Тег: Regulations

While officials fear it, genes break down: why deregulation of biotech is a question of humanity’s survival

Представь, что ты едешь по трассе на старой машине, и внезапно понимаешь, что тормоза давно не работают. Сначала кажется, что всё в порядке: ты просто спокойно катишься, скорость не очень высокая, погода хорошая, ветерок в лицо. Но впереди – огромная бетонная стена, и с каждым метром она ближе. Примерно так сейчас выглядит ситуация с генетикой человека.

Когда-то естественный отбор беспощадно отсекал вредные мутации — сурово, конечно, но эффективно. Если твои гены были совсем уж плохи, то детей у тебя, скорее всего, не было. Так человечество поддерживало здоровье поколений веками. Потом мы построили цивилизацию, создали медицину и сделали прекрасную вещь: теперь выживает почти все. Но у этой прекрасной медали есть обратная сторона — генетический груз. Каждое поколение накапливает всё больше мелких мутаций, которые раньше бы природа просто не пропустила. Теперь же они спокойно передаются дальше. Ты и не заметишь этого сразу: дети пока рождаются вполне здоровыми. Но статистика уже фиксирует медленный, но верный рост наследственных заболеваний.

Например, сто лет назад диабет 1-го типа был приговором, сейчас — не более чем неудобством. Замечательно? Да! Только вот гены, ответственные за болезнь, теперь свободно гуляют в наших потомках. Мутации растут с каждым поколением как снежный ком. Пока что это не критично, но через сотню-другую лет можно прийти к тому, что каждая новая жизнь станет лотереей с плохими шансами. Сюжет фильма «Идиократия» станет реальностью.

Посмотри на породистых собак — пример вырождения наглядный и печальный. Когда люди решили «отключить» естественный отбор и занялись селекцией по внешнему виду, здоровье пород пошло под откос. Бульдоги задыхаются, у такс спины ломаются от минимальной нагрузки, а лабрадоры страдают от артритов и ожирения. Нам стоит задуматься, хотим ли мы такого же будущего для человечества.

Есть ли решение? Конечно, есть. Генная инженерия и биотехнологии уже готовы нам помочь. Генная терапия — это уже не фантастика, а реальность. С её помощью уже сегодня спасают детей от редчайших смертельных болезней, таких как спинальная мышечная атрофия и серповидно-клеточная анемия. И это только начало: потенциально, с помощью генотерапии можно исправлять десятки наследственных заболеваний прямо в клетках уже живущего человека. Но если мы смотрим дальше в будущее, то самое перспективное направление — это редактирование генов эмбрионов. Представь, что можно не просто лечить болезнь у отдельного человека, а полностью исключить её из генофонда навсегда. Одно точечное исправление в зародыше — и больше никакой проблемы не будет ни у ребёнка, ни у его потомков. Такие технологии уже успешно тестируются на животных, и технически они полностью готовы к применению на человеке.

But here, the state enters the game – or, as it should be called correctly, “stationary bandit.” The state decided: no, friends, don’t rush. Let’s put ten thousand bans, regulations, licenses, and bureaucratic filters on all biotechnology. Want to get treated? Get medications for a million dollars per injection, even if its production cost is negligible. Want to correct a genetic error in advance, at the embryonic stage? No, wait, it’s “unethical,” not the time for this. The result is absurd: humanity is rushing headlong into a wall, but the only mechanic capable of fixing the brakes has been locked up in a garage with ten padlocks – and that’s just the beginning. Instead of giving science and business freedom, the state chooses to over-insure. Just in case it gets worse. Although it already does every year.

Why should we wait decades while bureaucrats and officials allow scientists to use gene technologies for the benefit of all? Why do we agree to let the only arbitrator of our future be an endless ethics commission, which doesn’t even have its own vision of the future?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The State Suffocates 23andMe and Kills Biotech’s Future

Once upon a time, the test from 23andMe was like an iPhone in the world of DNA: spit into a tube – and within a couple of weeks you’d know what diseases threatened you, your caffeine gene dependence, and who your ancestors were. For $99, without doctors or hospitals, it was a revolution. After launching in 2007, the company enjoyed wild success, everyone was thrilled, people bought tests by the handful, and the company received significant investments. It seemed like a victory.

But then the American regulator, FDA, entered the picture and said: “Hold on. Where’s the evidence that your tests are accurate? What if people don’t properly understand their test results and harm themselves?” As a result, in 2013, 23andMe was banned from displaying health reports, leaving only mundane data and genealogy. Consider it like Netflix being left without series – just lists of actors. The company attempted to survive and dance with bureaucracy: approving tests one by one, waiting years, rewriting interfaces. In 2017, they were finally allowed to restore some functions – but not 254 diseases, as before, only 10. And the cost of the test became no longer $99, but $199.

Clearly, this looked far less attractive to consumers. Of course, there were still hopes, and in 2021, 23andMe went public with a valuation of $6 billion. However, by 2024 – a collapse of 98%, threats of delisting, layoffs. Additionally, a hacking incident occurred, millions of genetic profiles leaked into the darknet. The final act was bankruptcy in 2025.

And now the question for you: where was the consumer within this story? Did they want to know about the risks of Alzheimer’s disease? They did. Could they adequately interpret the figures? Perhaps. But the state decided that they weren’t ready, that it was premature, that it was dangerous. And tightened the screws because “it’s safer that way.” The problem wasn’t solely with the FDA. In Europe, specifically in Germany and France, direct genetic tests were completely prohibited – meaning individuals didn’t have the right to learn their own DNA without a doctor. Just like in old times when the library was locked and guarded.

The 23andMe company wasn’t perfect. Yes, it experimented, monetized data, made errors. But it was killed not by competitors or the market, but by the regulatory machinery that slowed down every innovation, demanded proof where there was progress, and obstructed millions of people from learning more about themselves. And one could have done differently – one could have trusted a person. Provide information with the note “not a diagnosis,” as do Google and Wikipedia. One could have created a market with competition, with ratings, with development. Instead – fear, bans and “it can’t be yet.”

All of this applies not only to 23andMe. This is the story of the future of biotech. Gene therapies, personalized medicine, prevention based on DNA – all of this requires freedom of action and flexible management that helps, rather than suffocates. But for now, unfortunately, reality is such: technologies are running ahead, while regulators stand with “stop” flags.

Imagine a world where you can find out about your weaknesses in advance and take measures on time. Where a doctor treats not symptoms, but the causes, based on your unique genetics. Where diseases can be prevented, not just treated. This is the future that could have already arrived if the stationary bandit had loosened its grip just a little. Instead, we live in a world where breakthroughs constantly hit a bureaucratic wall. Startups and innovation are forced to prove the obvious for years while technology becomes outdated and investors’ money melts away.

And as a final thought. Whose information is it – a person’s genes? Who should decide whether a person can be informed about their risks, mutations, chances? The person himself or the official in a tie who thinks that “the citizen won’t understand”?

The history of 23andMe is not just the fall of a startup. It’s a reminder: freedom, including genetic freedom, is not given easily, it must also be fought for. Otherwise, we risk remaining in a world where technology exists, but cannot be used. A world where the future is constantly postponed due to endless “noes.” Let’s not allow this to become our reality!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a free market rid us of oligarchs?

It is highly likely that you have frequently encountered the question of oligarchic growth and capital accumulation. It may also have arisen the question of whether this problem could be solved with decentralization and deregulation of the market. Of course, we immediately note that no one can offer a miraculous and magical solution to all of humanity’s problems. But let’s still look at how a free market and genuine competition can ease – if not completely solve – this long-standing disease of the economy.

The essence of oligarchy is simple – capital attracts capital. Money begets money, as they say. The richer you become, the easier it becomes to get even richer. Eventually, all large business begins to resemble a closed club where entry for an ordinary person is forbidden. Many may now find this clear – it’s necessary to strictly regulate the activities of the wealthy and take away part of their funds. But if you dig deeper, state regulations often help them more. They not only do not fight against oligarchy but also create favorable conditions for its flourishing. Why? Because large companies have the resources to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists who skillfully circumvent all barriers. Meanwhile, small entrepreneurs drown in bureaucratic jungles.

So why can deregulation help? Imagine: a market is a vast ocean. State regulations are artificial obstacles, reefs and islands around which it’s convenient to build personal kingdoms. If they were removed, the vast ocean would become much harder to divide into cozy “corners.” Free competition is like a storm that constantly breaks up any monopolies and prevents them from consolidating. To compete – means to live, to stand still – to drown. Remember how the internet destroyed traditional monopolies: taxi services, media, retail. New players emerged – Uber, YouTube, Amazon – and turned everything upside down. Yes, now they are new giants, but they appeared precisely because old regulations did not keep pace with technology.

Decentralization is another tool for protection against oligarchy, a new level. This is not just the cancellation of rules, but the transfer of control over resources and assets from a group of “chosen” people to the hands of many market participants. Recall cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Their main idea: to replace centralized control with transparent rules that cannot be changed for someone specific. As a result, a system is built in which no participant can gain an advantage simply by virtue of their position or connections in government. Decentralization destroys the very ground for oligarchy. It’s impossible to build an empire on control over something that doesn’t belong to anyone.

But this is not a perfect pill – a free market and decentralization are not an absolute cure for greed and dishonesty. Some people will continue to try to create cartels, conspiracies, and fraudulent schemes. But without state patronage, without bureaucratic “quiet harbors,” it will be much harder for them.

Let’s wrap it up: yes, deregulation and decentralization aren’t perfect. But they definitely deprive the oligarchy of its main trump card – state support. They don’t just treat symptoms; they eliminate the very source of the disease. A free market is a continuous battle of ideas, products, and talent, where no one can rest on their laurels. Of course, the decision is yours – what to choose. In any case, it’s more interesting to live in a world where everyone has a chance to win, not just those sitting closer to the state trough.

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Privacy That Is Too Expensive: How the Good Intentions of Officials Are Destroying the Internet

Do you know the difference between good intentions and actual results? Naturally, it’s the number of ruined lives. When the EU and USA launched GDPR and CCPA to protect personal data, it all sounded beautiful: “We will protect your data from malicious corporations!” Russia, with its Federal Law No. 152, also jumped on board with the idea that they would protect citizens from digital bandits and Western agents. The concept looked decent, but what happened in the end?

Paradox one: your data is still floating around the web like a cat on the rooftops in spring. Leaks? Every year they break records! Just imagine: under GDPR in Europe, more than 160 thousand leaks occurred in the first year and a half. In Russia, the situation is practically farcical: the data of nearly all adult citizens has already been leaked online. What kind of protection are we talking about in this case?

Paradox two: the laws are supposedly against market giants, but they are the ones who came out on top. Google and Facebook’s share of the advertising market only grew after the introduction of GDPR. Why? They simply have enough money for an army of lawyers and technicians that others cannot afford. Moreover, compliance with GDPR or CCPA became a nightmare for small businesses and startups; many simply couldn’t handle it and shut down.

Paradox three: instead of growth in trust, we received only irritation from endless cookie banners and permission requests for every single breath. People don’t read—they just click “I Agree.” It’s like those bank terms and conditions that nobody reads, only to be surprised later: “How did I end up owing 5 thousand rubles a month for account maintenance?”

Another unpleasant point is data localization. In Russia, the law requires storing citizens’ data on local servers, allegedly to protect information from Western intelligence agencies. The result? Instead of Google or LinkedIn, Russians got local analogues with questionable security and low service quality. It’s like being forced to buy bread from only one store, with the justification that it’s “safer.” But when there is no choice, quality usually drops and prices rise.

There are also amusing examples: many American websites simply blocked access from the EU after GDPR, deciding that European users were “too expensive” to maintain. Imagine you want to visit your favorite resource, and it tells you: “Sorry, you are too expensive a customer, goodbye!” Absurd? Yes, but such is the new reality of data protection.

So what should we do? A libertarian approach, instead of suffocating state regulation, offers common sense and market mechanisms. First and foremost, these are voluntary standards instead of bureaucracy. Let businesses develop effective data protection rules themselves. And if consumers don’t like something—they will go to competitors who respect privacy. After all, if a company screws up, the market will punish it, customers will leave, and profits will fall. This works more effectively than any Roskomnadzor inspection or fines.

But what will help best is the use of technological solutions instead of paperwork. For example, end-to-end encryption, where access to your messages and files is available only to the sender and the recipient. Even if the data falls into the wrong hands, the hacker will simply see a meaningless set of characters. Another important approach is data minimization. Why collect every single piece of data if only the bare minimum is needed?! For most web services, a login and password are enough. The less data, the fewer risks. And also—decentralized storage. Instead of one large database that lures hackers, information can be distributed across many independent points, making the attackers’ lives many times harder. In short, technology allows for the protection of privacy far more effectively than government laws and endless inspections.

As we can see, a good intention does not equal a good law. Officials wanted the best, but they got what they usually get. Let’s trust people and business instead of bureaucrats and the instructions they impose!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How investment restrictions strengthen the power and wealth of elites

Imagine that you are a talented, smart and, most importantly, hardworking person. Perhaps even financially savvy: you read books about Buffett, follow a few investor bloggers, and even know the difference between a bond and a stock. In short, you’re a winner, ready to take everything life has to offer.

But then the state gently pats you on the shoulder and says: “Hey there, buddy, stop-stop! You’re too poor to invest in interesting things. Why don’t you just put your money in the bank at 4% and don’t make a fuss.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the world of restrictions for “non-qualified investors.”

What is actually happening? In many countries (USA, Russia, EU), a roughly similar scheme is in place: authorities divide investors into two castes — “quals” (those with plenty of money and the right papers) and “non-quals” (everyone else). Quals can invest anywhere: venture startups, hedge funds, IPOs, cryptocurrencies, complex derivatives — in short, any juicy opportunities with the potential for hundreds of percent growth.

But for an ordinary person, even if their IQ is higher than that of many millionaires, the road there is closed. True, in some cases, people have found workarounds through cryptocurrency: thanks to it, one can invest in startups and projects that would otherwise be completely inaccessible due to formal restrictions. The state is protecting us, mere mortals, from risks. Like, just in case — what if we lose our money and become even poorer?

But here is the paradox: casinos and betting shops — please, go ahead. Lotteries — always welcome! Loans at 25% per annum — “dear, come in, we’re glad to see you!”. But a startup by your acquaintance — no way, too risky, you’re not a millionaire to invest in such things! Ironic, isn’t it?

Such restrictions lead to a banal financial apartheid: the rich gain access to the juiciest investments and become even richer, while the middle class and the poor are forced to settle for crumbs — deposits and low-yield bonds. In the USA, for example, only 13% of households fall into the category of accredited investors. And it is they who get access to venture deals that turn 1,000 dollars into a million. Meanwhile, the average John Smith has to sadly watch the success of others, settling for boring S&P 500 ETFs.

Russia has gone even further: “non-quals” are completely forbidden from investing in foreign stocks. Tesla, Apple, Nvidia? Forget it! Your lot is Gazprom shares, a deposit with a yield below inflation, and a state pension. In short, stay quiet and dream of a salary increase at the factory. And Europe? There, regulators have decided that people “do not have a legitimate need” to invest in crypto-derivatives or use high leverage. This is like telling a person: “You do not have a legitimate need to earn more.” Thank you, so very caring!

Who benefits from this? Imagine: if a person earns a lot from investments, they become financially independent. They are no longer afraid of the boss, layoffs, or a crisis. They gain money, time, and the most terrifying thing for the authorities — the ability to think about politics. It is not in the interests of the authorities for the middle class to get rich quickly and stop depending on a salary and the state. After all, as long as you slave away from morning till night at a job you hate, paying off loans and trying to make ends meet, you certainly have no time for rallies and protests. No time to wonder who up there is stealing the budget — you have to feed the family and pay the mortgage! Thus, investment restrictions play into the hands not only of the super-rich (who maintain exclusive investment opportunities) but also of states, for whom it is easier to manage a tired and economically dependent population.

What to do and how to live on? The problem is not that investing is dangerous. The problem is that the state has decided that you are a child, incapable of making a decision about your own money. If a new Apple or Google appears tomorrow, you will be the last to know, when the shares have already hit the exchange and grown dozens of times. Until then, the “quals” will skim the cream. It is time to return the right to take risks!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How billionaires bypass the oppression of the state

Following up on the previous post about the birth rate among billionaires.

In the previous post, we figured out why billionaires and the ultra-wealthy have a good birth rate compared to the general population—they successfully bypass the problem of state regulation that suffocates the psyche. Other people, living as if in a cage under the supervision of a “civil servant-trainer,” begin to behave like hunted animals with a lost instinct for procreation.

Why, then, do billionaires successfully bypass this problem? Because they have an antidote to state oppression—money and influence. With great fortunes, they buy themselves an immunity and peace of mind unknown to mere mortals. What is an inevitable obligation for us is, for them, a solvable organizational matter involving a couple of phone calls.

Here is how the elite free themselves from the problems that stifle everyone else:

1) An army of lawyers: For a wealthy person, any legal battle with the state ends before it even begins. Fines will be contested and overturned; loopholes in the law will be found. Billionaires do not fear laws—they turn them to their advantage. If it is necessary to bypass stupid regulation, they hire the best lawyers and lobby for the necessary amendments.

2) Personal assistants: You won’t find the wealthy in queues at clinics or government service centers. They have assistants who handle all the paperwork for them. Bureaucratic routine is outsourced to paid employees. The stress from bureaucracy for them is zero—they don’t immerse themselves in it personally.

3) Private jets and drivers: They are not threatened by the loss of their driver’s license for speeding—they have personal drivers who deal with the traffic police themselves. They don’t stand in stuffy buses or squeeze into the subway. A private jet saves them from humiliating border inspections. They do not feel the “shepherd’s whip” with which the stationary bandit drives us in everyday life.

4) Private schools and medicine: Their children study in elite schools and universities, outside the system of mandatory standards to which everyone else is subjected. They don’t need to worry that a state school will negatively affect the child—they simply move to the private sector. The same goes for medicine: any problem is solved for money in a private clinic, bypassing the queues and low quality of state hospitals.

5) Tax minimization: While income tax is automatically deducted from your salary, large corporations and their owners hide profits in offshore accounts and use tax breaks.

6) A billionaire pays the state relatively less than you do as a percentage of their income—even though it would seem it should be the other way around. But they have the best accountants, financial consultants, and the ability to move their business where the tax is lower. As a result, the super-wealthy often avoid the bulk of the tax burden, shifting it onto the middle class.

7) Private security: Many billionaires simply don’t need the state police—they have their own private security service. Security often has access to weapons, special control systems, and high-tech surveillance (from CCTV systems to internet tracking tools). Consequently, a billionaire can set the rules on their own property (mansions, corporate campuses, “closed” gated communities), often ignoring state laws.

8) Influence and connections: Finally, the cleverest install and remove rulers. If a law hinders them, they will see to it that it is changed. If a regulator pressures their industry, they will find a way to the right minister. The state serves big capital rather than commanding it. In a sense, billionaires keep the state on a short leash, using it for their own interests.

Taken together, this produces a striking effect: most state restrictions practically do not apply to the super-wealthy. They live as if outside the state—or above it. The rules are written for you, not for them. That is why their hands are free where you are bound hand and foot.

P.S. Specifically for the authoritarian-right who see no problem in this: Elon Musk’s 12 children in no way compensate for the zero children of millions of ordinary people.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Who benefits from regulations and what threat they may lead to

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Who is always the first to demand the introduction of new taxes? And who demands the introduction of new laws regarding the regulation of the economy and the market? Etatists will say that ordinary citizens are primarily interested in this for the sake of protecting their interests, ensuring security, and providing social benefits. But such an answer would be foolish, because the correct answer is large corporations, which are literally “in bed” with the state.

Why did Jeff Bezos—founder of Amazon, a company that writes off its profits as expenses to avoid paying taxes—support the increase of corporate taxes in the USA? To any sane person, it will be obvious that this is necessary to eliminate competitors in the market. But that is an old story; there is a more current example—well-known corporations and billionaires, such as Elon Musk and Microsoft, are actively calling for the regulation and limitation of the development of Artificial Intelligence. All of this, of course, they justify by the alleged need to ensure safety, since AI is so far a technology that is not fully understood, including in terms of risks. But such words sound like a fabricated excuse; moreover, why would major market players limit a technology upon which they can make money? Obviously, the point is to prevent private developments in the field of AI from entering the market; many small companies simply will not be able to afford the regulations, whereas large corporations will easily handle them. It is especially worth noting that those calling for the regulation of this field are themselves extremely active in its development.

The drive toward market monopolization is clear, as are the results of this process. Due to the lack of competition, everyone will only become poorer, and technological progress will be stunted. But the problem is not only this; there is a far more terrifying scenario. If AI technology truly carries some danger, then it would be extremely foolish to try to limit it, especially in developed Western societies where law-abiding citizens, who do not seek to harm anyone, will indeed follow the regulations. However, those who wish to use AI to cause harm will not follow the regulations. This applies to government authorities and their various structures. And it especially applies to those structures that are not under the control of Western jurisdictions at all. Some hackers from North Korea, already famous for hacking and stealing funds from crypto exchanges, persecuting people, and attempting to breach the defense networks of other countries, spit on Western bans; they will actively develop and use AI to cause harm to others. And military structures everywhere will certainly use AI, and even if the West bans its own military from doing so (and even that is a doubtful scenario, as the military usually has a completely free hand in such matters), jurisdictions hostile to the West will engage in it. In the end, only the civilian sector and the development of AI tools that could be used to counter AI threats will suffer from the bans and regulations.

The ability of large corporations and monopolists linked to the state to promote favorable regulations through it not only harms everyone economically, but can also jeopardize the very security for which all of this is allegedly being done. And will anyone still justify the very existence of stationary bandits and their ability to impose bans on everyone after this?

Georgia is closing

Two and a half years ago, I seriously considered Georgia as a suitable country to settle in and build a pleasant local ancap community around myself. All the sadder I am now to realize that Anton Epikhin was right when he conducted an analysis of where it would be easiest to start building a libertarian community, and ruled out Georgia.

Long ago, under the president before the last one, Georgia responded to Russian sanctions by opening its doors even wider for Russians, offering them the freedom to arrive, settle, purchase property, and start businesses. Now it is beginning to restrict political immigration, and even simple temporary entry into the country for those who publicly declare principles slightly more liberal than those of the current Georgian government.

Going to a country where a former president, who nominally stood on the side of freedom, is in prison is a stranger decision than going to a country where the president is in opposition to the prime minister, and both are desperately barking at each other, but there is no talk of imprisonments. Going to a country that does not allow political emigrants from Russia is a stranger decision than going to a country that does not extradite them to Russia. In essence, all that Georgia and Montenegro have in common today are the mountains, the sea, and the lack of direct flights from the RF.

I hope that those Russian libertarians who have already moved to Georgia manage to get out of the country before they suddenly decide to deport them to the RF. There are too few of us to waste people.

For my part, I can only promise that I will continue to build a convenient platform for receiving those who will come to us in Montelibero.

And yet, it was nice there…

How do you feel about being forced to participate in a market economy?

Input data: the team of Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau sent letters to 14 large property owners, threatening to forcibly buy out 194 vacant residential units owned by them if they do not put the apartments on the market.

Anonymous question

Of course, the provided input data is incomplete. Here, for example, is a little more information about rental market regulations in Barcelona, gathered from a quick Google search:

So, look at what is happening. First, the Olympic Games are held in the city; for this occasion, the state pours serious money into increasing the city’s tourist appeal. Tourists flood the city. Demand for short-term rentals spikes. Residents who rent housing themselves begin to grumble: rental prices have risen for them. Locals who are not tied to the tourism market also grumble: noisy tourists are wandering everywhere, and there is no room to move. The government listens to the voters’ opinion and begins to tighten the screws. Time and again, it demotivates property owners from renting to tourists—at high prices and for short terms—and instead demands they rent to locals—cheaply and for the long term.

What do property owners do when they realize that renting to anyone under the current rules is unprofitable? They freeze the business and wait for favorable conditions. Or they rent completely “under the table,” so that officially the housing stands empty. What does the government do? It begins to “force” them to the market, demanding that the housing be listed for long-term rental at regulated rates, threatening otherwise to forcibly buy out their property at prices set by the government itself.

With exactly the same success, one could talk about forcing peasants to the market who, for example, are forbidden from selling what they grew personally at the city market and are instead required to hand it over for pennies to wholesalers appointed from above.

How can I feel about this? Naturally, strongly negative. There is no need to call a state plan a “market”; it only introduces unnecessary confusion.

The Barcelona case shows very well how even a seemingly single benevolent government intervention (investments in infrastructure for the Olympic Games) leads to a market distortion, which causes public discontent and provokes further strengthening of government regulations. So, the best answer to the question of how the state can help you still remains the eternally relevant answer: Laissez faire et laissez passer.

What is the difference between libertarianism (classlib) and modern “European Union” liberalism, and how do Ancap-chan and Bitarch view the latter, being ancaps and voluntarists?

Do you believe that social justice, democracy, general welfare, developed feminism, LGBT rights, juvenile justice, tolerance, reliable protection of human rights, liberty, equality, and fraternity are good or bad, and why?

Teanol (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.00008010 BTC)

In classical liberalism, the state is considered an evil necessary for the protection of private property rights. In libertarianism, it is not considered necessary for this function; however, as long as it limits itself to this, its existence may be considered justified. In a conditional EU-style liberalism, the state is viewed as a tool for reconciling the interests of various strata of society, one that is more convenient than free market tools.

What is the convenience of the modern liberal state compared to the classical liberal one? Primarily, it is that being personally responsible for one’s own life is a rather frightening level of responsibility for many people. In the market, you must independently decide which property objects to insure, where, and under what conditions; how much and when to save for unforeseen circumstances or for an entirely predictable old age; which neighbors’ claims to satisfy and which to actively oppose, and if you oppose them, whether to do so independently or in a coalition. This is somewhat complicated; it’s better to spend one’s finite intellectual resources on skills that bring in money, and delegate all the aforementioned tasks, as far as possible, to those who are more savvy in these matters.

In a complex world where narrow specialists interact, a vast number of standardized solutions will inevitably be used, and a significantly smaller number of custom ones. The state is a standardized solution for any issues where it is not entirely clear who to offload them onto. And since such issues are constantly proliferating, the functionality of the state—even one consisting of entirely well-meaning liberal bureaucrats completely devoid of corrupt interests—will inevitably expand.

But as the state grows, its inefficiency inevitably grows as well. A Swiss Army knife with a couple hundred blades looks great in a store window, and you really want to buy this shiny toy, but in everyday life, the vast majority find it more convenient to have one very simple knife for most standard tasks, plus a couple of highly specialized ones that are used rarely, but when others are extremely inconvenient. A durable jumpsuit with a bunch of pockets looks exquisitely designed, but in a relaxed setting, a person throws on shorts and a t-shirt. It seems like you’d want to be able to call 911 and solve absolutely any problem, but in practice, this means you’ll get tired of fighting an automated answering machine, selecting menu items, and in the end, you’ll still be directed to the wrong specialist.

One would think that the more aggressive the environment, the tougher and more reliable the institutions should be. Therefore, on a small yacht in the middle of the sea, a single chain of command and clear functional duties for each crew member are quite appropriate, while on a beach, it’s enough that those wishing to play volleyball don’t trip over those sunbathing; otherwise, let complete anarchy reign and no one will care about anyone else. But the state cannot do that. It grew out of military needs, and it’s like a guy who returned from the front, suffers from PTSD, and is extremely outraged that people on the beach aren’t buttoned up to the top, aren’t marching in formation, and aren’t saluting. If you let him establish his order, everyone will have a hard time, even without unofficial hazing. And it’s no better when the state looks like a safety engineer. Fence off the volleyball court! Divide swimming zones by gender and age! Everyone put on life jackets! Organize the delivery of ice cream and lemonade! But the ice cream must be warm so that no one catches a cold, and the lemonade sugar-free, regardless of the fact that the ice cream has sugar. And then the state will see some kind of COVID, and the whole beach will go down the drain because everyone must stay home and wash their hands.

For Bitarkha, it is important that no one attacks anyone. Because one person will attack with fists, and another will sneeze on the first, and the whole world will die from a virus. So that no one dares to attack anyone, it is desirable that everyone be armed, and those who are not stopped by the sight of a weapon in others’ hands should be stopped some other way. It could be a bullet at the moment of attack, but it’s more humane to make them change their mind, perhaps, say, medicinally. Fortunately, Bitarkha only needs people to observe the NAP; otherwise, he would be indistinguishable from an adept of the COVID-fighting state. In order to live in a safe society, he is willing to pay well.

It is important to me that both I and the people around me are wealthy and free. For this, people must not be robbed or restricted, and they must not be extorted for all sorts of useless nonsense. For this, robbing and restricting must be dangerous, unprofitable, and unprestigious. And I, as a civilized and benevolent person, would of course prefer that people be stopped from robbing and regulating for reasons of lack of prestige, or at the very least, lack of profitability. If I have to ensure a threat to them as well, that will stress me out.

I apologize for the lack of a direct list, such as “I feel this way about social justice, that way about democracy,” and so on.

By the way, about urbanism…