Тег: YAO

On what principle will no-man’s land be privatized? Will there be democratic voting among the former population of this state to allocate land by majority vote, or will the principle of “whoever cultivated it first, the land is theirs” actually be applied?

anonymous question

I have already been asked on what principle nuclear bombs will be privatized, but with this low-liquidity commodity, things are indeed different, because off the top of my head, I can think of only two useful applications for a nuclear bomb specifically as a bomb, and both boil down to burying it deep in the ground in the right place—and blowing it up. First, this would make it possible to register seismic vibrations at different points on the planet and use them to refine information about its structure. Second, this allows for the release of seismic tension in seismically hazardous areas, so that instead of rare large earthquakes, there will be a series of frequent small ones.

But anyway, the question is about land. Land, unlike a nuclear bomb, has a vast number of useful applications, and therefore competition for it can be quite substantial.

Privatization scenarios will, of course, differ greatly depending on how great the mentioned competition is in a specific case, and how developed the mechanisms of self-governance are in that location.

Where competition is lower, homesteading is more likely. Whoever hustle first takes the best plot. Whoever is a bit later takes the adjacent one. The latecomers take a couple more, and the rest figure that they won’t get the cream of the crop here and go look elsewhere.

Where competition is high and local self-governance is weak, the plot will be seized by the first person to hustle, and then a stronger subject will arrive and declare: dude, you’ve gotten too arrogant, get the hell off my field right now! The arrogant dude will haggle a bit to save face, perhaps receive symbolic compensation—and get the hell out.

And where lawlessness has long been eradicated by the local community, the most likely scenario is the hiring of an auctioneer, who will prepare the land lots for sale, conduct an auction, and then distribute the proceeds, minus their own commission, among all the local residents who also claimed the land but were not ready to pay too much for it.

The scenario you mentioned—”let’s democratically vote on who gets a tasty piece of the pie for free, which any of us is smart enough to want as private property”—seems less likely to me: if I receive no compensation, why on earth would I agree to vote for someone else? In such a vote, it is most logical for everyone to vote for themselves, and this would lead to the need to form a joint-stock company with equal shares for the voting participants. Then, the person who needs it more will gradually buy out the shares of those who need it less, and we will arrive at the same model as simply selling the plot as a single lot with subsequent compensation to the losing participants.

Dividing the pie

Look at that, Bitcoin is on the rise again! That’s what life-giving competition for rare resources does! Now, of course, donations from you have become slightly less likely, but just in case: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

How will the issue of the nuclear arsenal in the Russia of the future be resolved upon the emergence of characteristic features of libertarianism or at least minarchism? Will nuclear weapons be placed under the jurisdiction of private individuals or decentralized across all regions and placed under the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies? Thank you.

anonymous question

I sincerely do not understand why one specific variety of product causes such a number of questions, while other varieties are not given such attention. Who, under libertarianism, will get the currently state-owned stockpiles of chemical weapons, who will get the nuclear ones, who will get the biological ones, who will get the multiple launch rocket systems, and who will get the strategic canned meat from twenty years ago?

The state, by its very nature, opposes the free market; therefore, it regularly produces all sorts of crap that no one gives a fuck about on the free market, but is very necessary for the state in order to dominate and show off. Then it goes bankrupt, and the question arises: who is willing to pay even a few pennies for this national treasure, and is this “who” a dangerous asshole who wants to use this treasure not only to show off (which is a clear and legitimate market incentive), but also to dominate.
The most market-efficient solution during the liquidation of a state is to offload the dangerous movable property of the deceased power to some neighboring state that hasn’t had time to die yet. Firstly, only a state is capable of paying some reasonable money for this illiquid asset, and secondly, by buying such shit, it will die faster, so its current citizens will get some indirect strategic profit from this.

Nevertheless, one must assume that various strategic junk will be scavenged in significant quantities by whoever happens to be around, and there will be no one to stop it. Some will go to collectors, some to paranoids, some to various DIY tinkerers who will manage to find a use for the junk in their backyard workshops. But terrorists will also want to acquire some. However, this, again, will be a problem for those states that still remain, or for certain groups similar to states in their methods of operation, even if they do not possess some state attributes. It is states that are the first and primary target of terrorists, not people or corporations.

Nevertheless, it is people who suffer from the actions of terrorists, and therefore, I believe, in a free libertarian society there will be some market demand for the disposal of various weapons of mass destruction, and this will also help to mitigate some of the harm from them. Someone clears territories of debris, someone deals with mine clearing, someone dismantles missiles in silos—and this increases the value of the territory since it reduces the risks of managing it.

valuable scrap metal

That guy wants to create a nuclear bomb under libertarianism (since no one will forbid him from creating it or buying materials for it) and blow it up, how to avoid this scenario?

anonymous question

In the previous post, the question was phrased ambiguously, and it seems the author has clarified it, so now the answer will be slightly about something else.

It’s quite funny, but as far as nuclear bombs are concerned, all libertarian principles are working right now.

In the realm of relations between states, there is de facto anarchy; law is decentralized, governed by the willingness to bear the costs of certain actions, the institution of reputation, and other concepts dear to the ancap heart. When libertarianism is fully implemented in human society, the mechanisms will remain exactly the same, only instead of states, there will be other legal entities, without a territorial monopoly on aggressive violence. They will be equally able to negotiate among themselves on the transfer of technologies and materials, on mutual control measures, on measures to limit access to the nuclear club, on sanctions for violating the non-proliferation regime, on the ban on detonating bombs wherever they please—and similar things we are well acquainted with from media headlines.
If even such ferocious thugs (from the perspective of their relationship with the law) as states manage not to detonate bombs in populated areas because they are constantly staring each other down, then under libertarianism, on average far more sane legal entities will be able to reach effective agreements among themselves.

Again, a nuclear bomb is an effective means of inflicting damage on a large territory, and under ancap, large territorial jurisdictions are extremely unlikely; most likely, they will be contractual, or even arise situationally for each specific legal conflict.

That is, the point of the combat use of nuclear weapons will be near zero; only the scientific and entertainment value will remain. Yes, those very recreational nukes. In deep space—why not.

boom!

I want to create a nuclear bomb under libertarianism (after all, no one will forbid me from creating it or buying materials for it) and blow it up; how can this scenario be avoided?

anonymous question

I see a strange inconsistency in this question…
If you want to create and detonate a nuclear bomb, then why ask how to avoid it?..

Let’s imagine that the question sounds like this: “I want to buy a firework and set it off. How should I proceed?”

The answer will be simple.

  • First, you need to find someone who will sell you a firework so that you can set it off.
  • Second, you need to find enough funds to buy it.
  • Third, you need to find a site where it can be set off safely for others.

And once all three conditions are met, you have the opportunity to set off your honestly purchased firework at that site.

And libertarianism simply allows you to replace the word “firework” with the words “nuclear bomb” in the boundary conditions of this problem, with full confidence that no other conditions are required.

nuclear bomb