Рубрика: Alex Murin

Archived column

Unemployment and Ancap

What should be done about the destruction of low-skilled jobs? Should a person invest their time in acquiring professions that are more difficult to master? Will there be enough positions, given that high-skilled work is always more limited? Unemployment will increase thefts; people can be imprisoned for violating the law, but this can break them, and “re-education” is even more pointless, as the theft is forced.

Maksim Barbukhin

Alex Murin answers

First of all, let’s figure out which jobs are disappearing and where? And to what extent automation will affect all layers of life. Jobs are disappearing in cities at large-scale production facilities. Only a large entrepreneur can afford production innovations. Most entrepreneurs used manual labor and continue to do so. A baker bakes bread, a janitor sweeps the yard, a clerk sits in a kiosk. For the most part, the majority of jobs are created by small entrepreneurs who do not strive for and cannot fully automate the production process. If there were no state with a heap of licenses, taxes, fees, and inspections, small businesses would not have the barriers that exist now. This means everything would be regulated by supply and demand. If demand is higher, a person will not have to give half of their income to the state, which would create public goods. Thus, with the development of small business, loaders and salesclerks will not disappear; there will be many farmers, small production sites baking bread, making things from natural products produced by local farmers. One should not expect global automation in this sector.

Another important point is the mastery of new professions. We master many things naturally. If the computer was a rarity in the 90s and required professional education to operate, now there is one in every home, and a child can perform basic work like typing text. Learning happens naturally. Those who find it difficult will, of course, remain outsiders. Those who want to improve will not engage in simply getting pieces of paper and sitting through hours of classes that are unnecessary for mastering a specialty; they will study what they will actually be working with. Many specialties can be mastered using modern teaching methods in a much shorter time than five years on a university bench.

Regarding “whether there will be enough positions” — that is a separate question. The number of accountants, secretaries, clerks, and document management specialists will be significantly reduced. The administrations of jurisdictions and municipalities are unlikely to be able to afford to maintain a huge staff and divide responsibilities as is done now. Electronic document management is already the modern reality. States do not want to use many modern solutions because they would have to cut a vast number of municipal employees. And there would be no one to look after the secretary of the director of the department of internal policy, as the department itself would likely not exist. What should all these people do? Learn in-demand specialties, start a small business. Everyone knows how to bake pancakes or pies, grow potatoes and cabbage. This is a rather harsh solution, but if it is not accepted, then incomes will have to be forcibly taken from everyone else to save the lifestyle of officials. And yes, professions that simply do not fit into the modern world will be eliminated. For example, we no longer need telephone operators, radio operators, or coachmen. But all these people did not end up without work.

Who will solve the problem of the unemployed? The free market. Even now, there are staffing agencies that offer a list of in-demand vacancies for a fee. They can also assist in negotiations and organizing meetings with employers. In essence, the Employment Center is a state staffing agency. And its services are not provided for free. We pay for its activities through our taxes. Everyone together—those who go there once a year and those who do not even know the address of the institution. Who will pay unemployment benefits? Private funds. But not just money for the maintenance of so-called professional unemployed persons, but for those who genuinely want to retrain and start their own business or find a new job. Where will the funds get the money? From those who need workers. Pay the fund, and they will find and train people for you. Moreover, not in philosophy, ancient literature, or theology, but in sausage production, potato growing, and the specialties that a specific employer needs. But again, not everything is so smooth. A social phenomenon such as the “professional unemployed” will disappear. At a state exchange, one can receive a meager benefit for a long time, then work a little, quit, and receive it again. Naturally, any private entity will send such a client to seek help elsewhere.

And another important point: if currently all free land is in municipal or regional ownership, then without the state, anyone can occupy a plot that no one claims. Consequently, a person will be able to legally live by subsistence farming, creating associations to make it easier to cultivate the land, without paying duties or taxes.

The question regarding theft is complex. But so-called forced theft does not exist. Theft is, in any case, a crime against property. Whether a person was starving or stole out of a love for art—they are still a thief. An honest person can ask for or take something unnecessary, thrown away, or that grows naturally. So, the arrest of thieves is a perfectly natural thing. Such people must either be isolated or re-educated. If a person finds themselves in a jurisdiction where everything is built on high technology and cannot find work, they can move to an agricultural community and live there. Most often, there are no extra hands in a village. If they do not do this voluntarily, they will end up in prison, which will send them to such a community so they can earn their keep, as well as pay for the services of the court, escorting, and monitoring. It is better to leave voluntarily.

And one more point regarding “extra people.” City dwellers prefer not to have many children. Most often, middle-class families in cities have 1-2 children, and the population is declining or struggling to maintain its size. Conversely, in developed agrarian settlements, there are many children. And work is found for everyone. Now, the state, through population control programs, is trying to break the natural course of events. Large families in cities are provided with social housing and payments. At the same time, the state cannot accurately account for the reduction in jobs in industrial cities. Precisely because of the mistakes of officials, we are forced first to pay taxes for benefits to large families, and then pay taxes for benefits to the unemployed. Market mechanisms could redistribute these people to places where they would find an opportunity to earn a living or grow their own food.

As they say, I know porn that started this way

How to determine what private property exists? Why then can I not demand compensation from people who downloaded my photo and are using it?

Maksim Barbukhin

Alex Murin answers

Usually, people agree among themselves on what constitutes private property. Under communism, people agree that there will be no private property. Under various versions of democracy, private property can be a thing, movable and immovable assets, and everything you buy from the state, to which by default all ownerless or public property belongs. Libertarianism assumes either a total rejection of the state or a reduction of its role to a minimum. Consequently, private property can be anything people have agreed upon within a separate contractual jurisdiction. It is generally implied that a person cannot be property, as acquiring a person as property is most often associated with a violation of a basic principle—the prohibition of aggressive violence. Although some anarcho-capitalists view a child as the property of their parents until full emancipation.

Regarding copyright, most libertarians oppose the very concept of intellectual property. This is how things happened historically. This concept first appeared in Great Britain in the early 18th century, and this right protected only the interests of publishers. Over time, legislation in this area changed. Various concepts were devised as to why this is beneficial for authors. In fact, such a right remained as a protection of publishers’ interests as it always was. You lose nothing if someone happens to download your photo. When information is copied, it does not disappear from the person who copied it.

But libertarians also adhere to the principle of freedom of contract. No one will stop you from selling photos, books, including e-books, or music. Similarly, no one has the right to stop you from creating a community, jurisdiction, or municipality where you locally agree to recognize copyright and intellectual property and fulfill the contract among yourselves.

Default copyright protection most often leads to the emergence of artificial monopolies. This has happened more than once when authors were forced to collaborate only with a specific publishing house that paid just enough for the author to barely survive. Or various inventions simply did not become serial products simply because it was not profitable for certain monopolists in the market.

Addition from Ancap-chan

Of course, you can demand compensation from someone who downloaded and used your photograph. To do this, you need to find the person who did it and sue them. In court, you will have to prove that the defendant actually downloaded and used your specific photograph, and also justify why the compensation you are demanding is of that specific amount. The judge, in turn, will investigate under what license the photograph was distributed, what benefit its use brought, and whether you truly did not transfer the photo to the defendant with the right of arbitrary use. It is not certain that the amount of compensation you eventually receive will cover the costs you will face in this case, but what wouldn’t one do for the sake of principle!

However, the vast majority of people, finding themselves in a situation where there is no state to protect their right to control the copying of information, will simply ignore such a difficult-to-implement right and will seek self-actualization in other ways.

It’s sad to live without a patent for privilege…

How do the libertarians intend to build the RNG (Russian National State)? How should it be structured and within what borders? And what is this for?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Not all libertarians intend to build a Russian national state. However, the principle of contractual jurisdictions or communities does not preclude the construction of one.

First and foremost, the principle of federalism presupposes a confederation and voluntarism. Numerous communities enter into agreements regarding the voluntary joining and leaving of the confederation. And people reclaim their natural right to live by the rules they have devised for themselves.

Those wishing to build an RNS can unite, acquire land, or combine their holdings, choose a form of governance, and create laws there. For a jurisdiction to be considered libertarian, they must renounce the initiation of aggressive violence (“don’t tread on me”) and recognize freedom of contract (anyone can become a citizen of the RNS by agreement with other participants in the jurisdiction, and anyone can terminate their RNS citizenship upon fulfilling all obligations under property contracts). The border will be defined by the boundaries of the holdings of the individual owners participating in the RNS and the owners of legal entities—contractual jurisdictions. As for what you decide within the jurisdiction, that is your right as free people united with a common goal, as long as you do not step on the tail of some rattlesnake (another community-jurisdiction).

Comment by Ancap-chan

Since 2014, Putin has been killing the idea of the Russian World. There will be no Russian national state. Libertarians, even less so, will not build it.

There are many other ideas and interests around which people will unite. The only Russian thing around which it makes sense for them to unite now and in the foreseeable future is the Russian language, somewhere abroad. This somewhat facilitates communication, although it far from always facilitates understanding.

And nations… Just forget about nations, you funny, touching little Hitlers.

Misha is smart; be like Misha.

Ancap-sama, it seems to me that intellectual property law is not as much of a delusion as one might imagine, and the problem lies at most in the terminology (“right” → “privilege”).

After all, for example, when using streaming services, a completely free contract is concluded with the user, which specifies how the content can be used. If you don’t like it—don’t enter into these contractual relations! The problem arises perhaps when buying physical media, as I haven’t seen any contracts there (but usually the relevant laws are cited, which, roughly speaking, are the same contract, as they are voluntary). In conclusion—is it possible that under ancap, after publishing a book, I wouldn’t be able to forbid readers, for example, from reading it on the street during the day? Where would you disagree?

Atomic Tram

Answered by Alex Murin

Let’s start with how copyright is currently protected. That is the entirety of Part 4 of the Civil Code. To properly manage the fruits of one’s creativity, one must know the laws. Currently, the law prohibits copying without permission, assuming that the author did not grant such permission initially. And it assumes that your interests can be protected without your knowledge by some organization, like the Russian Authors’ Society. The law also protects your descendants, who haven’t written a single line of music or a single kilobyte of code.

No one intends to limit the freedom of contract under ancap. If you like such a contract, then you offer the user or the new owner to enter into it. Ask them to write a paper stating that they have indeed read it, understood everything, like the terms, and have paid. If you believe that your book cannot be read during the day in public places, then write that and get the buyer’s consent. Not in the form of “by opening this link, I acknowledge that I am now the eternal serf of the publisher, who bought the author two beers and thereby gained exclusive rights to the work,” but ask them to perform a conscious action: write a paper or an electronic document and sign it. And preferably without hidden pitfalls, so that the buyer understands what they are doing. And without state lobbying, under which the actual author ends up in holey shoes in a cold shed.

And yes, you will have to independently find a court that will compel the payment of compensation to you, rather than giving three hundred rubles to the Ust-Labinsk District Court, by whose order the bold offender will be caught, brought in handcuffs, and put in a cage with robbers. If you like copyright, take the trouble not to create traps when executing such a contract, otherwise someone might consider it a direct attack. Voluntariness must be truly voluntary, not a pit that a user falls into by clicking the wrong button. Or one where the state finds a song remaining in the browser cache, even if they didn’t listen to it.

Addition from Ancap-chan

I have nothing much to object to in this harsh rebuke. Yes, you can demand certain restrictions on the use of your content from the consumer, but you will have to pay for the enforcement of these requirements yourself. So it’s better to think ten times before setting any requirements at all, because it will be far more reliable to win the loyalty of consumers rather than trying to oppose their will with your own. For instance, some Kirill Yeskov or Pavel Usanov writes a new book, publishes it, and warns readers: “Guys, let’s let the publisher make some money, let the book be sold only on paper for about three months, and then I will release the text for free access myself, and you won’t have to deal with piracy technologies.” And it works! And then, when the text becomes freely available, grateful readers even send donations. Because you don’t need to be an asshole; it doesn’t pay off.

Scientists are smart, be like scientists!

E. Shulman

On ridiculous lawsuits under ancap

Suppose the owner of a private garden with trees files a lawsuit against one of the neighbors, claiming that the neighbor breathes oxygen produced by the garden’s trees but does not pay for it, and demands payment for this oxygen at a price of 1 ancapodollar per liter. What decision is a court following libertarian principles most likely to make?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Most likely, the greedy plaintiff’s reputation will suffer greatly, and the court will fine them for attempting to enrich themselves through the court. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant is actually breathing their oxygen. For example, by finding oxygen molecules produced by their plants within the defendant’s body. Not to assume it, but to provide real evidence. Since the service was not ordered and no promise to pay for it was made, the defendant had no malicious intent to obtain the plaintiff’s property in the form of oxygen. The plaintiff did not take proper measures to preserve their property—for example, by installing a dome over their garden. Furthermore, the plaintiff themselves breathes, and they breathe air containing oxygen not only from their own garden. The plaintiff somehow obtained the carbon dioxide needed for photosynthesis. Is the gas they received cheaper than the one they released into the common space?

For every plaintiff who loves to reduce things to absurdity, there is a judge who can take the absurdity even further: force them to enclose their garden with a dome and stop giving their expensive oxygen to the general atmosphere and shamelessly stealing carbon dioxide.

An important point: the share of oxygen in the atmosphere from the owner of a couple of hectares of forest is negligible, and a hermetic dome over a couple of hectares of land is a very expensive pleasure.

Addition from Ancap-chan

An important factor is that a court handling a property dispute between two neighbors is obviously an arbitration court. Its task is not the formal consideration of a claim, but the resolution of a conflict. These people still have a vast amount of time to live side by side, and if such ridiculous litigation begins between them, it makes sense to find out what the real grievance is, what the real conflict is—and then, based on this, try to resolve the issue so that conflicts no longer arise.

Ideally, the court’s decision should look, in my view, something like this: 1) carry out a mutual offset of the oxygen supplied by the plaintiff’s garden and the carbon dioxide produced by the defendant’s breathing; 2) oblige the defendant to include the plaintiff among the invited guests when having a barbecue in their backyard to monitor additional carbon dioxide emissions from grilling meat over coals; 3) oblige the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for the additional carbon dioxide emissions from the barbecue with supplies of garden produce.

Breathe deeper, the trees need more raw materials for photosynthesis!

A question regarding medications for rare diseases.

What guarantees are there that under ancap, people with rare diseases (affecting fewer than 200,000 people) will not be left without medication because it would simply be unprofitable to develop and sell them (given such a small number of consumers)?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

The strangest question I have ever encountered. And why is it profitable for states to fund scientists who conduct such research? Perhaps because funding scientists is profitable in general? They make useful discoveries, and over the last 100 years, these have become increasingly frequent, useful, and interesting.

A company that develops a new drug gains notoriety. This is currently the best advertisement a pharmaceutical company can imagine. One could hire a hundred PR agents to write that this company’s vitamin C and plantain are the best in the world. But many people sell vitamin C and herbal mixtures. So, most of the time, PR agents would be producing information junk. Instead, one could hire another dozen scientists to develop a drug for a rare disease. Journalists from many publications would gather to see and report on the discovery, the company’s name would hit the top news of all websites for a couple of days, and remain in the top of specialized publications for another month. In addition to that rare pill, the company produces hundreds of other less rare ones. A discovery means new clients, the respect of doctors, and the attention of their patients.

Regarding sales: selling medications is always profitable. Just as it was profitable in primitive society, when a hunter brought the shaman the best piece of meat for a pot of magic potion, so it is in a post-industrial society, where hundreds of pharmaceutical companies make aspirin and millions of pharmacies sell it. Perhaps it would be unprofitable to keep a rare medicine in a pharmacy, but nothing stops it from being ordered. Currently, restrictions on the online sale of medications are created by states.

The role of the state in the production of drugs for rare diseases is not very obvious. In funding scientists? They can be funded by charitable foundations and insurance companies. It is always profitable for an insurer for their patient to be healthy and pay premiums regularly, rather than lying on their deathbed.

By the way, the famous EU Directive 141/2000 (reduction of regulations in the development of orphan drugs) was adopted precisely thanks to private initiative, and not at the suggestion of any state. EURORDIS, an association supporting patients with rare diseases, was one of the organizations that contributed to the development and adoption of such an initiative.

Very rare pills

How is it with female genital mutilation in the Beautiful Russia of the Future?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

Female genital mutilation, like any forced medical procedure performed without necessity, is a crime against a person. The main problem is that it is most often committed by relatives against a legally incompetent girl. In Russia, cases of female circumcision have been recorded in Dagestan. If we try to analyze this from the perspective of the NAP, it is an assault on a person with the intent to cause injury, putting their life at risk. Circumcision is most often performed at home by people who lack even basic medical knowledge.

The non-aggression principle presupposes the protection of a person of any age. Consequently, in the Beautiful Russia of the Future, the girl’s relatives will be held accountable: either in the form of compensation for damages or via deductions from income earned in a private prison.

I believe that the position viewing a child as the property of their parents is untenable; the child and parent are in a guardianship relationship. The intentional infliction of harm on a ward is a more terrible crime than aggressive violence against a person who could fight back. At the same time, it would be logical for a court to declare the guardianship of such relatives illegal. The victim, unable to support herself, has the right to choose a more worthy guardian or to live and study in institutions maintained by private funds.

Over time, the tradition will fade into the past. Currently, it is sustained by the impunity of those performing the operation. The reason for this impunity is total nepotism in the regions where the practice is widespread. There, a child simply has nowhere to turn for protection. The police will not accept a report of grievous bodily harm because that’s just how things are done there. An independent municipal court or an arbitration court is more likely to side with the victim to maintain its reputation.

This tradition is unlikely to find support among insurers. Infection is very often introduced during female circumcision. The most common complications of such a procedure are inflammation, scarring, and difficulties with urination and the discharge of menstrual fluids. Insurers would have to pay for the treatment of every unsuccessful case. Another motive deterring relatives would be a manifold increase in insurance costs.

The damaged reputation of those practicing such atrocities could also influence the eradication of the tradition. While we currently cannot influence the security forces and clan leaders of the North Caucasus, without state support, they will have to reckon with the general law enforcement practice across the country; otherwise, people will not agree to live in their jurisdictions.

And yes, an exception is possible. If a woman wishes to obtain a certain status or respect among Muslims who adhere to such a tradition, she has the right to go to a clinic and undergo the procedure voluntarily. It is quite difficult to stop her; she is the owner of her own body.

Addition from Ancap-chan

In a situation where such a practice is widespread throughout a community (and circumcision can also be male, which is no less of a piece of filth), it is pointless to try to take the victimized child away from the parents through a court and hand them over to other relatives, as they most likely hold similar views. It is even more pointless to try to fine the parents, as they share a budget with the child, and the child, in addition to the mutilation, would be punished financially.

But upon growing up and gaining independence (and in the BRF, even a traditional society will be forced to grant a woman this independence), the woman can then pursue her parents in court for her mutilation, be branded an ungrateful beast, but uphold the version of justice that she herself shares.

The state, of course, also knows how to deal with traditional society, but such a medicine is worse than the disease. In a libertarian environment, traditional society will erode much faster and more reliably through the rebellion of individuals.

How to bring ancap as close as possible in countries with a post-communist economy?

Everything looks quite smooth in the USA, but conditions are different in the former USSR. Often, loss-making state enterprises, mono-towns, an economy tied to the military-industrial complex, and micro-district housing developments hinder individualism and state non-interference — eliminating or minimizing the state and closing loss-making enterprises in a short timeframe would lead to unemployment and the demise of all public sector workers, while the survivors would hang the reformers, disregarding the NAP. Does Russia have a chance for successful libertarian reforms?

анонимный вопрос

Answer by Alex Murin

And why rush? Ancap and libertarianism are an ideology. If people share it, they will be guided by it. If they don’t, they won’t. You cannot force people to live without a state. These are free people; they decide for themselves how to live. It is only in mono-towns and at loss-making state enterprises that people more quickly come to the realization that the government is not their friend. Instead of shops with beautiful displays, kiosks with cheap beer begin to appear; instead of excise vodka, people switch to moonshine. Instead of saying “I am an honest taxpayer,” people prefer to hide their income and conduct cash transactions without documentation.

High-rise development, where neighbors do not know each other and the concept of “one’s own” ends at the apartment threshold, is a serious problem for a free society. Until people become owners of their land and understand that their home is a fortress belonging only to them, it is difficult to speak of freedom and self-government. But we have another factor playing in our favor — poverty. A person who has nothing to lose is more likely to stop supporting the one who robs them year after year than a person who has their own house or firm, who is not ashamed to say “my grandfather and father voted for the Republicans, and I support them too.” There are many paths to a free society; we chose the path through poverty and extreme social inequality. And I would not want to specify deadlines; I would rather indicate the direction.

Addition by Ancap-tyan

During the collapse of the state, we should all take an example from Venezuela. While official propaganda there glorified the victories of the socialist economy and inflation hit record highs, people invested in what was beyond the state’s control — in bitcoin. The volume of bolivar transactions on the localbitcoins service noticeably exceeds, for example, the volume of euro transactions. However, Russians do not particularly need my advice, as the volume of ruble transactions on localbitcoins also exceeds the volume of euro transactions. So, even when the state demonstrates extreme inefficiency, it is by no means necessary to lose everything because of it. When a chance arises to change something in the country, it is better to have resources than not to have them.

Of course, bitcoin is not the only possible investment beyond the state’s control. Even more important are investments in horizontal ties. You may not be a civil society if you believe that political methods are currently ineffective, or if you despise political methods as such. But as atomized loners, you will not survive without the state. Therefore, the well-known communist slogan calling for the unification of the world proletariat should also be taken into account and creatively reworked for yourself, simply by removing the restrictions on the class composition of your community.

Finally, if for some reason you are a public sector worker receiving pennies for meaningless and ineffective work for the state, it would be foolish to discourage you from this job — you would have left it long ago yourself if you could. But you should not obsess over it. They say that in the late Soviet Union, which consisted of public sector workers just a bit more than entirely, terms absent from socialist political economy, such as “shabashka,” “kalym,” and other names for counter-economic phenomena, enjoyed extraordinary popularity. And so it is now — a good leftist under socialism strengthens not the marriage, but the personal budget. You can receive a salary from the state, but it is better to spend your main efforts on side jobs.

Can one praise a tyrant to save lives?

For example, praising and promoting Putin to gain the ability to operate your own charitable foundation where you will save lives. Is this a violation of the NAP?

анонимный вопрос

I present to you my new co-author; he will answer the questions you have accumulated from time to time, and where I want to add something, I will do so. So, responding is Alex Murin.

Ancap-chan

The principle of the non-aggression principle implies only the rejection of aggressive violence. Everything you write or say does not relate to the NAP. However, the NAP is a fundamental principle, not the only one. There is also the principle of freedom of contract, the institution of reputation, public opinion, and traditions. In general, there are many different factors to which the NAP has no relation. If everything is reduced to the NAP, one can simply get lost in logical and legal constructions. It is not worth doing that.

From the point of view of the NAP, praising Putin to get money for a charity or a public organization is permissible. You are not attacking people to kill or rob them.

And then there is the reputational aspect: you convince people that the system currently in place in Russia is the only possible one, that the country is managed by a person leading it toward prosperity. If you do not believe this, but want to get money from it to implement a humanitarian mission, then judge yourself. You did not attack, kill, or rob. You wrote or spoke words that you will then reproduce in one way or another. People who have not seen you will judge you by these words. Will they want to accept help from a person who praises a system that sent them to the bottom of life? Everything stated in the question has no relation whatsoever to the prohibition of aggressive violence. If, in your opinion, you are lying and then performing good deeds to redeem your own guilt, then you are doing double work. If you believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the person who deserves to be exalted, while performing good deeds, then “blessed is he who believes,” and your conscience is clear. If this is how you earn money, then your judge is your conscience. In short: this has no relation to the NAP, based on its definition. But the NAP is the primary, not the only principle.

And yes, I would not use the techniques of a Baptist preacher to influence your opinion; that would be dishonest.