Тег: Worlds

Freedom of speech and its limits

A call for murder, is that freedom of speech or not?
An insult, when I call someone “short” with the intention to “offend”…
1. …a person who is short,
2. … a person who is tall, is that freedom of speech?
If I engage in bullying using insults, is that freedom of speech?

Generally, is bullying a form of aggression? If one reads Svetov, for some reason he believes it is not.

анонимный вопрос

As usual, I will begin by briefly defining the terms. Aggression is the initiation of a conflict. Conflict is the presence of grievances. Aggressive violence is the initiation of a conflict through the use of violence. NAP is a legal principle according to which no one can be granted the right to unpunished aggressive violence. Freedom of speech is a legal principle according to which words do not constitute a violation of the NAP. Bullying is the public tearing apart of a tied-up animal by a pack of dogs (there are many other uses of the word “travlya,” but in the figurative sense when people “hunt” or bully other people, it refers specifically to this method of hunting/baiting). An insult is a manipulation intended to provoke the insulted person into escalating the conflict, preferably to the point of violating the NAP, in order to justify further, more serious sanctions against the insulted party.

If you agree with the proposed definitions, it should become quite obvious to you that the content of any words—be it slander, a call for murder, or even an order to commit murder—according to the principle of freedom of speech, does not violate the NAP. Nevertheless, words can easily be a form of aggression, albeit non-violent, since words can be used to initiate a conflict.

It is also easy to see that I have defined the concept of bullying vaguely, because it is not a legal term, but a purely polemical one. Nevertheless, it stems from the image of an amusement involving the tearing apart of an animal deprived of its freedom, and this is a fairly important point. As long as the object of your actions, carried out through verbal insults, can freely avoid the conflict simply by ending communication, I would not call it bullying—the factor of coercion is absent. In other words, I define bullying as systematic insults under conditions of coerced communication; that is, there is an element of aggressive violence in bullying, but not in the words, but specifically in the restriction of the freedom to leave the conflict zone.

Thus, verbal persecution in prison or in a conscript army is bullying. Similar persecution at work is not bullying, but simply a conflict. It can be ended by resigning. Persecution in school is bullying only if the persecuted person is forbidden from leaving the school.

An important point. Legal responsibility for bullying lies specifically with the one who restricts freedom, not with the one who bullies. That is, not with the dogs, but with the one who chained the bear to the post. This is exactly why responsibility for bullying in school lies with the parents, teachers, and the state: the state obliges parents to provide the child with a secondary education, teachers apply sanctions to the child for leaving school without permission, and parents deny the child the right to switch to homeschooling. Similarly, responsibility for bullying in prison lies with those who put the conflicting parties in one cell and locked them in, and for bullying in a conscript army—those who conscripted the conflicting parties into one military unit and forbade them from leaving it.

As for Svetov, he did indeed, in a conversation with Boris Kagarlitsky, get somewhat confused in the definitions of “aggression,” “violence,” “aggressive violence,” and “self-defense,” which his interlocutor caught him on, and as a result, the debate was lost. Therefore, the assumption that he was insufficiently strict with concepts in some other conversation does not seem improbable to me. Furthermore, the term “bullying” itself has no precise definition, so a specific phenomenon that someone calls bullying may either include aggressive violence or be pure non-violent aggression. Moreover, one party to a conflict may call the behavior of the other party bullying, even if it contains neither violence nor even aggression. For example, someone performs their job poorly, receives criticism regarding the actual deficiencies in response, and loses their bonus. Why would that not be a reason to position oneself as a victim of bullying?

A violation of the NAP is first and foremost not the dogs, but the chain.

How does anarcho-capitalism view the actual situation in Russia?

анонимный вопрос

Here, I really want to start with an extended quote from a source I constantly refer to—our Political Science-chan, Ekaterina Schulmann:

As for the actual state of affairs, generally speaking, the Russian person is a spontaneous libertarian, but does not know it and would never call themselves such. In reality, they are very inclined toward libertarian values, namely: they do not trust the state, state institutions, or law enforcement agencies. In general, they trust no one except personal acquaintances. They tend to rely only on themselves and their closest relatives. Accordingly, they would like it if no one messed with them, if they were left in peace and not told how to live. In other words, these libertarian values are very strong in Russian people.

Ekaterina Schulmann

At the same time, the opposite view is entirely justified: Russia is a country of ingrained social-democratic values, and the ideal state for the majority of Russians is the Scandinavian countries, with low levels of inequality, comfortable prisons, officials on bicycles, and broad public discussion of all issues—in short, a proper Soviet government as it should be, according to the project documentation. The high taxes and strict regulations attached to this model are perceived as a fully justified price for this paternalistic paradise.

And finally, it would be strange not to mention the viewpoint that the Russian person is a sucker and a doormat, burdened by Stockholm syndrome and learned helplessness. Their motto is “initiative is punishable”, and not “punishable by being ordered to implement the initiative”, as in the ideal Confucian China, but literally punishable by a blow to the head so that they don’t stick their neck out. They harbor no illusions about the benevolence of state power, but justify the actions of officials by believing that they themselves would behave the same way in their place.

The first category—these are our natural allies. They might not provide active support because they are busy with their own peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs, but at the very least, at the right moment, they will look away and not snitch on people for their peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs.

The second category—these are our natural allies. They understand the importance of jointly solving local problems, the ability to negotiate, and the desire to unite around common interests, rather than simply on the principle of “us versus them.”

The third category—these are our natural allies. Gradually, it dawns on them that an official is not some inexorable force, omnipotent and omniscient. An official is a ridiculous idiot who doesn’t dare take a step without instructions, yet treats orders according to the principles of “wait to execute—they’ll cancel it” and “if you can shift the responsibility—shift it.” Finally, these people realize that an official immediately loses all their superior arrogance when facing a crowd one-on-one. And then officials can be peacefully pelted with snowballs, as in Volokolamsk, or subjected to “garbage lustrations,” as in Ukraine, but if things get really heated, it can even lead to defenestrations, which our Slavic brothers in the Czech Republic loved to use.

mm, lustrations!

Of course, sometimes with allies like these, you don’t even need enemies. Of course, such allies are too easily lured by communist slogans, and then they will go beat up the liberalists and the bourgeois. Therefore, as unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to perform the important work of creating the correct image of the enemy in these people’s heads. This is precisely why Mikhail Svetov, with his propaganda of hatred toward the nomenklatura, is also doing important work; I couldn’t do it, I find it much more pleasant to tell various optimistic tales about how we can organize ourselves.

When will the Rostral Columns finally be renamed the Lustral ones?

anonymous question

In honor of Sunday, a day of unserious questions is declared=)

Unserious answer 1

When Mikhail Svetov transfers to the St. Petersburg branch of the LPR.

Unserious answer 2

When Alexander Litreev’s video blog reaches 100 thousand subscribers.

Serious answer

You did it when you asked your question. Any location has as many names as are used. There is the Nemtsov Bridge in Moscow, there is the Navalny Park in Novosibirsk, and now there are the Lustral Columns in St. Petersburg. At the same time, you can name the bow of every yacht on every column: this one is Photinia, and this one is St. Princess Olga…

What do you think about Mikhail Pozharsky’s article

“The Conservative Owl and the Libertarian Globe”

anonymous question

I have already touched upon this topic approximately in the post dedicated to the dispute between Mikhail Svetov and Vera Kichanova.

Then I was asked to clarify Svetov’s position regarding borders with peaceful and prosperous countries—does he really propose closing off from them as well? I had to devise a logical twist that makes Svetov’s proposal relatively acceptable for a minarchist society, and quite universal in the sense that no official is given the right to rank countries: these ones are good, and we are welcome to no one from here.

Mikhail Pozharsky’s article from July 1st is clearly inspired by the same dispute, but he dug deeper, while also addressing Hoppe’s concept that the transition from monarchy to democracy is social regression and a departure from libertarian ideals. Of course, the democratic state is terrible, as is any other state, but the claim that autocracies are generally healthier reveals Hoppe to be a person not very familiar with life under an autocracy.

I would bring another party into this dispute—political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann, who has repeatedly mentioned in her presentations such a characteristic of society as the degree of citizen involvement in decision-making.

If we plot the volume of redistribution carried out by the state on one coordinate axis and the degree of citizen involvement in decision-making on another, and map existing states onto this grid, we will see that the resulting cloud of points is fairly uniform; that is, movement along each axis is generally quite independent. Therefore, both the demand for a reduction in state redistribution in the most direct democracy and the demand for the democratization of authoritarian states are equally justified. There is no need to necessarily link the reduction of taxes and regulations with a transition from democracy to authoritarianism; this assumption seems unfounded.

conservative owl

Raising the same topic for the third time, I begin to remind me of that very Ekaterina Schulmann, who also sings seemingly the same thing, but always in a different tune. And yes, here is my usual chorus about donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Misha Svetov’s position is that borders should be closed, but will this apply to developed countries like the USA, EU, Japan, etc.? With them, it is actually profitable to have the easiest borders possible.

anonymous question

As I have already written, in the dispute between Svetov and Kichanova, I am more on the girl’s side, but I generally understand Misha’s position, and I think I will be able to clarify the issue that concerns you.

Mikhail defends the visa regime as a protection of freedom of association. That is, entry for anyone is prohibited by default (this is a manifestation of the freedom not to associate), but if there is an invitation from a citizen of the country, the visa must be issued unconditionally; otherwise, this is again a violation of the freedom of association. The inviter shares responsibility for the behavior of the invitee along with the invitee themselves—this is a standard institution of suretyship. Thus, the right to decide who to let into the country and who not to let in is held not by an official, but by a specific citizen, and he is the one accountable to other citizens for how he exercised this right.

I don’t recall Mikhail publicly stating his position exactly in this form, but this seems to me the only interpretation that does not contradict libertarianism. In general, such rules of access to the territory of a country would not be shameful for even a state that has firmly set itself on the path of minarchist reforms to adopt as a temporary solution.

awaiting suretyship

How do you feel about the libertarian videoblogger Egor Zhukov? He runs the channel “Zhukov’s Blog” and recently made a video about protest strategy.

anonymous question

I recently already answered about my attitude toward the vlogger Svetov; it seems that over time, I will need to answer regarding all more or less prominent libertarian figures.

Zhukov is quite reasonable in his ideas, but their presentation is not strong enough. Simple editing, fast speech, a general impression of cheapness — unfortunately, this reflects on the overall impression. Navalny or Svetov look more respectable. Alas, such details matter to the viewer.

His latest video, about Scandinavian socialism, is already quite solid, so the person is growing, and that is encouraging.

Regarding the series of videos on protest strategy specifically, it seems to me that he pays excessively much attention to analyzing others’ successes or failures, and while reproaching other protest organizers for a lack of creativity, he himself provides almost no examples. In essence, he is remembered only by one specific proposal — the “Flowers for the Police” action, but for some reason he didn’t analyze the results of this action, which would have been informative.
So, the main shortcoming of Zhukov, as with Svetov, seems to me to be that they are not the strongest team players, and within the framework of solo projects, their ceiling will be reached sooner or later.

Well, at least not against a carpet background…

Hmm. I should take a look in the mirror here…

I look in the mirror and see: experience working in the DemoCoalition in 15-16, experience cooperating with Navalny’s headquarters, Open Russia, Golos, and other organizations in a wide variety of regions — okay, I seem to know how to work in a team. If Russia becomes a parliamentary republic, perhaps I can even make it into a coalition government.

And there is already a small community around this channel — after all, LPR-tyan’s posts are not just answers, but also questions, and they are asked by engaged readers.

Well, cheers to the feedback! Bitcoins are welcome: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Do you share the personal views and values of Mikhail Svetov? What do you disagree with him about?

anonymous question

Misha has greatly expanded my circle of supporters, and this naturally influenced my personal views and values, so yes, I share them for the most part.

What parts of his agenda can I not fully agree with?

First, there is a whole series of claims about what a party should be. He is very afraid of a corporate raid, and therefore wants to introduce something like taxpayers’ democracy within it, with a vertical structure. I am more often afraid of it turning into a gutted bureaucratic structure, so I usually practice decentralization in decision-making and private initiatives.

Secondly, he has controversial claims regarding, for example, what is more dangerous in modern states — open borders or closed ones (he believes open ones are more dangerous). It is clear that state borders as such are dangerous, but to view a state border as almost a collective private property is some kind of strange selective trust in the state.

Thirdly, he introduced some concepts into common usage that are unconventional for libertarianism, such as “communities,” which smell more of sour cabbage than of freedom. Now he more often replaces this word with the term “contractual jurisdictions,” but it still implicitly follows from his words that under libertarianism, a person has one single jurisdiction for all occasions in life, which is categorically not necessary. In general, this is a case where his personal conservatism, it seems to me, slightly permeates the ideology.

What I also deeply regret is that other libertarians are not particularly promoted through the SVTV channel. There was Pozharsky — then Pozharsky was gone. There was Bazhenov — then Bazhenov was gone. In fact, all the co-hosts are gone, and it was a very good, unobtrusive way of demonstrating new faces to the public. But Misha is not the strongest team player. Perhaps that is exactly why he would prefer the party to have an organizational vertical, so as not to negotiate, but simply to give orders.

Thank you for reading me; my guest was Mikhail Svetov, a member of the LPR FC. Like, subscribe to the channel, and send bitcoins if you like what I do. 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
Until next time!

How does libertarianism relate to environmental protection? If there are no certain prohibitions at the state level, will we not jeopardize the endangered species of flora and fauna with extinction?

Anonymous question

First of all, of course, I would like to recommend a short video by Mikhail Svetov dedicated specifically to this issue.

The main idea of the video is that to save rare species, a free market is needed that allows for profit to be derived from their preservation. Unfortunately, a short monologue did not leave room for an analysis of how to overcome the tragedy of the commons—that is, a situation where privatizing a resource is either impossible or disproportionately expensive. To delve deeper into this issue, I recommend reading the book by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons”. It examines numerous cases of how public property, which by all theoretical considerations should have been ruthlessly plundered, was successfully preserved without government regulation.

Ostrom formulates a set of criteria that must be met for the effective management of a common resource:

  1. The group of common resource users is limited
  2. Usage rules are determined based on the characteristics of the resource
  3. Usage rules are developed by the users themselves or with their consent
  4. Monitoring of compliance with usage rules is carried out by persons accountable to the users
  5. Sanctions for violating usage rules are graduated in nature.

When these conditions are met, the joint use of a common resource does not lead to its degradation. Note that government intervention is directly contraindicated here as well, as it violates at least points 3 and 4.

So, the “invisible hand of the market” actually managed to solve even the tragedy of the commons. Hurrah for the market!