The translation of the final chapter has been posted on my website. This chapter addresses a set of objections to libertarianism from well-meaning lovers of that wonderful atmosphere of cooperation and equality that we value so much in small communities united by a common goal. Eric Mack’s counterarguments boil down to the fact that attempting to stretch the “owl” of small, ideologically homogeneous communities over the “globe” of a diverse humanity leads to the owl tearing: the very values for which people cling to these small communities are lost.

Now only a purely technical task remains—to format the translation into an epub for more convenient reading. Those interested may use the text to publish a print run of hard copies of the translation on paper. I will be satisfied if, in doing so, it is indicated where the text was taken from, and a link is provided for those wishing to donate to the translator.

After a long, terrifyingly long break, I am getting around to finishing my once-started translation projects. Today it is the penultimate chapter of Libertarianism by Eric Mack, in which the author examines the critique of libertarianism by certain individuals unknown to me, Murphy and Nagel. The main point of their critique is that no natural rights exist; all rights are a convention. And, since the existing system of property rights is established through a state funded by taxes, it is meaningless to speak of the injustice of taxation, because taxation is inextricably linked to the very existence of property rights. A curious judgment that should make any libertarian’s blood boil. The way Eric Mack responds to them will, of course, not satisfy these statists, but it may slightly soothe the libertarian heartache.

While the translation was on pause, the mysterious technologies of the ancients were completely forgotten, so there will be no image with a progress bar.

I have translated another chapter of Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism. Here, the author briefly (well, as far as the word “briefly” applies to Eric Mack) explains that when Rawls tries to explain why libertarians are wrong by denying the need for a certain basic structure introduced by Rawls—which would impose uniform rules and procedures on everyone in the name of justice—he cannot simultaneously claim that this structure will be white and fluffy, introducing clear and reasonable rules according to which one can pay taxes and sleep soundly. No, according to Rawls, taxes will need to be paid, but that will not give you the right to sleep soundly: after the fact, your income may still be deemed unfair, and you will be forced to shell out more in the name of justice.

By the way, speaking of shelling out. My access to my Qiwi wallet was blocked, and when I tried to recover it, I discovered that with all my moves, I had long since lost the Russian SIM card it was linked to. I managed to withdraw the money, but I no longer consider this channel of receiving funds reliable. Thus, you no longer have the option to donate to me in state-regulated fiat instruments (and all posts in the private channel on Boosty are now open—you are unlikely to find much interesting there). For one-time donations, only various types of cryptocurrencies remain at your service (I especially recommend tokens circulating within the Montelibero project). Cryptocurrency wallets are usually not designed for regular donations; that requires custodial storage. So, as a temporary workaround, you can simply set a monthly reminder for yourself to “donate to Ancap-chan”.

In the chapter Anarchy, the minimal state without taxation and the minimal state with taxation, Eric Mack first touches upon the topic of ancap, which he had previously disdainfully neglected. It is amusing that the section where this topic arises is the final one in the book, concerning not even the exposition of libertarian doctrines, but rather the critique thereof. Well, what can you expect from academic philosophers.

Thanks to Alex Dvoretsky for the donation that motivated me to translate. In full accordance with the economic mainstream, the funding of public goods such as publishing things in open access should be underfunded, and yet your donations consistently feed me, although not to satiety.

There are only three chapters left to translate in the book. Usually, this means the process should speed up, because everyone is curious whether there will be a happy ending and if the main characters will get married. We shall see.

Alex Dvoretsky cheered me up with another donation, so I am releasing the translation of the final chapter of the bonus section of Eric Mack’s book on libertarianism. The chapter is devoted to a problem faced by all indirect consequentialist approaches to creating a pleasant society to live in. For people in a society to limit themselves to voluntary interaction, voluntary self-restraint and widespread adherence to the rules of fair behavior are required. But for every specific person, there will always be a justification for deviating slightly from these rules for a bit more gain. And they know that others have similar justifications. Where would the confidence come from that everyone will follow the rules? And without this confidence, who will follow them?

This is exactly why raw consequentialism is unable to create a stable libertarian society — a catalyst in the form of a belief in the necessity of following the rules is required; that is, their observance must be seen as inherently valuable, and not just as a means to achieve general well-being. Only then will general well-being follow.

I have left to translate the last part of the book, dedicated to the critique of libertarianism. There is an introduction and four chapters; perhaps I will finish within a reasonable timeframe, before Mikhail Pozharsky, who inspired me to translate, dies of boredom.

Alex Dvoretsky chipped in another 6,000 rubles, which means a fresh chapter from Eric Mack is on its way, presenting a fairly original theory of justice by a certain David Schmidtz. I have just started a new and quite time-consuming job, so as is my habit, I am posting the text without notes for now; they will follow later—otherwise, I would have to delay publication by another day.

It was interesting to translate because the author under consideration is anything but a dogmatist (dogmatists are dry and boring in their meaningless uncompromisingness). In my own book, I limited the consideration of justice only to conflicts, stating that justice is the feeling of proportionality between the damage inflicted and the value of the object of conflict. Schmidtz, however, expands this concept, stating that I am speaking only of desert, whereas there are other irreducible elements of justice, such as reciprocity, equality, and need. And by building fair norms based on a single element, a person will most likely begin to contradict other elements of justice. In short, Schmidtz offers plenty to chew on.

I am continuing to translate the bonus section of Eric Mack’s book Libertarianism. It contains a selection of views from relatively obscure contemporary theorists who are developing libertarian ideology in directions they find most convenient. The second bonus chapter refers to Loren Lomski’s essay People, Rights, and the Moral Community, and primarily describes exactly which rights and for exactly what reason people would find it appropriate to waive in the interests of others.

In his reasoning, Lomski introduces the curious concept of personal projects—essentially, certain strategic goals that largely define each person’s personality and that somehow connect people with one another. Everyone knows that another person also has a personal project, and this means that they can be given a small amount of respect for it, expressed at minimum as non-interference, and at best, as unburdening assistance.

I would say that these arguments are far more appealing than those of Steiner in the previous chapter, and I am glad that something useful can actually be gleaned from the book being translated, although, of course, the concentration of useful ideas is incomparable to that of Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom, it seems to me.

.

Alex Dvoretsky, my subscriber on boosty, donated another 6,000 rubles for the translation of a new portion of Eric Mackay’s essay Libertarianism. Thus, I have had the opportunity to work on the bonus online section of the book, which was not included in the original printed or pirated edition. I have translated the introduction to the section, where Mackay says that, you know, you might have gotten the impression that libertarianism got stuck in the seventies, but no, Nozick is not the only one, and Hayek is not the only one singing along; we have a whole wagonload of fresher thinkers, followed by a list of completely unknown names. And I have translated the chapter about a certain Gillell Steiner, who, instead of killing himself against a wall in childhood and thereby immediately entering the public domain, decided instead to publish his musings and enter it fifty years after his death. In short, before us is a pillar of so-called left-libertarianism, and translating his thoughts was not exactly pleasant for me, because who enjoys it when a cannibal clings to you and starts declaring, “look, I’m a libertarian here too.” Fortunately, although Eric Mackay calls him a profound thinker for some reason (or rather, thoughtful), he nonetheless criticizes him in such a way that this characterization begins to seem completely contrived.