Salvador and the BPN

Everything is fine with the right to bear arms in El Salvador (ownership from age 21, carrying from 24, a test and a criminal record check are required for a license), freedom of activity for private security companies, a government sector share of only 7.6% in the economy, and the lowest tax burden in all of the Americas. Now they are even giving permanent residency for three bitcoins. It’s not exactly ancap, but much has been successfully implemented. At the same time, El Salvador is one of the most violent countries in the world: robberies, murders, etc. Where is the notorious BPN (Balance of Violence Potential) if any law-abiding citizen can be armed no worse than any gangster?

Anonymous question

The Balance of Violence Potential (BPN) is a concept once used by Bitarch as a universal recipe against violence (later he abandoned such a vulgar interpretation), which he drew from Auzan, who in turn recounted Hirschleifer’s model regarding the conditions for the stability of anarchy. However, in the original model, everything was by no means reduced to the BPN alone. For the stability of anarchy according to Hirschleifer, low conflict intensity, high resource dispersion, and a sufficiently high income from peaceful activities are required.

The intensity factor is a sort of integral indicator consisting of the characteristics of military technologies, the motivation of the parties, and so on. It cannot be calculated directly, so it is rather understood through comparison between different conflicting societies. Resource dispersion ensures the difficulty of achieving hegemony through control of the economy. High income from peaceful activity reduces the motivation for war.

What do we have in El Salvador? Its history includes a war with Honduras in 1969, followed by a civil war that lasted until 1992, meaning one can assume a certain habit of solving issues by force—something institutionalists trace back to ancient colonial times and which is quite characteristic of Latin America in general. Resources are distributed very unevenly: in a tiny, densely populated agrarian country, there is a severe shortage of fertile land, and it is all concentrated in mountainous areas. Poverty and unemployment levels are very high, meaning there must simply be a large number of cheap fighters in the country who will inevitably dispose of themselves while terrorizing businesses, thereby further increasing poverty and unemployment.

What factors should lead to a decrease in the level of violence in El Salvador? First, the notorious second demographic transition. Fewer young people mean less banditry. Second, because a significant share of the economy consists of remittances from abroad, this increases resource dispersion. Recognizing bitcoin as legal tender will reduce remittance fees, which will increase income from peaceful economic activity. Finally, the country has recent experience with a truce between gangs and the government, during which the murder rate dropped sharply. If they wish, they can repeat this, which would not only reduce the level of violence but also increase the decentralization of power.

Why might the government in El Salvador be willing to decentralize? Because there is neighboring Honduras, a former military adversary. And Honduras is implementing panarchic projects, such as the Prospera charter city on Roatan island and a couple of smaller ones. Small El Salvador cannot afford the Russian Federation’s tactics toward neighbors attempting liberalization because it lacks the strength. Instead, it will have to catch up to their level. And wealthy citizens are a far more significant factor in reducing violence than any mythical BPN.

Charter cities will not help achieve a free society

Voluntarist

Not long ago, the libertarian community began actively discussing the “Prospera” project – a charter city in Honduras. The idea of charter cities in general is quite popular among libertarians, many of whom view the option of autonomous jurisdictions and free economic zones, carved out from the jurisdiction of a state, as a real possibility for achieving a free society.

Regardless of the dreams associated with ideas of this kind, they shatter in the same way that the idea of seasteading and the creation of jurisdictions outside state territories in general shatters (you can find more details on this in the material “Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space”). If violence is still a current tool for achieving goals and the newly minted jurisdiction has no means of deterring an external attack (let’s be honest: for a small charter city against a giant stationary bandit, the only deterrent weapon could be WMDs like viruses), then its autonomy is merely an unsupported handout from the master. Seriously, how can one even expect to create a free jurisdiction by the grace of a stationary bandit (the “state”)?

Of course, I do not dispute that at a certain point in time, there may be people in the government of a specific state who are absolutely not opposed to such initiatives and are willing to allocate territory for them on terms of maximum autonomy and the ability to independently manage internal affairs, even up to the creation of their own laws and law enforcement mechanisms. But such power, like any other power, cannot be eternal. In any case, sooner or later, changes will occur in the government, and where are the guarantees that the new power will not want to liquidate such autonomy, or at least begin to reduce it in small steps so as not to cause excessive discontent with abrupt decisions? For example, as the Chinese government did with Hong Kong? Agreements themselves, in this case, will not help; the government may simply not care about them. History already has hundreds and thousands of examples of free cities and broad autonomies of various kinds, and where are they all now—did agreements with the central government help them?

Of course, representatives of such an autonomy could create their own political force and use it to lobby their interests in the central government. However, in doing so, they only involve themselves in another struggle for power over the tool of state violence. And this is a movement in a direction completely opposite to achieving a free, non-violent society. Factually, this is the same as simply changing the power in order to forcibly impose one’s own norms on society—this cannot be linked to libertarianism in any way.

Hoping for the mercy of the master is a foolish venture. Without the elimination of violence as a phenomenon in general, or at least without the presence of deterrent weapons, an autonomy carved out by a stationary bandit is worth nothing and is backed by nothing. And if such means are available, then perhaps it makes more sense to exit the jurisdiction of the stationary bandit in some developed place, for example, within a large city, rather than on bare land where one would still have to spend billions of dollars creating infrastructure and attracting people?

Prospera

I read a teaser on RLN.Today about the charter city of Prospera on the Honduran island of Roatán. Naturally, all panarchists are following this case with great interest, but for now, excessive enthusiasm seems premature. There was already an attempt to build a charter city in Honduras, but it fizzled out because they failed to agree with the central government on a number of important details. Now they have decided to try again, and they seem to have progressed further than the first time. However, if you look at the immigration guide booklet, it is clear that, in essence, you are not being invited to a special political zone with its own complete charter, but simply to Honduras, according to Honduran immigration rules. It’s not the worst country, more free than Russia—but for now, inside the wrapper of a free city, there is no free city to be seen.

So I would not recommend rushing off to settle on this wonderful island right now—without first getting acquainted with the project initiators to assess how far the negotiations on the political and economic autonomy of the future city have actually progressed, and what the guarantees for its future preservation will be.

However, Prospera has a chance today to truly become a free city very quickly—it just needs to open free immigration for the residents of Hong Kong and give new citizens the opportunity to establish their Hong Kong-style systems in the new location.