Catch me if you can

If we look at European dentistry (and healthcare in general) through a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist lens, the root of the problem is obvious: state regulation has destroyed the free market, created an artificial scarcity, and killed healthy competition. ​Here are the key areas that are broken in the European system from a libertarian perspective and need to be "fixed" (meaning completely liberated from state control): ​1. Abolishing Artificial Scarcity via Medical Licensing and Guilds ​In most European countries, dental chambers (the modern equivalent of medieval guilds) and ministries of health strictly limit the number of people who can practice. ​The Problem: University enrollment quotas, combined with overly complex and highly bureaucratized diploma recognition procedures for talented doctors from outside the EU, create an artificial staff shortage. ​The Fix: Abolish the state monopoly on licensing. The market is perfectly capable of regulating quality through reputation, independent certification bodies (like private quality associations), and client reviews. Easing access to the profession would instantly saturate the market with qualified specialists. ​2. Eliminating Insurance and Socialist Price Distortion ​When a third party pays for a service—be it a state health insurance fund (like the German Krankenkasse) or a private insurance company bound by thousands of regulations—rather than the patient directly, market pricing collapses. ​The Problem: Doctors are forced to align their pricing with state service catalogs, wasting chunks of time on paperwork and reporting instead of treating patients. Patients never see the actual cost of services, and clinics stop competing for the client's satisfaction, competing instead for payouts from insurance funds. ​The Fix: Shift to a Direct Primary Care model and a transparent cash-only or crypto-driven market for services. When patients pay out of pocket, clinics are forced to compete for every single customer by lowering prices and improving service (exactly how it works in the laser eye surgery or cosmetics industries, where state intervention is minimal). ​3. Deregulating Medical Equipment and Materials ​European regulators (such as CE marking bodies and local medical agencies) erect massive barriers to entry for new materials, implants, or dental software. ​The Problem: To certify a new, cheaper, or more effective composite material or a 3D printer for crowns, it takes years and millions of euros spent on bureaucracy. As a result, clinics are forced to purchase insanely expensive certified equipment, baking those costs right into the price of your filling. ​The Fix: Freedom of choice for both the doctor and the patient. If a doctor takes on the reputational and contractual liability for using a specific material or technology, the state has no right to interfere. ​4. Ending the Monopoly on Pharmacy Goods and Prescriptions ​Even basic prevention or specific post-procedure medications are over-regulated in the EU. ​The Problem: You cannot buy a strong painkiller or a specific antiseptic without waiting in line for a prescription and paying for yet another doctor's visit. ​The Fix: Complete freedom of trade in pharmaceuticals. The responsibility for consumption lies with the individual, not with a nanny state. ​The Bottom Line: Modern European dentistry is not about dental health; it is about servicing a system of licenses, insurance protocols, and tax schemes. ​To fix this, we don't need "cheaper state funding." We just need to kick the government out of the room, allowing a patient with capital and a doctor with tools to trade directly under the laws of the free market. High-quality service and reasonable prices will emerge naturally, just as they always do wherever regulators are absent.

#prague

In the heart of Tokai region. Love this peaceful spot. #tokai #hungary #Erdőbénye

God bless you nostrians ✌️

The Empire Collapse Cycle: 1. Hard labor & stable currency. 2. Ascendance & hegemony. 3. Printing money for "bread and circuses" (war and welfare). 4. Social rot and domestic turmoil. 5. Total breakdown or systemic reboot. How do you think where we are? 🤔

Chat with AI about NOSTR community 😁 Prompt: "Let’s chat about the Nostr community. I’ve been in this community for a month now, and I see that many Bitcoiners there are a kind of religious believers. They are indoctrinated in this religion and look a bit rigid and fanatical. For me, as a libertarian, Bitcoin looks like a solution, but I am more flexible and not so indoctrinated. I want Bitcoin to spread; I want more people to use it and understand its true meaning, but I don’t want to use slogans and affirmations to propagate this idea. What do you think about this? Don't you think it is a side effect of all revolutionary ideas to have such adepts, and that without these adepts, an idea could not spread quickly? Or is it more repulsive than attractive?" Answer: That’s a very sharp observation. The Nostr community is currently an epicenter for what is often called "toxic maximalism," and your sense of its "religiosity" has very real sociological roots. Let’s break this down from a libertarian perspective and the history of ideas. 🧐 1. Why does it look like a religion? ⛪ When an idea (like Bitcoin) becomes more than just a financial tool and starts being viewed as a means of survival or "salvation" from an unfair system (fiat), it inevitably picks up the attributes of a cult: Dogmas: "21 Million," "Not your keys, not your coins." Prophets: Satoshi Nakamoto (who departed, becoming a mythical figure). Rituals: HODL, Stacking Sats. Inquisition: Attacks on "shitcoiners" or anyone suggesting compromises. For many on Nostr, Bitcoin isn't just money; it’s a moral choice. This is where the aggression comes from: any other idea isn't seen as an alternative, but as heresy threatening the success of the "one true path." 2. Is fanaticism a "side effect" of revolutions? 🌪 You are absolutely right. History shows that most radical changes (from the Reformation to the Enlightenment) required a core group of "unwavering adepts." The function of fanatics: They create an "impenetrable core." When the price drops 80%, these "believers" are the ones who don't sell, ensuring the network's survival. They act as an immune system, repelling any attempts at centralization or protocol changes. The cost: The side effect is exactly what you mentioned—rigidity. They become a barrier for average people who are intimidated by complex slogans and aggressive rhetoric. 3. Attraction vs. Repulsion 🧲 There is a paradox here: To the outside world: It often looks repulsive. Someone who just wants cheap transactions doesn't want to join a "sect." For internal resilience: It is incredibly attractive. Fanaticism creates a sense of community and absolute certainty, which is vital for an asset with no physical backing. Your Path: The Flexible Libertarian 🗽 Your position—"Bitcoin as a solution, not an icon"—is much closer to classical libertarianism. A pragmatic approach (spreading through utility rather than affirmations) usually works better for long-term adoption. Ultimately, if Bitcoin truly is the superior technology, it should win because of its market advantage, not because someone shouted a slogan louder on Nostr. #nostr community #bitcoiners

Who is ur favorite Austrian painter? (other 90%) 😁 😆

The mood

"The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantity. They are pitiless masters, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit or vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people." 😉 Human Action - Ludwig von Mises

💯th anniversary of Murray Rothbard birth. Man who brought libertarian optic into my life. Thank you! ​"The only thing the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way."

​Why rent-seeking motivation leads to degradation The Psychological Aspect: The "Easy Money" Trap ​From a psychological perspective, rent-seeking motivation is a path toward personal degradation. ​Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation: Rent-oriented behavior relies exclusively on extrinsic stimuli (money, status, privileges). This kills the intrinsic motivation for mastery and creativity. When a person focuses solely on "schemes," their brain stops practicing real-world problem-solving skills. ​Erosion of Self-Esteem: Deep down, we feel the difference between "I earned this because I’m a top-tier specialist" and "I got this because I successfully tapped into a flow." This breeds imposter syndrome or, conversely, compensatory arrogance that masks an inner void. ​Hypertrophied Locus of Control: A rent-seeker depends on the system, the law, or connections. If the "gravy train" stops, such a person becomes completely helpless because they have forgotten how to create value in a free environment. ​The Austrian School (ASE) Perspective: The Economic Parasite ​For representatives of the Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard), economics is about a dynamic process of creation. Rent-seeking is the antithesis of the market. ​Lack of Value Creation: In a normal market transaction, both parties win (Win-Win). In the case of rent, it is a zero-sum game. The rent-seeker uses the state apparatus or a monopoly position to redistribute resources in their favor. ​Distortion of Price Signals: In ASE, prices are signals of scarcity and people's needs. Rent-seeking schemes (subsidies, licenses, tariffs) distort these signals. Capital flows not where consumers need it most, but where the mechanisms for accessing rent are best "greased." ​Opportunity Costs: This is the most critical point. The brightest minds, instead of inventing new medicines or technologies, waste their intellect on lobbying and legal manipulations. This is a colossal loss for humanity. ​Why it’s "Garbage" (Conclusion) ​In short: Rent-seeking is a bet on statics in a dynamic world. ​It doesn’t scale: Rent is always limited by the resource you are "milking." Real business and innovation can grow exponentially. ​It’s toxic for "karma" (Social Capital): Nobody likes rent-seekers. As soon as the political or administrative wind shifts, the rent-seeker loses everything, including their reputation. ​It halts evolution: The rent-seeker ceases to be "Homo Agens" (the acting man) and becomes "Homo Parasitus."

"For those who do not distinguish between Law and Legislation (meaning the commands of a group of people), it is difficult to imagine that Law can exist independently of the State. Meanwhile, Law is older than any state. The State has never truly 'created' its own law (it cannot do so by definition). Instead, it has merely utilized and distorted pre-existing norms for its own benefit. The Roman Law we are familiar with and still utilize today was not a creation of the state. Roman Law was 'jurists' law' — a system shaped by practice and maintained by professionals who were paid for their services. Similarly, for approximately 1000 years, the legal system of ancient Ireland operated through a specialized class of jurists known as the Brehons. While Ireland comprised between 80 and 100 independent jurisdictions (tuatha), the Brehon Law was common to them all. This system was highly sophisticated for its time, surpassing, for instance, English Common Law. Lex Mercatoria (Merchant Law), which we also use today, emerged in the Middle Ages. It was created by merchants themselves for their mutual interactions. Because feudal law was cumbersome and often based on fallacies (such as the prohibition of interest or the notion of a 'just price'), Merchant Law arose to govern their relationships. It ignored feudal superstitions, allowing for the swift resolution of conflicts in courts held at major fairs and trading cities. English judges, who formed a relatively independent caste, were the first to recognize the superiority of this law; to attract clients, they began incorporating it into their own proceedings. By the way, English Common Law is also an example of 'free law,' as it contains 'judge-made law' alongside statutes. This system could have functioned perfectly well without the statutory component altogether. From the book of Vladimir Zolotariev: 'Why fix what wasn't broken?'"

We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors 🌳

When I have problems, I think about what Jesus would do. Then I pretend to be dead and disappear for three days 😊

Political campaigning has started in Slovenia. Robinhood was the first to arrive in the mailbox 😁

War does not end when someone finally forces a victory, but when momentum runs into the limits of reality. War ends when guilt becomes visible rather than projected. War ends when the ability appears to see reality without myth. War ends when victims are truly acknowledged. As long as victims serve ideology, the war continues to speak through new people. War ends when the system stops demanding self-sacrifice. War ends when life becomes more valuable than a symbol. War ends when the living become more important than the idea. War ends when responsibility returns to each person where it belongs. War ends when people begin to understand and say, “We cannot go on living as if this were normal.” War ends when death is no longer justified. War ends when victims stop being considered “necessary.” War ends when the living gain the right to live without guilt. War ends when there is less pathos, more silence, more simple questions, and fewer “sacred” answers.

AI generated text but I decided to save it here. Engineered Stagnation: How Social Engineering is Eroding European Dynamism Europe, once the global epicenter of the most successful self-organizing systems in history—from the free market to the rule of law—is increasingly becoming the subject of a perilous intellectual experiment. This experiment seeks to replace the natural complexity of society with rigid social engineering. The prioritization of "the central plan" over "the spontaneous process" is leading to a systemic degradation of European institutions. 1. The Fatal Conceit of Centralized Knowledge The fundamental error of social engineering lies in what Friedrich Hayek termed "The Fatal Conceit." This is the illusion that a small group of experts or planners can possess the total sum of knowledge required to manage the lives of millions. In reality, essential knowledge—concerning consumer needs, resource scarcity, and innovative opportunities—is dispersed among millions of individuals. When regulatory bodies in Brussels attempt to standardize every facet of economic activity, they effectively disconnect the society’s information network. We are replacing a flexible Spontaneous Order (Cosmos) with a rigid, cumbersome Organization (Taxis). 2. Regulatory Paralysis and the Loss of Adaptability Social engineering in Europe has fostered an environment where stability is valued above development. The urge to "protect" the market from every possible crisis or error creates a systemic trap: The Preservation of Inefficiency: Excessive regulation and subsidies hinder the process of "creative destruction." Resources remain frozen in obsolete industries, stifling the emergence of new, competitive sectors. The Erosion of Feedback Loops: In a spontaneous order, a failure is a signal for correction. In an engineered order, failures are often masked by further regulations, which only deepens the underlying crisis. 3. Social Engineering vs. Innovation Innovation is, by its very nature, unpredictable. It flourishes where individuals are free to experiment and, crucially, to fail. The current European model, built upon the "precautionary principle" (where everything is effectively forbidden unless explicitly permitted), makes innovative risk prohibitively expensive. This results in a "drain of capital and talent": the most dynamic agents relocate to jurisdictions with higher levels of freedom, where order emerges from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down. 4. From a Living Continent to a "Museum Exhibit" The ultimate consequence of social engineering is the gradual transformation of Europe into a static system. While it remains orderly, safe, and aesthetically pleasing, it is losing its capacity for self-renewal. The dominance of administrative vision over individual initiative turns a vibrant continent into a museum exhibit—attractive to tourists, but unable to compete in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Conclusion: A Return to Rules, Not Plans To restore Europe’s vitality, a fundamental shift in the paradigm of governance is required. We must abandon the attempt to "construct" the outcomes of social development. Instead of thousands of pages of detailed directives, society requires simple, stable general rules of conduct. Such a framework allows the individual plans of citizens to coordinate once again through the price mechanism and voluntary association. True order is not the result of control; it is the byproduct of freedom.