Can a Maidan happen in a libertarian society and what could all of this look like? It goes without saying that no one knows for sure (and thank goodness) exactly how a “libertarian society” will be structured, but for simplicity let’s imagine that the basic libertarian principles have been realized in some hypothetical society. That is, there is no state here, “social functions” are performed by private enterprises, there is no “unowned” (state, public, municipal) property, and courts operate on the principle that aggression is prohibited. It immediately becomes clear that mass protests against “the authorities” are already ruled out due to their absence. Against whom then should one protest? Well, for example, the main bogeyman of cyberpunk novels about a terrifying future hasn’t gone anywhere—the evil and omnipotent corporation. They dump into the river… wait. In a libertarian society the river is someone’s property. Now you can’t just dump into it like that. You can’t even pollute the air without consequence—if you can prove that the pollution harms your property, your body included.
What else can a corporation be guilty of? Suppose it engages in discrimination. Yes, this is perfectly legal. Say, the owner of some corporation doesn’t sell to Belarusians. He just doesn’t like them, and that’s that. Scientists in the corporation’s secret laboratories invented a device that easily identifies a Belarusian. And if, say, a Belarusian walks into the store, then immediately—sorry, please—and they escort them out. Since everyone around is free, the corporation is not obligated to sell its goods to just anyone. And the property owner has the right to remove anyone he doesn’t like from his territory, so everything is fair, in libertarian fashion. It is understandable that competitors already offer special discounts for Belarusians, but, let’s say, our hero doesn’t care about any of it. He’s one of those who “will buy up all the land if it’s privatized,” you know what I mean.
Since anyone can freely dislike Belarusians, equally others—say, a “powerful Belarusian lobby”—can, on the contrary, like these Belarusians and publicly demand that the corporation stop discrimination. A conflict arises. The offended Belarusians tell everyone what a jerk our hero and his corporation are. They start a boycott. But we remember that he “bought up all the land” and monetary losses and damaged reputation don’t faze him. The boycott doesn’t work, the decision is made to set up a maidan near the head office, so it’s convenient to shout slogans and make a show of defiance. Let’s say the Belarusians got lucky, and the owner of the street near the corporation’s office agreed to rent them part of the street. Again, whether he lets them onto the roadway is a question of profit and loss, since the roadway owner’s income comes from people driving on it, not standing on it. Well, let’s say they even blocked the roadway, perhaps the road owner himself turned out to be Belarusian. In general, the maidan began. Some stand, and others watch them. The outcome of the conflict depends on whose nerves give out or whose pocket turns out to be deeper. The corporation may make concessions, calculating the actual losses. The maidan participants may run out of money for rent. The road owner may ask the maidan participants to clear the road when their contract ends. Such are the probable scenarios of conflict.
But we are also interested in “force options,” so beloved by the people. What can happen in this scenario? Three security agencies (three private police forces) can be involved. The first guards the corporation. The second—the road agency, hired by the street owner—and the third is hired by the maidan participants to maintain order at the mass gathering. If our hero—the Belarusian-hater—decides to “disperse the maidan,” the agency hired by the maidan participants will come to the maidan’s defense. The agency the corporation has contracted with is unlikely to participate, since reputation is the main capital of such agencies, and what it would be doing is unlawful—that’s definitely a “minus” for the company. The maidan participants are within their rights; they are on the property they rented for the event, so sorry, some other time. But, let’s say, the corporation has its own agency that answers directly to the boss, and the boss gives the order to disperse. It is understandable that the careers of most security guards in his agency will end with this, but what matters is different—the road owner’s agency will also come out on the side of the maidan, since this is obvious aggression and an attempt to violate the contract. If the combined forces of the two agencies turn out to be insufficient, they will easily get help, since, I repeat, their portfolio is everything in this business.
A similar story unfolds if the maidan participants decide to storm the office of the Belarusian-haters. Here there will already be aggression against the corporation, and the corporation’s response will be entirely legal, and now it will receive help from other agencies. And the third situation—if the maidan participants refuse to leave in the event of termination of the contract with the road owner, his agency will disperse them, and the maidan participants’ agency will very likely not take their side. Therefore, knowing all these circumstances in advance, agencies will largely refrain from force options. “Titushki” also won’t work—the maidan agency will catch them with the support of the road owner’s agency and other agencies, and immediately hand them over to the courts or other appropriate authorities. In general, “mass protest” is a strange phenomenon for a libertarian society, since there are no masses here. No one is “taking us” “to Europe” (or to other places), no one is passing any “laws” that “hurt us”… everything that I came up with as a pretext for a mass protest is discrimination based on “collective essence”—nationality, religion, etc., which can offend people who identify with this essence. I have no other ideas.