Тег: Privileges

How the state turned rights into privileges

Once, a person simply sat in a carriage, and later—behind the wheel of a car—and drove. Not because the state “allowed” it, but because the road was a road, transport was transport, and an adult person was considered capable of being responsible for their actions.

Then came the stationary bandit (“the state”). It did not take away freedom all at once—that would have been too noticeable. It acted carefully: first accounting, then registration, then a license, and finally a fine for its absence. And suddenly, that which was a right yesterday is called “authorization” today.

Driving a vehicle without a driver’s license? When automobiles first appeared, people learned to drive much like they learned to manage a horse: through practice, advice from acquaintances, and sometimes painful lessons. The license gradually became not just a confirmation of skill, but permission to use one’s own transport.

Crossing a border without a passport? Before the era of total passport control, millions of people traveled, moved, and looked for work without the ritual we are now accustomed to involving visas, stamps, and the humiliating question: “What is the purpose of your trip?” Today, a person is born on the planet, but to walk a few kilometers in another direction, they must prove to an official that they have a valid reason.

Building a house on your own land without approvals? It would seem the land is yours, the money is yours, the risk is yours. But no: bring a project, get a permit, coordinate setbacks, height, purpose, materials, utilities, and perhaps even the shade of the fence.

Buying medicine without a prescription? Once, a person could decide for themselves what to take, consulting a doctor, a pharmacist, or their own common sense. Now, many medications are available only after an official blessing. And it is not about whether medical advice is beneficial. It is about something else: why has advice turned into permission?

Opening a workshop, a production facility, or a small business without a license? Making soap, baking bread, transporting people, repairing houses, cutting hair, teaching children, hosting guests—the state increasingly views this not as a peaceful exchange between people, but as suspicious and illegal activity that must first be legalized.

Buying, carrying, and using weapons for self-defense without a license? In many countries and eras, weapons were a common tool of a free person—dangerous, requiring responsibility, but not a state gift. The authorization system turns everything upside down: a peaceful person must explain why they need a means of protection, and the state decides whether they are sufficiently convincing in their fear for their life.

And what about a child who wants to leave abusive parents for another reliable adult? In a natural order, they could find refuge with a relative, a neighbor, a teacher, or a family acquaintance. In an authorization-based order, an adult ready to help faces a practically prohibitive guardianship procedure, while the child meanwhile remains inside “properly documented” violence. The papers are in order—so, apparently, everything is fine. Bureaucracy has an amazing ability to fail to notice the human being behind an ideally filled-out form.

Practicing medicine without a state license? Of course, one should not deceive patients, hide qualifications, or cause harm—responsibility must be held for that. But the very fact of voluntary assistance, consultation, or treatment between people did not always require official permission. Licensing has replaced the question “Are you competent and honest?” with the question “Are you on the right list?”.

The main trick of the authorization state will be that it first declares a natural action dangerous, then forbids it without permission, and then issues permission and calls it the protection of freedom. This is how a right turns into a privilege. A right is something you can do as long as you do not violate the rights of others. A privilege is something you can do only when you are told “yes”.

And the most uncomfortable question here is not: “Why are they forbidding this to us?”. It sounds differently: “Why have we become accustomed to asking permission for our own lives?”.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Parliament is a privilege: laws should be born in agony and die in one click

Let’s talk a little bit today about deputies and dispel some democratic mythology. More specifically, the conversation will be about how supporters of minimal state ideas (minarchists) should view such an institution as parliament. In our society, it has somehow become the default assumption that parliament is a sacred cow. That they have some inherent right to write laws for us, tell us how to live, what to smoke, whom to sell our services to, and how many taxes to kick back into the common pot. But what if parliament is not a right, but a privilege?
 
What is the fundamental difference between a right and a privilege? The main difference is that a privilege is a thousand times easier to annul. To put its own citizen in prison (that is, to deprive them of the basic right to freedom), the state machine has to sweat. It needs investigators, prosecutors, a jury, ironclad evidence, appeals, and a heap of bureaucracy. Why? Because a right is something a person possesses by default. Now let’s take a foreigner with a visa. A visa is a privilege. To throw a foreigner out of the country, you don’t need to prove they are a world-scale villain. It is enough that they violated a couple of residency rules. A snap of the fingers—the privilege is revoked, suitcase, station, deportation.
 
Now let’s look honestly at history. Where did parliaments come from in the first place? If we discard the pretty fairy tales, then historically any parliament is nothing more than a monarchical privilege. A hypothetical king with an army of thugs could have simply chopped off the heads of all these “fighters for popular representation.” He could have declared them traitors and drowned the very idea of transferring power to some murky deputies in blood. But for various reasons (somewhere the money for war ran out, somewhere it became too tedious to deal with taxes personally), monarchs made a concession and granted a privilege.
 
As a society, we are today the collective sovereign. But for some reason, we have forgotten that these people sitting in plush chairs are a concession we have made to them. And since it is a privilege, the rules of the game must change radically. Deputies should not tell us how to live. They should wake up in a cold sweat from the thought that they could be thrown out into the cold today. A parliamentarian must live under a constant, invisible sword of Damocles.
 
How could this look in practice? We need institutional asymmetry so that any decision can be overturned with disproportionate ease. Laws should be hard to pass, but quick to die. For example: to pass a new law restricting anything at all, 50% of the deputies’ votes are needed. But to repeal it, 25% of the votes of those same deputies should be sufficient! Or, even better—just 1% of the citizens’ votes in a referendum. Collect the signatures, and the law flies into the wastebasket. Deputies must physically feel that their papermaking hangs by a thread.
 
A presumption of guilt for the authorities is also necessary. We must make the profession of a politician as unattractive as possible for careerists, psychopaths, and lovers of other people’s money. How about requiring everyone who enters parliament to sign a voluntary waiver of some of their civil rights? Messed up? Passed a law that destroyed the economy? No immunity. Confiscation of property down to the seventh generation, loss of rights, and for serious failures—expulsion from the country with a “wolf’s ticket” (blacklisted) for any reason, even the smallest. Ideally, only those ready for self-sacrifice should become deputies. It should not be a prestigious job, but an obligation. Hard, dangerous, and thankless.
 
For minarchists, the state is not a caring mommy. It is a Leviathan. And parliament is simply a temporary “necessary evil,” a kennel where a chained dog sits. Our task is to make the chain as short as possible and the collar strict, with spikes on the inside. So that at any attempt to bark at the owner (that is, at you and me), the dog cuts off its own oxygen.

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

AML/KYC as the reincarnation of estate privileges

In the past, during the era of feudalism, a person’s status in society almost always depended on their lineage. If you were born into a “noble” family of aristocrats, counts, dukes, or lords, you received various privileges from the king that were inaccessible to ordinary “serfs” under any circumstances, and you could lead an entirely different life. Access to things such as obtaining an education in certain professions (doctor, lawyer, architect) or running a large business was closed to representatives of the lower classes. It would seem that we live in different times now, and if someone is a talented person capable of figuring out how to provide themselves with the means to achieve their goals, then all doors are open to them. But in reality, it is not that simple.

Every day, AML/KYC procedures, which consist of identifying the sources of funds and the personal data of the individuals using them, are becoming increasingly widespread. This is especially noticeable when using cryptocurrencies—many exchanges and crypto-exchangers can easily block any user’s funds if, during their verification, some connection is found to wallets involved in “unapproved” activities, or even if an approved source of funds (for example, their acquisition on one of the known exchanges) is not discovered. In such a case, the user will be required to provide proof of the legality of the source of funds and undergo a “photo session” with their face and passport in hand, based on which the fate of their funds will be decided.

Of course, checks on the origin and legality of funds appeared even earlier in ordinary banking transactions. Many expensive goods, such as a car from a dealership or an apartment from a developer, can no longer be purchased simply by bringing cash. In the European Union, a decision was recently made to ban any cash transactions exceeding 10,000 euros, and sellers of expensive goods were required to thoroughly verify the identities of their clients and the origin of their funds, and to report any suspicions to the authorities. In many countries, it is also no longer possible to open a bank account without initially making some deposit backed by documents regarding its origin.

Ultimately, we find that money, depending on its origin as well as who controls it, can have different “ratings.” But what does this have to do with class privileges? Imagine that you are a descendant of “noble” blood and received your capital from your grandfather Rockefeller. These funds will never face any questions, and you can do anything with them—conclude billion-dollar deals, finance the activities of any organization, acquire any property, no matter how expensive it may be, etc. Your funds will simply be assessed with the highest rating. Now, imagine that you are an ordinary businessman who earned your capital by creating and managing some entrepreneurial activity. Your funds will also have a high rating, but your entry into the “upper circles” is already closed, and you cannot avoid thorough inspections by government agencies and compliance with a number of regulations, although after passing them, you will be able to spend freely. For an ordinary worker, the situation is even worse—when attempting to acquire goods that are “inconsistent” with their salary, problems with the “stationary bandit” are unavoidable. And if it ultimately turns out that they were earned in some “illegal” manner, then most likely, in addition to punishment, this person will be “blacklisted” by government agencies and the structures subordinate to them (banks, exchanges, payment systems), and will not be able to acquire anything other than basic life necessities for quite some time. Money from his hands will have a “zero” rating.

All of this is not some kind of fantasy, as we can already observe the requirement to undergo AML/KYC procedures in many sectors. And the plans of states around the world regarding the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDC) will only facilitate all of this. In the end, we are seeing a reincarnation of estate privileges in the modern world.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Minecraft versus copyright

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Supporters of the state monopoly privilege known as copyright and patent law are very afraid that without a mechanism of forceful punishment for the unauthorized copying and distribution of information content, its creators will simply be left with nothing, pirates will rob them and deprive them of the means of subsistence and the incentive to create new content in the future. Of course, there are dozens of ways to monetize content without using such a privilege, however, we will not analyze them now, but simply look at one practical example that I have known for a long time, but for some reason remembered only very recently. And this example is a game called Minecraft.

The creator of Minecraft, Markus Persson, is a supporter of piracy; he criticizes the attitude towards this phenomenon prevalent in large companies and is even a member of the Pirate Party of Sweden. He has never been against people freely copying and distributing the game he created. However, this did not prevent him from earning 640 million Swedish kronor (about 100 million US dollars) from the sale of licensed copies of the game in 2012 alone, and later selling his stake in the company he founded, Mojang, for 2.5 billion dollars (currently owned by the Microsoft corporation). Minecraft itself became the best-selling game in the world, with about 200 million licensed copies sold by 2020.

Indeed, although Minecraft is officially proprietary software, in reality it is not protected against copying; its files are not encrypted in any way and anyone can download and use them, and this is not even restricted by its current copyright holders (although I am not familiar with their future plans). Access to the official game launcher is only available to players who have purchased a licensed copy, however, a large number of unofficial launchers already exist, and the game itself can be launched without a launcher, simply using the command line. And for unlicensed players, not only single-player but also multiplayer is available. The game server core has a function in its settings which, by disabling it, the server owner can grant connection access to anyone regardless of whether they have a license; therefore, there are many unlicensed servers in the game. And this fact, by the way, also in no way hinders the development of licensed servers and the earnings of their owners.

As we can see, after creating information content, it is entirely possible to get by without forceful privileges. Their absence did not prevent Minecraft from becoming the best-selling game in the world, nor did it stop the game’s creator, Markus Persson, from joining the Forbes billionaires list. There are also many examples of other games that were cracked and posted on torrent trackers even before their official release; nonetheless, the sales of licensed keys did not collapse because of this.