and serves the interests of its members to a greater extent than the surrounding environment; and if in the future those born into this community find another environment more to their liking—well, so be it, and there is no reason to decide for the descendants, as they are surely not any stupider.

The community occupies a territory