Тег: Agorism

How the state nudges people to become more “illegal”

Voluntarist, Bitarch

You are likely already aware that recently the Russian authorities decided to issue summonses in electronic form and consider them received by conscripts simply by the fact of their appearance in the database. And if a conscript does not come to the military recruitment office on their own, various sanctions await them: a ban on leaving the country, registering an individual entrepreneurship or housing, driving a car, refusal of loans, and others. What will such measures lead to in practice?

Obviously, they will push people to move from the legal framework into relations that are more illegal from the state’s point of view. There are millions of potential conscripts, and far from every one of them will risk appearing at the military recruitment office of their own free will, regardless of the threatening sanctions. But at the same time, they are unlikely to give up leading a life that is at least somewhat full. Therefore, people will increasingly engage in the conscious violation of a number of state laws. In turn, this will create an overload of law enforcement agencies, as they will lack the time, strength, and resources to effectively deal with all the violations due to their excessive number, and will also contribute to the development of grey and black markets operating beyond the reach of the state and its regulations. The stationary bandit, as we see, is digging his own grave with such measures.

It is also worth noting that the Russian state authorities have so far only announced a number of sanctions against a conscript in case of failure to appear following an electronic summons. However, given that a summons will now be considered delivered after its placement in the database, and repeated failure to appear for delivered summonses is grounds for criminal prosecution, those same millions of potential conscripts could end up as “illegal” people, which would only increase the consequences described in the previous paragraph by orders of magnitude. However, most likely the stationary bandit will not create such a large problem for himself. If serious punishments follow, they will be selective and exemplary, but not mass.

Although, just in case, one should expect anything from the stationary bandit for the sake of one’s own safety. However, the good news is that the stationary bandit will only destroy himself further if he decides to do this. And an alternative to him will always be found, especially if millions of people need it and the stationary bandit proves too overloaded to control and suppress everything. This could lead to the flowering of agorism—a voluntary free market existing outside state interference—and in the case of stronger pressure on millions of “military-obligated” persons, the emergence of so-called “unregistered people,” who simply do not exist legally from the state’s point of view.

40 years ago, SEK3 wrote in the New Libertarian Manifesto that California is ahead of the entire planet in the transition to libertarianism and agorism.

Right now we observe that California is a top statist socialist state in the USA. How did it happen?

L29Ah

I avoided this question for quite a while because I didn’t understand how to provide a detailed answer without falling into a tedious chronicle, which is not so much useless as it is meaningless on its own. Every tax increase and every tightening of regulations had its own unique reason, and digging into them is not the level of a popular channel.

To put it very briefly, California became “Commifornia” because its voters wanted it. It remains in this status now largely despite the will of the voters, but that is usually how socialism works: people try this drug because it is trendy and advertised everywhere, and then it turns out that it is easier to die than to get off it; thus California (as a system of effective resource management for the territory to improve the territory in the interests of its residents) is dying.

It seems possible to get off this drug—the example of Thatcher’s Britain shows this. But relapses are also extremely likely, as shown by the example of modern Britain. Anyway, let us leave the medical metaphors and the abuse of holistic constructs alone. I would like to draw attention to another point.

Generally speaking, Konkin did predict the crisis of the state, because if people had the opportunity to use political methods for the constant and irreversible reduction of state interference, there would be no need for agorism. At the same time, Californian crypto-anarchists indeed seriously pushed humanity toward the implementation of useful agoric technologies, so Konkin’s notion that California would play an important role in the struggle was also justified to some extent.

Thanks to open borders between states, many agorists and libertarians found it easier to bail out to tiny New Hampshire rather than try to turn the tide in massive California; therefore, those who wish to focus on business and legal politics rather than survival naturally leave the leftists alone with the governments they chose, heading where their efforts will bring more benefit. For some reason, Konkin warned against such tactics as a kind of simple and wrong solution, calling it anarcho-Zionism. On the other hand, he also predicted the emergence of certain agoric ghettos where people could effectively resist the state’s attempts to regulate them into oblivion, thanks to the fact that their concentration there would be higher, making it difficult for hostile agents.

In short, Konkin was hardly concerned with the fate of a specific state that was one way or another in the hands of statists, and nitpicking that his territory is not the current locomotive of agorism is like nitpicking Ayn Rand for the absence of Rearden Metal based on an iron-copper alloy in our lives.

Soberly on Agorism. A new video from Libertarian Band

The Libertarian Band team continues to discuss agorism.

I liked the analysis: the pros, cons, pitfalls, limitations, prospects, and so on are listed. I will separately note the point that not everyone practicing counter-economics methods is an agorist. For example, North Korea earns from counter-economics, but they are not our bros.

It seems to me that for agorism to succeed, two factors must coincide. First, there must be an anocracy in the country (I would even say a failed state, but this term has many negative connotations because that state is mainly associated with contempt for private property). Second, agorism must be fashionable. Ideally—on the level of the movie Alongside Night. And if we can do little in terms of weakening the state, then as for the second condition, the cards are in our hands.

New Libertarian Band video – about army dodging

Libertarian Band has released the third video from the “Agorist Cookbook” series, this time dedicated to how to avoid the army. The video is long, over 15 minutes, but includes timecodes. You can skip directly to the “Practical Tips” section at 5:23, because before that there is a long historical introduction about what conscription was like during the times of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea, and this introduction has no connection to the subsequent detailed and useful practical instructions.

To the tips suggested in the video, I will add my own. Instead of trying to abuse the system through courts and begging for the right to alternative civilian service, you can simply leave the country in advance. Montenegro, where I am moving, is not the only option; there are many other places where a Russian person lives more freely and prosperously than under the jurisdiction of Moscow.

This is precisely the most agorist way to avoid the army draft. This is the method described by Ayn Rand in her most famous work. Our ancestors, by dismantling the Soviet Union, achieved the most important freedom for us: the freedom to leave. If they had had this freedom, how many Russians would not have perished in the 20th century at the hands of the Soviet state! So let us not undervalue this crucial achievement. We are now left with no other way to vote for a better future for ourselves than by voting with our feet.

Online Anonymity: Recipes from Libertarian Band

Libertarian Band has released the second video in their series on agorism, and since I am no longer involved in production, I am personally very curious to see what they’ve put together this time.

It’s about methods for ensuring anonymity. Judging by the thoroughness of the presentation, Bitarch acted as the consultant. The set of recipes looks even more hardcore than in Svetov’s video on a similar topic.

In my view, the video feels like a “how to assemble a class five body armor” guide, with a hint that the real pros actually build tanks, but this will do for a start. In other words, it’s clear that if you want to, you can secure yourself very effectively, but it’s not very clear how to actually walk around town with all that. Perhaps it would have been better to structure the material differently: here are the possible threat levels, and here are the recommended protections for each threat, what the consequences of ignoring the recommendations are, and what the probability of getting caught is.

In this regard, from a purely screenwriting perspective, Svetov acted more competently, because he didn’t talk about abstract online anonymity, but tied it to a specific case involving a Chechen who beat up some “cosmonauts” at a rally. Perhaps in this case it would have made sense to tie it to the case of Bitarch himself. Like, if you want to be unrestrained in your expressions while communicating on VK and not have anything happen to you for it—here is a set of tools to satisfy this urgent need.

And so it goes: all it took was to look at the material of a favorite channel from the outside, and instead of an advertisement, it turned into a critical review.

Fighting crypto-anarchists is a shot in the foot

Bitarch

I often hear objections against agorism, crypto-anarchism, Bitcoin, darknet platforms, TOR, VPNs, and everything else that allows for fighting the stationary bandit (“the state”) using non-violent methods online. Critics argue that it is easy for the state to ban and block all of this.

Indeed, purely theoretically, the state is capable of blocking all this with a flick of a finger, but as always, the ratio of benefit to cost comes into play. Currently, network connectivity is so high that blocking a single IP address, protocol, or even a specific DPI signature will inevitably lead to collateral damage.

Roskomnadzor (RKN) tried to block Telegram, but eventually abandoned the idea because as a result of the blocking attempts, completely different services stopped working: online stores, payment processing for MasterCard, courier services, and even the Odnoklassniki website. Banning VPNs won’t work either—they are used by companies. Banning them for individuals while allowing them for companies sounds like complete madness—the appearance of 140 million legal entities in Russia would be a DDoS attack on the entire bureaucratic system. Could they create a powerful firewall with DPI “like in China”? Also not an option—all halfway decent VPN services provide tools to bypass it.

Some might mention whitelists, where all resources are blocked except those permitted. That won’t work either—a great deal of imported industrial and medical equipment requires network access to connect to the manufacturer’s servers. Talking about “import substitution” for equipment of this class is simply laughable. And let’s be honest, the authorities need to develop their own next “wonder-weapons,” and for that, they need access to many different “pirate” resources like Sci-Hub, where scientific articles from foreign publications are posted.

An objection also occasionally slips in that the state can simply intimidate crypto-anarchists with repression in real life. In reality, you can only intimidate some random guy playing a “pirated” version of Call of Duty. Ideological fighters against the stationary bandit, which is what most agorists and crypto-anarchists are, will quickly find ways to bypass surveillance and blocks. They will only become more resentful of the state and, instead of innocent internet mischief, will move toward developing tangible tools to deter the aggression of tyranny, such as drones, blinding lasers, and even weapons of mass destruction, since they have plenty of skills.

So it turns out that while blocking the activities of crypto-anarchists is theoretically possible, in practice it would result, for example, in the failure of tomographs and life-support systems in hospitals, along with the shutdown of many industrial enterprises and the collapse of the economy. Will the state take on such costs? I don’t think so!

Overloading the stationary bandit

Bitarch, Voluntarist

Sometimes, as an argument regarding the impossibility of implementing any serious attempts to achieve a free society while violent state power still exists, the fact is cited that the state’s enforcement agents (i.e., the stationary bandit) will simply stop all related activities. For this reason, in particular, it is impossible to practice agorism—all agorists will be caught and imprisoned as economic criminals evading taxes and engaging in “illegal” entrepreneurship. And without the practice of agorism, it is impossible to build social institutions alternative to the state, that is, to create the initial infrastructure of a free society. This will also prevent the balancing of the Balance of Violence Potential—law enforcement will simply imprison those who produce and distribute self-defense weapons at the very beginning of the process. And without the BVP, there can be no talk of opposing the stationary bandit. However, there is a solution to this problem: it is necessary to make it so that the state cannot apply force, and one way to achieve this is to organize an overload of its enforcement structures, analogous to a DDoS attack on online services.

To begin with, it is still necessary to address the issue of self-defense weapons. Naturally, their production and distribution will require financial resources, even if the cheapest and most accessible options of such weapons are used. These can be collected through crowdfunding; it is also possible that anonymous patrons, beyond the reach of the state’s enforcement structures, will appear. With sufficient funds, the production and distribution of weaponry will not be a problem. Look, for example, at the situation with the production and distribution of drugs. Despite persecution by the authorities, they are produced quite successfully, albeit underground, and there are always people willing to make “dead drops” for them—many people are not afraid of punishment from the stationary bandit. This example shows us that engaging in the underground production of self-defense weapons and finding people willing to distribute them is entirely realistic.

Next, the self-defense weapons fall into the hands of the people. Of course, it will not be possible to provide them to the entire population immediately; however, even a small percentage of people will be enough, especially if they are chosen carefully. The best candidates are those most likely to become victims of persecution and violence by other people, or those who already are.
What will this lead to? To a sharp increase in injured and deceased persecutors and rapists. The police will be overwhelmed with cases of this kind. Furthermore, the representatives of the enforcement structures themselves may become victims if they attempt to use force against people, as there is a significant probability they will encounter an owner of a self-defense weapon. And let us not forget the protests and rallies that occur from time to time, where law enforcement will also suffer if they decide to attack an armed crowd.

All of this will simply overload the enforcement structures of the stationary bandit. They will lose the ability to effectively perform their duties. Due to the workload, they will be far from worrying about economic criminals—agorists will be able to quietly conduct their activities and expand the agoristic infrastructure. Even an attempt to introduce total control over citizens will not help—this will only hit the economic position of the authorities and diminish their enforcement capabilities.

Of course, some will say that people themselves will suffer from this, as there will be no one left to protect them, including from a judicial point of view, since the state courts, again, will be overloaded. But this is already a question of agoristic activity, during which self-defense measures and independent conflict resolution institutions can be organized. By the way, in the event of the state’s inefficiency due to the overload of its structures, many people in search of protection will decide to join these alternative solutions themselves, which will only expand agoristic activity and infrastructure.

USA

Many reflections on the situation in the USA have already been written, from the banal to the very deep, authored by quite respected people. I will try to survey the state of affairs from a slightly different angle.

From my two previous posts, you know that a republic is a society of people who agree on questions of law. In the USA right now, there is nowhere near an agreement on questions of law, which means there can be no legal assessment of either the electoral procedures, the performance at the Capitol, or the subsequent purges in the information field. If the jurisdiction of a court is not recognized by both parties to a conflict, then the court does not perform the function of resolving conflicts; therefore, it is not a court at all, but a more or less ritualized execution. In short, I interpret the state of affairs in the USA as a civil war. In a war, elections are only capable of recording exactly which personalities end up at the helm as the leader of the dominant grouping. This is still a more legitimate procedure than the direct rule of military commanders, but in fact, at the federal level, the elections in the USA were not between Trump and Biden, but between Biden and Sanders (from the Republican side, there were no elections at all). And then, Biden, having won the election, simply led the troops during the forceful crushing of the Republican side of the conflict.

What position do ancaps find themselves in this situation? The position of the third party who rejoices. In the confrontation between the toad and the viper, the toad emerged victorious, and now the viper temporarily finds itself on our side. An alliance between agorists, who defend market freedom regardless of the desires of any power groups, and those who continue to chant the mantra about law and order is potentially a very powerful thing. Because now we will be talking about our law and our order.

Using the information field as an example, this will mean the following. We will get a serious solvent demand for free social networks, free hosting, free domain registrars, free operating systems that do not prevent us from managing user devices, free hardware without hardware backdoors, and free money to pay for all the above. The network effect is exactly what the tools of freedom are currently lacking.

Today, it is a matter of honor for every American Republican to sell all their Apple and Alphabet shares, not to mention shitty Twitter, invest the proceeds in bitcoins, and use them to support those free market tools that best satisfy their client demand for the free exchange of information, money, and goods, for self-defense, for building peace and order around themselves, for the destruction of the aggressors’ property, for provoking discord among them, and for tools that ensure the state’s blindness, whether through anonymizing network actions or paralyzing the will of the overseers. Gouging out the Cyclops’ eye is an important part of the strategy.

The enemy is fucked – we grow stronger

Agorism in four steps

My favorite Telegram channel, Libertarian State, published a brief set of principles they promote in two parts. Part 1. Part 2. I have read them. Short, clear, and concise; I find much of what is presented to be useful, but there is only one serious problem: the channel’s target audience is incapable of implementing these principles.

In this regard, I believe it is useful to outline my own approach to building a libertarian future, which is something every one of my readers is actually capable of implementing. This is, of course, agorism. Even before I became acquainted with Konkin’s ideas on counter-economics, I called this approach counter-cultural, contrasting it with the political one. What is wrong with the political approach?

There is no point in spending effort trying to change the political course of the state. First, you would have to start with the support of a negligible minority. Second, politics is a path of inevitable compromises, and in the best case, your ideas about reducing the state will be implemented only partially. Third, just as it shrinks, it will grow back: there is not a single example where liberal reforms were not followed by a reversal, and in general, the trend is toward further strengthening the role of the state. And finally, for successful political activity, you need to build complex associations, but any organization united by a simple interest is incredibly easy to destroy. You will endlessly bog down in internal conflicts over whose version of Rothbard is truer, and who violated which point of the charter at what moment.

Instead, it is proposed: first, remove the state from your head; second, remove it from your life; third, remove it from the lives of your loved ones; and fourth, expand the circle of these loved ones.

The most important is the first. At this stage, you firmly understand that there are no tasks for which a decent person would need the state. You have to turn to it out of necessity, for some silly permit, but you certainly should not expect to succeed by cooperating with it.

After serious progress in the first stage, you will inevitably begin to progress in the second. You will always wonder: can it be done under the table? Can it be done without a permit? Can it be done without reporting? Your competencies will develop in this specific area, rather than, for example, in the area of collecting certificates to receive social benefits.

If you are successful in bypassing state hurdles, you will inevitably help your loved ones do the same. Thus, you will become a useful person for a small circle of people. And, naturally, this circle will expand over time, and you will acquire interesting connections and influence.

At some stage, you might, for example, be imprisoned. An activist acquaintance might also be imprisoned. So might an honest state loyalist. Or a security official who lost an internal power struggle. The state devours everyone; you will not be its priority target. But it will have fewer chances of reaching you. You know the detours. You will flee abroad, change your identity, lie low, or in the worst case, dismantle the case.

Admit it, this prospect is more interesting than spending several years becoming, for example, a municipal deputy, sitting in meetings as part of a minority, and managing to achieve nothing during your term of office.

Belarus 3

This is already my third post about Belarus. In the first one, I gave obvious recommendations that turned out to be practically a forecast. In the second, I gave non-obvious recommendations, and, naturally, reality diverged from those recommendations. Therefore, instead of giving my own advice now, I want to express my happiness for the recommendations that Belarusians themselves are exchanging.

I am talking about a text on Telegraph with the proud title Victory Plan. It proposes a continuation of Sharp’s non-violent transformation from a dictatorship into a freer society. In brief, the plan includes:

  • organizing the main directions of resistance (fronts): protest actions, economic strangulation of the state, propaganda, political pressure, including at the international level, and moral and legal pressure on specific executors.
  • building parallel coordination structures (ministries): non-state economic services, insurance funds to compensate for the costs of state violence, the collapse of state social services, and strikes.

This is a very good plan because, during its implementation, society will receive a practical course in agorism, and there is a great chance that it will get a taste for it. When it turns out that non-state coordination is more efficient and the dictatorship eventually withers away, there is a chance that the new state, which will inevitably be built in place of the old one, will acquire the best traits of liberal laxity and will avoid meddling in things that are not its business for quite a long time. And if it does start to meddle, people will have ready-made recipes on exactly how to put the state in its place.

Is there a chance that after the old regime leaves, a new one will not be built in its place? It is very small, because libertarian ideas are not yet widely distributed in society, and the thought that everyone is better off without a state does not seem obvious to people. They are more likely to repeat the mistake of thinking, “this was a bad state, it’s gone now, now we will build a good one.”