Horn of Plenty

Alex Rozov in the comments of my channel, and before that, in the channel “Myth Eaters”, proposed an interesting problem:

There is a myth that the nymph Amalthea, daughter of Ocean, in the form of a goat, suckled the infant Zeus in a cave on Crete. Amalthea had a horn of plenty, from which, upon a magic word, the fruits of the earth poured out in an endless stream… When Amalthea cast off her goat skin and disappeared, the horn was lost somewhere.

Suppose Amalthea’s horn was suddenly found where it was lost: on Crete.

How will this affect world politics and the economy?

Well, let me try to fantasize.

So, after another earthquake, a landslide revealed an ancient cave, and a couple of days later, some hiker tourists climbed in. In the cave, they discovered a stone bed, a table, and on the table, a goat’s horn in excellent condition. Since everyone on Crete has been badgered about Zeus’s caves and the myth of his foster mother, the hikers chuckle, thinking, “here’s another one, and even the horn is in place. Hey, Horn, what will you give us? At least give us a couple of oranges.” The Horn provides. After recovering from their initial shock, the hikers begin spamming requests and quickly find out that the Horn doesn’t pour beer and doesn’t give meat. It said “fruits of the earth,” so it will be fruits of the earth, period. A command recorded and played back from a phone works perfectly: the Horn does not require personal presence to execute an order; it only needs an instruction on what to serve. It also turns out that outside the cave, the Horn loses its magical properties. This is precisely what determines that the Horn will not leave Crete, and its further fate will be tied specifically to this island. Otherwise, of course, tourists would have no trouble smuggling a goat’s horn out of Greece, since it’s not exactly a golden treasure.

What happens next? Tourists disciplinedly turn to the Euphoria of Antiquities, and some legal complications begin. The object is clearly older than 1453, which means it undoubtedly belongs to the state. Theoretically, its place is in a museum, and tourists are entitled to a reward for the find. But the object is useless outside the cave, and the cave is located on private land. Unlike mainland Greece, in Crete, deep in the island, most land is either private or municipal, rather than state-owned. Thus, local archaeologists begin studying the cave, while the horn itself is also being studied by various other specialists who, of course, are interested in the physics of the materialization of the earth’s fruits. The owner of the cave, a certain Manolis Petrakis, sets up the “Amalthea” restaurant nearby, where he treats guests to vegetarian cuisine, and starts wine production right there, because in Greece it is difficult to think of a more high-margin way to process the fruits of the earth than making wine with a beautiful legend. Thus, during the day, eggheads study the horn, and at night it provides the location owner with raw materials for processing.

Next, large-scale business by local standards enters the game. The state, Mr. Petrakis, and the agro-industrial company AGROCRETA agree to create a special public-private partnership, the “Amalthea Consortium.” The concession agreement states that the state grants the consortium the exclusive right to use the Horn for 30 years and ensures permits for infrastructure installation, in exchange for which it receives a fixed annual payment of 50 million euros and 20% of the consortium’s net profit. Mr. Petrakis provides his real estate for the consortium’s use for 30 years, receiving a fixed annual payment of 2 million euros and 10% of the consortium’s net profit. The AGROCRETA company invests money, manages the consortium, bears the entrepreneurial risks, and receives 70% of the net profit from this.

Now the consortium’s task is to build logistics from the cave to the port of Heraklion, located 50km away across rugged mountainous terrain, which at its peak had a turnover of about 3 million tons per year. The “Princess Xenia” highway in Montenegro took 7 years to build, and with a length of 41km, it cost almost a billion euros. OK, the consortium doesn’t need a highway, just a good road for serious freight turnover. But even so, one must budget at least 4 years and at least 500 million, and, of course, the construction will be contracted to the Chinese. In the meantime, they will have to lay down gravel, then pour concrete up to the nearest local road, and be limited by its modest capacity.

Thus, from the very beginning, the consortium management will face the question: what to produce?

While all traffic is provided by ATVs and helicopters, they will have to work on special orders, such as “deliver 100kg of coffee beans to Mr. Papadakis’s craft roaster, full analogs of the lot sold at an auction in Costa Rica for 50 dollars per kilo” — but such a delivery will satisfy all the hipsters on the entire island for long, and the rest simply won’t understand why they should buy such expensive coffee when Lavazza is available in the supermarket.

When the first trucks start coming, they can already be loaded, for example, with cocoa beans, because there is a more than solid price per ton of raw material, and the global market is quite large. As freight turnover further expands, one could think about natural rubber, but here is the problem: you can’t eat it. The stupid artifact is enchanted to provide the owner with fruits of the earth for food, not for just anything. So, rubber, mahogany, and the like will unfortunately have to be left to the local producers, but on saffron or natural vanilla, one can make up for it completely, simply by driving all other producers out of the global market, because why would they even be needed.

But when, finally, a full-fledged highway designed for the heavy traffic capable of fully loading the port will be built, the main cargoes will essentially remain the same cocoa and coffee, and the consortium’s capacity will only be enough to bite off a certain share of the global market for these goods; logistics will not allow for more. Of course, in addition to this, all of Crete will have access to cheap durian, coconuts, and other exotic items that previously were expensive solely due to the long logistical arm. But there is no point in shipping these tropical goods beyond the EU, as tariffs begin there, and Asia can fend for itself—Heraklion is not made of rubber.

And if anyone fears that an endless stream of rice, wheat, and potatoes will pour from Crete, they are fearing in vain. This will only happen in years of local crop failures, military crises, and the like. The Horn must not leave the cave, and no matter how much you expand or reinforce its vault, it will still be a hole of a fixed width, through which a conveyor belt travels one way with empty packaging and the other way with filled containers, then reloads onto trucks, goes to the port, is loaded onto container ships, and is distributed around the world. From one single port, and there are thousands of such ports in the world.

In order for the Horn of Plenty to truly crash all global food markets, and the energy market along with it due to biodiesel, a new transport revolution will be required. Someday, perhaps, this will happen, but I see another event as far more likely. It is not for nothing that at the very beginning of the story, scientists began to study the horn. It is they who will eventually find that physical principle on which it operates. And when a universal synthesizer stands in every home, the goat Amalthea will finally be able to consider her mission on Earth accomplished. Where to look for her after that? I suppose on the Jupiter moon of the same name, but for a description of that stage—turn to the Strugatskys.

Psychopathy – a zombie idea? Not quite!

Recently, the article by Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen has made waves, attempting to completely refute the concept of psychopathy and labeling it a “zombie idea.” The author concludes that psychopathy does not exist in principle, and that the scientific community’s interest in this idea is fueled only by the cultural popularity of the concept. But do such claims actually hold water, or is this just another attempt to ride the hype by denying the obvious? Let us examine everything in order.

First of all, the author refers to his own meta-analysis, in which he finds that, according to research data, psychopathic personalities perform no worse than ordinary people on empathy tests. However, it is extremely important to note that modern science does not claim an absolute inability of psychopaths to empathize. Often, the discussion concerns a deficit in affective empathy (the ability to feel the emotions of others while observing them) to varying degrees, while simultaneously, cognitive empathy (the mere ability to read others’ emotions without feeling them) is frequently fully intact. The author of the article primarily uses empathy as a monolithic construct, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Furthermore, such results may have a rather interesting explanation—psychopathy may consist not in the absence of empathy itself, but merely in the absence of its automatic activation. For instance, in one experiment, psychopaths were found to have the same level of mirror neuron activation (which is typically associated with empathy) as ordinary people. But this only occurred when they were given the task of manifesting it intentionally! As for spontaneous empathy, they demonstrated a clear deficit in neural activity in that case. Another experiment similarly proved the ability of psychopaths to take the perspective of others (to understand their state and thoughts), but only when it is an intentional task. At the same time, automatic (reflexive) perspective-taking occurs only in low-psychopathic personalities.

The author also uses psychopathy itself as a monolithic construct, without paying particular attention to its individual traits and the connections between them. This is also an extremely incorrect approach, as in modern research, results and conclusions are often presented within the framework of multi-factor models of psychopathy, which are perfectly functional.

There are also moments where the author has explicitly lied. He claims that frequently cited studies in favor of the psychopathy concept—for example, neurobiologist James Blair’s article on the mechanism of violence inhibition, which normally deters a person from harming others, the presence of moral-psychological impairments in psychopaths, as well as certain neurophysiological studies—are merely isolated pieces of evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously. However, Blair’s core positions and his violence inhibitor model, such as the reduced ability of violent and psychopathic personalities to perceive distress signals (sadness, fear, etc.) from others, have been replicated by dozens of studies! Furthermore, there is already a great deal of evidence regarding the link between structural brain impairments and psychopathy.

Finally, the author decided not to mention the strongest argument in favor of the psychopathy concept at all: its extremely high predictive power regarding violent crime, and especially murder. This, for example, is supported by numerous studies and meta-analyses by criminologist Matt DeLisi. Moreover, so far there is not a single study that refutes such a link. As forensic psychologist John Marshall notes in one of his articles, psychopathy is the strongest indicator of violence, it is difficult to ignore in the matter of predicting such behavior, and the fact that the “average” criminal who commits a murder demonstrates moderate manifestations of psychopathy underscores that this is not just a rare subtype of murderers, but a general trend for all cases of lethal violence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Debates on enemy platforms

I have a friend who is a freshman. His university has introduced mandatory, useless subjects at the expense of the rest of the learning process. I am mainly talking about “Fundamentals of Russian Statehood.” It is terrible propaganda, a twisting of facts, and the omission of others, all heavily seasoned with emotions and the speaker’s personal opinion.

I have the opportunity to attend this lecture without being a student and to publicly leave the instructor exposed, as the fairy tales coming out of his mouth are easily shattered by logical inconsistencies and objective reality.

The question itself: Is it worth the candle?

Anonymous question

Your doubts are completely justified. The question of whether it is worth the candle arises when the inevitable costs of an activity are large enough, while the potential gain is small. For example, if you played cards at night before the Industrial Revolution with tiny stakes, it is quite possible that even the person who hits the jackpot would not recoup the cost of the burned candles from their winnings. If, in a police state where the public expression of non-enthusiastic views is punished by imprisonment, you were to hold a debate with a state propagandist before an audience of a couple of dozen people, even a total rhetorical rout of the opponent might not be worth the subsequent lost years. However, blowing up a drone manufacturing plant might justify the risks of criminal prosecution in the eyes of many.

Of course, to make the game worth the candle, it is not necessarily about raising the stakes. You can limit yourself to reducing the costs. For example, participating in online debates under a pseudonym. Or moving to a less repressive state. Or engaging in a public dispute with a state lecturer on the subject of paleontology. In other words, playing cards with small stakes, but after the Industrial Revolution, when candles have become cheaper and you can burn even cheaper electricity instead.

In your particular case, where resources are scarce and you don’t want to take too many risks, but you want to harm a specific person who represents the hated state, and in such a way that they have a chance to understand their mistakes, it seems to me that a minor terrorist attack, also known as hooliganism, would be the optimal solution. The simplest thing would be to break a car window. And the stone used to break the window could be wrapped in a piece of paper with a profound saying. You know, something like, “Sudden arrival is the foundation of Russian statehood.” The person is left with nothing, and at the same time suffers an intellectual defeat, which is exactly what you wanted.

Of course, the recipe will have to be modified to fit the context, and obvious precautions will have to be taken: don’t get caught on camera, leave your phone at home, and don’t leave traces of your DNA on evidence.

How the state turned rights into privileges

Once, a person simply sat in a carriage, and later—behind the wheel of a car—and drove. Not because the state “allowed” it, but because the road was a road, transport was transport, and an adult person was considered capable of being responsible for their actions.

Then came the stationary bandit (“the state”). It did not take away freedom all at once—that would have been too noticeable. It acted carefully: first accounting, then registration, then a license, and finally a fine for its absence. And suddenly, that which was a right yesterday is called “authorization” today.

Driving a vehicle without a driver’s license? When automobiles first appeared, people learned to drive much like they learned to manage a horse: through practice, advice from acquaintances, and sometimes painful lessons. The license gradually became not just a confirmation of skill, but permission to use one’s own transport.

Crossing a border without a passport? Before the era of total passport control, millions of people traveled, moved, and looked for work without the ritual we are now accustomed to involving visas, stamps, and the humiliating question: “What is the purpose of your trip?” Today, a person is born on the planet, but to walk a few kilometers in another direction, they must prove to an official that they have a valid reason.

Building a house on your own land without approvals? It would seem the land is yours, the money is yours, the risk is yours. But no: bring a project, get a permit, coordinate setbacks, height, purpose, materials, utilities, and perhaps even the shade of the fence.

Buying medicine without a prescription? Once, a person could decide for themselves what to take, consulting a doctor, a pharmacist, or their own common sense. Now, many medications are available only after an official blessing. And it is not about whether medical advice is beneficial. It is about something else: why has advice turned into permission?

Opening a workshop, a production facility, or a small business without a license? Making soap, baking bread, transporting people, repairing houses, cutting hair, teaching children, hosting guests—the state increasingly views this not as a peaceful exchange between people, but as suspicious and illegal activity that must first be legalized.

Buying, carrying, and using weapons for self-defense without a license? In many countries and eras, weapons were a common tool of a free person—dangerous, requiring responsibility, but not a state gift. The authorization system turns everything upside down: a peaceful person must explain why they need a means of protection, and the state decides whether they are sufficiently convincing in their fear for their life.

And what about a child who wants to leave abusive parents for another reliable adult? In a natural order, they could find refuge with a relative, a neighbor, a teacher, or a family acquaintance. In an authorization-based order, an adult ready to help faces a practically prohibitive guardianship procedure, while the child meanwhile remains inside “properly documented” violence. The papers are in order—so, apparently, everything is fine. Bureaucracy has an amazing ability to fail to notice the human being behind an ideally filled-out form.

Practicing medicine without a state license? Of course, one should not deceive patients, hide qualifications, or cause harm—responsibility must be held for that. But the very fact of voluntary assistance, consultation, or treatment between people did not always require official permission. Licensing has replaced the question “Are you competent and honest?” with the question “Are you on the right list?”.

The main trick of the authorization state will be that it first declares a natural action dangerous, then forbids it without permission, and then issues permission and calls it the protection of freedom. This is how a right turns into a privilege. A right is something you can do as long as you do not violate the rights of others. A privilege is something you can do only when you are told “yes”.

And the most uncomfortable question here is not: “Why are they forbidding this to us?”. It sounds differently: “Why have we become accustomed to asking permission for our own lives?”.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

You will be punished for what was legal yesterday (or why it is deadly dangerous to be “law-abiding”)

You surely know people who say the following: “I pay all my taxes, my business is completely white, I’m not interested in politics, I have nothing to hide.” This is a very cozy position. And although such people are often called “hamsters” in libertarian circles, it must be understood that the desire to simply live, create, raise children, run a legal business, and not play hide-and-seek with the state is an absolutely normal and natural need of a healthy person.
 
But there is one little nuance. By trying to play by the state’s rules, you are playing chess with a pigeon. Or more accurately—with an armed cheat who has learned to change the rules of the game after the match has already been played.
 
This is precisely why agorism (that very counter-economics, crypto, working for cash, hiding assets, and quietly disappearing from the radar of the stationary bandit) has become a matter of survival even for those who bake legal cakes or write legal code. Because the Leviathan across the world—and in Russia, by already kicking down the door—has begun to massively apply laws retroactively and nullify statutes of limitations.
 
Let’s first look into the history of law. Why did humanity come up with statutes of limitations in the first place? Even in Ancient Rome, jurists understood a simple thing: society needs legal certainty like air. If you honestly bought an anvil, you shouldn’t have to wake up in a cold sweat for the rest of your life thinking that in 20 years, the grandson of the previous owner will come for you and take it away due to an error on a parchment. Evidence decays, witnesses forget everything, and people die. A statute of limitations is a guarantee that society will not sink into an abyss of eternal paranoia, endless vendettas, and the revisiting of old cases. It is on this foundation that trust in the future is built.
 
And now let’s return to our reality. What is the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation doing now? It is churning out lawsuits in batches to seize factories (like “Solikamsk Magnesium” or “Maxfa”), lands, and companies privatized in the 90s. That is, 30 years ago! Businessmen invested money, paid taxes, and were crystal “white.” But the courts, with an unperturbed face, declare: “Statutes of limitations do not apply to the requirements of the state.”
 
Or take the laws regarding “foreign agents,” “undesirable,” and “extremist” organizations. Did you transfer 500 rubles to a foundation five years ago when it was not just legal, but respected and encouraged? This means today they can come to you with a search and charge you with financing extremism. You were absolutely legal yesterday, but they made you a criminal today—for your action yesterday.
 
One might think this only happens to us. But the erosion of law is a global trend. In the US and Europe, ideas of retrospective taxes are heard more and more often (“you earned too much last year, let’s have you pay extra at the new rates”). In Canada, authorities could freeze the bank accounts of protesting truck drivers and those who simply sent them 20 bucks for coffee at the snap of a finger. In the US and the UK, there is a retrospective stretching of modern moral norms onto the deeds of days gone by regarding “sexual harassment.” If the state needs to expropriate you or shut you up, it will find a reason, ignoring any old guarantees.
 
And this is where we return to agorism. “Going underground,” using cryptocurrencies, working outside the legal field, refusing to register property in one’s own name—this is no longer the romance of cyberpunks or the domain of darknet smugglers, but basic insurance. Even if you sell teddy bears today and sacredly honor the Criminal Code, tomorrow they might pass a law declaring plush to be a toxic material, and all sellers from the last 10 years to be enemies of the people with confiscation of property.
 
Disappearing from the “legal field” is the most rational choice for a person who has understood the essence: it is impossible to be “law-abiding” where the law is one today, another tomorrow, and you are punished by it for the day after tomorrow. Therefore, it is necessary to study counter-economics, hide assets, use cash and crypto, and most importantly—build horizontal connections with those you trust!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Libertarianism and the leftist agenda, outlines. Why one might dislike the market.

I got a bit stuck here trying to start the book. It turns out that my prejudice against leftist ideas is so strong that I simply cannot manage to begin describing the object of acquaintance without immediately injecting criticism into the text, which, of course, one should not do, as it contradicts the purpose of the book.

Therefore, I have set those attempts aside for now and approached it from a different angle. What are the reasons one might dislike the market, market supporters, the description of the market in libertarian sources, and so on?

Libertarians consider the key positive quality of the market order to be that it is a space of voluntary transactions. During a market transaction, everyone parts with what they value less and acquires what they value more. And here, of course, a criticism arises, which I would divide into two categories.

First. Within a market transaction, a person parts with money and acquires a brick, which will now definitely not fly into his car. Or a vaccine for a virus that accidentally escaped from a laboratory. Or a permit for something he could do without a permit anyway. Or the enforcement of a ban preventing others from doing what the person parting with money would like to forbid them from doing. Or a slave. Or a political post in the state…

Within a market system—the leftists claim—anything can become a commodity. And these artificial constraints of yours, like NAP and self-ownership, which for some reason are supposed to remove certain categories of things from the category of commodities, are non-functional nonsense because there are no proper instrumental criteria for them; it is all a matter of personal ethical norms and general taste, since you yourselves claim that all values are subjective.

The second grievance against the market consists of the claim made by its adepts: money in the market is earned through the utility provided to other people. And if that is the case—the leftists claim—then for you market proponents, the wealthier a person is, the more useful they are to others. Consequently, their opinion is also more valuable. And thus, any online scammer, popular singer, lottery winner, or recipient of a billion-dollar inheritance can respond to any objections against their incredibly valuable opinion by saying: if you are so smart, then show your money.

The further conclusions are quite obvious. Since money is the measure of everything, and people commit evil for its sake, then down with money. Since the market allows everything to become a commodity, it is the rejection of the market that restores human dignity to people, for now, a person is not for sale. Since money inflates intellectual empties, then without money, the voice of the true intellectual will be heard more clearly.

I will stop here, because I am restraining myself and trying to refrain from criticizing everything said above. For now, I would rather know your opinion on whether I have gone down the right path in my reflections.

Neither Tor nor VPN could save him: what GDID is in Windows and why it is dangerous for each of us

A while ago, the story of 19-year-old hacker Peter Stokes from the Scattered Spider group went viral. The guy breached a jewelry store network and demanded $8 million for non-disclosure of data. He wasn’t an idiot: he used a VPN, operated via RDP, and covered his tracks. But the FBI knocked on his door anyway. Do you know what tripped him up? It wasn’t an IP leak or snitching on accomplices. It was his own computer via GDID technology.
 
GDID (Global Device Identifier) is a unique identifier that Microsoft binds inextricably to every Windows installation. It is not tied to hardware or an account, but is a digital passport of your system. And this system maniacally collects telemetry: which programs you open, which websites you visit, and when you turn off your computer.
 
How does the VPN trap work? Many people think they become anonymous after turning it on. Metaphorically, a VPN is like fake mustaches and dark sunglasses. You put them on (change your IP), enter Telegram or Tor to read opposition channels, and go about your business. Windows records: “User with GDID №12345 opened Tor.exe at 14:00.” Then you take off your “fake mustaches” (turn off the VPN) to log into your banking app and place an order on Ozon using your real home IP (as you probably already know, it is impossible to access many Russian services with a VPN turned on). Shortly after, Windows makes another entry: “User with GDID №12345 logged in to play Dota from an IP address in the city of Syzran.” Then, all of this is sent in a neat little package to the servers of the “Corporation of Good” in Redmond.
 
But I’m in Russia, Microsoft has left, the FBI won’t reach us?! Yes, a Major cannot simply send a fax to Bill Gates requesting the logs of an opposition figure. But:
 
1) Broker data and telemetry leak regularly. Intelligence services are perfectly capable of buying the necessary databases from providers and corporations on the black market.
2) State trojans and spyware (which can reach you disguised as anything) can read your GDID locally. From there, it’s just a matter of technique—matching it with provider logs, which, under the “Yarovaya Law,” already record all your traffic.
3) If they want to get to you, they can fabricate a “cyber fraud” case and send a request through Interpol. Corporations often satisfy such requests without unnecessary questions.
 
How, then, can you protect yourself?
 
The radical solution is switching to Linux. If you engage in opposition activities, admin channels, or work with sensitive information—delete Windows. Stop voluntarily letting a corporate overseer into your home. In 2026, Linux is not just a black screen for geeks. Something like Linux Mint or Ubuntu can be installed in a couple of clicks and looks more intuitive than Windows. An open-source system doesn’t snitch out of the box.
 
The compromise solution is to gag Windows. Because sometimes you can’t do without Windows: specific work requirements, corporate software, favorite games. And if you are forced to live in the same room as a snitch, you should at least tape his mouth shut. To this end, enthusiasts have created excellent free utilities: wpd.app (Windows Privacy Dashboard) and O&O ShutUp10++.
 
Download them, run them, and in a couple of clicks, cut out all telemetry. They disable data collection, block report transmissions to Microsoft, shut down Cortana, and prevent applications from reading your location. But there is an important nuance: Windows is a stubborn creation. After every major update, the system will try to secretly reset your settings and start spying again. So, check these utilities after updates.
 
And remember the main rule of digital hygiene: separate your identities! The device you use to write posts about freedom should not know your name, where you live, or what your favorite type of coffee is when ordering delivery.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“It’s the Law of the Jungle”: how to lock wolves in a cage and accidentally invent a justification for authoritarianism

Every time the conversation turns to freedom, self-organization, and rejecting the state boot on one’s neck, a skeptic inevitably emerges in the comments. They believe that such ideas are mere idealism, since in nature, the strongest male always rules. The alpha keeps the pack in fear, and if you remove the leader, the wolves will tear each other apart. After all, man is a wolf to man!

But for now, let’s set aside politico-economic treatises and speak the language of biologists. Because the main biological trump card of “strong hand” supporters is not just a misconception, but a grand scientific myth that people have blindly believed for half a century.

Where did this myth of the vicious alpha male, who growls at his peers, dominates, and holds power through violence, even come from? In 1970, American biologist L. David Mech released the book “Alpha: His Essential Role in the Wolf Pack,” where he described the brutal hierarchy of predators. The book instantly became a bestseller, and the “alpha” image was plucked for management textbooks, movies, and political speeches. It sounds like the perfect justification for authoritarianism: males fight for status, the strong subjugate the weak, and order is maintained through fear.

However, there was one tiny but extremely important nuance. Mech conducted his observations in a cramped zoo enclosure. Adult wolves from different places, who did not know each other, were herded there and locked behind bars. The scientists essentially created a prison barrack, observed the camp-style bullying that emerged in the confined space with its local “overseers,” and with a knowledgeable look, declared that this was the natural order of things.

When that same researcher ventured into the wild years later to observe real, free wolves, he was appalled. There were no bloody tyrants there. A wolf pack in the wild is simply a cohesive family. The “alphas” are just an ordinary mom and dad. They don’t oppress their peers for self-assertion; instead, they teach the young how to hunt, care for the wounded, share prey, and coordinate the pack through care and authority.

Mech then spent thirty years unsuccessfully begging publishers to stop printing his old book. But authoritarians fell so in love with the fairy tale of the “right of the strong” that the alpha male myth remains more alive than ever.

Of course, a lover of dictatorship might concede that things are that way with wolves. However, we are primates, which means the most vicious one should definitely rule us. But even that is not the case.

The eminent primatologist Frans de Waal studied chimpanzees for decades and proved: the leader among primates is far from the most muscular and aggressive male. Stupid tyrants at the top of the hierarchy do not live long. If an alpha begins to act like a banana dictator—beating the weak and seizing food—their peers quickly unite into a coalition, lie in wait for the bully, and stage an early impeachment (with a possible lethal outcome).

A true leader among chimpanzees is a subtle politician and diplomat. He regularly shares delicious food, grooms allies, protects females with offspring, and, most importantly, breaks up fights. His status is maintained not by the animal terror of those around him, but by trust, respect, and mutual benefit. This is a voluntary recognition of leadership, not submission under the lash.

Do you see the irony? The entire pseudo-scientific concept of “natural tyranny” was born from observations of animals that were forcibly placed in a cage. Statists of all stripes love this trick: first, lock people in an artificial cage of prohibitions, taxes, regulations, and redistribution of wealth; then wait for an angry struggle for resources and status to begin on the soil of artificial scarcity and lack of freedom; and finally, step onto the podium in a white tie and solemnly announce the vicious and wild nature of man, whom only a guard with a baton can save from mutual destruction.

Market relations, horizontal connections, mutual aid, and voluntary communities—this is what is truly woven into our nature. Violence, the cult of the leader, and coercion are systemic failures that arise where people are deprived of freedom and driven into an enclosure. So stop confusing the laws of nature with the routine of a prison cell block!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Review of examples of an agreement not implying external enforcement

This order is accompanied by an advance donation in the amount of 33 EURMTL.

Not long ago, I received an order from Rinat Enikeev for a review of the Onym messenger, and now he has asked for a review of a set of documents called “Founders’ Agreements.” He is primarily interested in how “orthodox” these agreements are from a libertarian perspective, as well as any other thoughts I might have on them. For roughly the same purpose, he even passed them to Stefan Kinsella. Stefan noted the document’s flowery style and the lack of definitions in the text, but mostly analyzed the points that were personally closer to him, i.e., those concerning intellectual property.

To start, I will provide links to the documents under consideration in the order that makes the most sense for reviewing them:

1. For whom and why the hell. Here, Rinat explains that the proposed agreement will not be of interest to just any potential co-founder, but only to those who are prepared to invest only labor and time into the common cause, but not money.

2. Principles. This outlines the main idea: to build an agreement that excludes any hierarchy and coercion among the participants. The only source of obligations is ongoing consent, not any kind of external order.

3. Agreement for two. The actual text of the agreement for two participants.

4. Agreement for three. The text of the agreement for three participants. It differs from the previous version by a slightly more complex procedure for the division of property.

I would say that what we have here is an ambitious attempt to make a smart contract function in the real world. As long as there is consent among all participants of the agreement, they act together in some way. As soon as disagreement arises, they have procedures in place to express it, and then ultimately arrive at some new agreement, even if that agreement manifests as the termination of their joint activity.

However, just as blockchain is not the Internet of Things, a smart contract in the physical world is only implementable as long as the objects it regulates behave according to the logic of the contract. As long as the founders operate with certain information objects that either represent knowledge (and are therefore freely copied) or can be cryptographically restricted—as long as the proposed agreement describes something close to reality. But when an enterprise’s property is a certain physical object, it can be, say, taken, appropriated, and sold, and then the person simply ceases to communicate with the co-founders. What should the co-founders do in response according to the agreement? Wipe their hands of it, leave all the property on the balance sheet of the old company, and found its fork without the runaway co-founder.

Another problem associated with such agreements is the extreme difficulty of dividing profits in any way other than equally. Theoretically, of course, the one who made the decisive contribution might suggest they would like to receive a more significant share; however, in a situation where a partner can freeze all proceeds simply by refusing to communicate, the producer will have to contend with the free rider and pay them simply for the status of being a co-founder.

In other words, despite the nobility of the premises behind their drafting, such agreements scale very poorly. As long as there is consensus, a written agreement is not required. As soon as consensus disappears, anyone can violate any clause and disregard any procedures, especially if it reaches a serious conflict rather than just resulting in a loss of interest in further participation.

To put it aphoristically, such agreements prioritize freedom over property and, therefore, in essence, do not protect property at all. But we are talking about creating a commercial enterprise! And such an enterprise is generally created to convert time, effort, and entrepreneurial talent into property. If following the agreement creates systemic threats to such conversion, it is unlikely to be actively applied.

However, I do not consider the work done to be useless. It’s just that I feel we shouldn’t push the codification of life to extremes. Rather, I would find it useful to frame the individual mechanics of the proposed agreement as recommendations on how to protect freedom within the conditions of contractual activities. For example, it is useful to use multi-signatures. It is useful to divide equally under conditions of uncertainty regarding individual contribution. And if it is difficult to divide incomparable sets of things equally, it is not necessary to monetize them first; one could use the “one divides, the other chooses” mechanic, or in the case of N participants—”draw lots to see who divides, and then draw lots to see who gets what.”

In my view, the very striving to minimize coercion in the sphere of voluntary transactions is quite commendable. But the higher the initial trust, and the more details one can neglect, the shorter the contract will be, and the better it will be in my eyes. “We live together until one of us gets tired of it.” Or “I contribute this much money and a little help with labor, you make the main labor contribution and a little bit of junk, we split the profit in such-and-such a proportion, and you can kick me out, but then you must return my investments.” Or “I write as I see fit, you donate as much as you see fit.” Or even “We try to avoid each other, but if we run into each other in public, we tolerate one another and do not express dislike.” In my eyes, these are all good agreements that are easy to remember and easy to follow. However, I absolutely do not rule out that some people will find them completely unsuitable because the nuances and procedures are not specified.

How to legally hack the state and not go to prison for extremism

You surely know that vile feeling of helplessness when the state comes up with yet another absurd law, and you realize there is nothing you can do. Go out with a placard—and you’ll be jailed for extremism. In the West, of course, it’s easier: you can boldly curse taxes with friends in a pub without fearing that the bartender will report you. But try to break into parliament or catch a deputy at their house to tell them what you think about new eco-standards—at best, you’ll be ignored, and at worst, you’ll be charged with harassment or a threat to national security.
 
Most libertarians recoil from getting involved in politics altogether. It’s a dirty game where the rules are written by cheats. But if sitting idly by makes you sick, and becoming a political prisoner isn’t in your life plans, there is one elegant way. Let’s call it “judicial jiu-jitsu.” The idea is very simple, yet brilliant. We take their own system and force it to work against them, driving the situation to utter absurdity.
 
Imagine this situation as an example: you consider speed limits unfair. You drive slightly faster, a camera snaps a photo, and a fine arrives. What does an ordinary person do? They curse quietly and pay with a discount. What does a clever person do? They come up with an excuse like, “My brother-in-law’s brother was driving, but I forgot exactly who.” Now, watch this. Instead, you launch a multi-year, public legal campaign to discredit speed limits as such. You go to the district court, then the regional court, the appellate court, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court. And at every stage, you roll out new, crushing arguments so that they have no right to refuse to accept the case (and AI is here to help us now—it can generate lawsuits in batches).
 
You declare: “The tolerance of the devices is too low to physically drive without exceeding it by even a kilometer!”, “Compliance with this regime causes me constant stress and harms my health,” “Constant monitoring of the speedometer distracts from the road! The state is literally forcing me to risk my life and increasing the number of traffic accidents!” and finally: “Speed limits on an empty highway are an unlawful interference in my private life and freedom of movement!”.
 
Why might this work and why is it safe? First and foremost, you are outside of politics. De jure, you are not an oppositionist, not a revolutionary, and you are not shaking the regime. You are simply a very meticulous citizen fighting for your rights as a motorist. Even the most hardcore autocracy wants to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. To do that, they need the illusion of a working judicial system. The authorities won’t turn on the repressive machine over a camera fine—it would discredit the system itself and look comical. You are hitting them in their blind spot.
 
Additionally, you set off an information bomb. You attract many times more attention than dreary politicians with their boring speeches. The media loves stories like this! “Madman reaches the Supreme Court, proving the speedometer causes panic attacks!” People begin to read your arguments and suddenly realize: “Wait, he’s actually right…”. You shape the libertarian agenda elegantly and with humor.
 
Furthermore, the possibility for donations and crowdfunding arises. While you are headbutting the system, the public will gladly donate for popcorn and legal costs. You become a folk hero.
 
And you know what else? Constant dripping wears away the stone. Even if you lose the first 10 trials, public pressure will begin to grow. And on the 11th time, the court might side with you. Or officials, tired of this circus and the resonance, might quietly change the law just to get you off their backs.
 
This hack, of course, is applicable to everything! A ban on installing air conditioners? Tax rates? Absurd construction regulations? Go to court; there are chances—history knows many successful examples of such legal trolling. So, if you cannot break the wall with your forehead—become the water that destroys its foundation. Sue, troll, and defend your freedom with a smile!

Voluntarist, Bitarch