Quite often, the “worst-case scenario” argument is brought forward against the idea of a free society. It posits that we cannot abandon the state because we have something to lose; although the state may be a poor solution to our problems in many respects, it could be much worse without it, and therefore it is not worth the risk. This argument cannot be called valid because it does not consider the possibility of the opposite situation—that is, the “best-case scenario”—and moreover, it completely ignores the worst-case scenario that could occur if state power is preserved.
Absolutely any human activity and any aspiration carry both the possibility of achieving a positive result and the risk of encountering various dangers. This applies even to everyday actions, such as walking to the store or to work. Even in such elementary activity lies a small, but still present, risk of tripping on something along the way, falling and being seriously injured, or being hit by a car at a pedestrian crossing. And what can be said about something more complex than a walk?
However, the probability of the worst-case scenario occurring does not deter people from activity and aspirations if they can also lead to a best-case scenario, and especially when there exists a worst-case scenario associated with abandoning them. I think it is obvious what worst-case scenario awaits you if you refuse to go outside. Many initiatives have found realization in an attempt to avoid the worst-case scenario of inaction, even though action also brought certain risks. If every initiative were discarded solely on the basis of the presence of risks, without considering the risks of inaction, we would now live in a more backward world without many of the phenomena and technologies we are accustomed to.
Perhaps in the pursuit of achieving a free society, as in any other pursuit, certain risks are hidden. However, again, let us not forget that there is not only a worst-case but also a best-case scenario, and that there is a worst-case scenario if the status quo is maintained. By the way, history has already shown us many examples of the latter. How many state regimes have destroyed millions of lives. And can anyone really say that the worst-case scenario of a free society would be even worse than life under another Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot? After all, all states strive precisely for centralization and the strengthening of their power, and we can observe this process even now. Just 10-20 years ago, both in the Western world and in our post-Soviet space, there were freer orders, and now one can very easily receive punishment (up to imprisonment) even for actively defending positions, or simply making statements that do not coincide with the state agenda. Thus, it is not far to go to the level of the authoritarian communist/fascist regimes of the last century.
States have always moved, and continue to move now, toward their own worst-case scenario. This alone indicates that we should attempt to achieve a free society as an alternative capable of providing a best-case scenario. This is especially relevant in the case of the post-Soviet space. Perhaps people of the Western world have something to lose in economic terms; they have accumulated a certain wealth, the risk of losing which most likely will not justify such a pursuit in their eyes. We do not even have that. For us, a free society is like an injection of an experimental drug for a terminally ill patient—either this, or nothing will remain but to resign oneself to the rapidly deteriorating state of affairs.
