Автор: Битарх

Parliament is a privilege: laws should be born in agony and die in one click

Let’s talk a little bit today about deputies and dispel some democratic mythology. More specifically, the conversation will be about how supporters of minimal state ideas (minarchists) should view such an institution as parliament. In our society, it has somehow become the default assumption that parliament is a sacred cow. That they have some inherent right to write laws for us, tell us how to live, what to smoke, whom to sell our services to, and how many taxes to kick back into the common pot. But what if parliament is not a right, but a privilege?
 
What is the fundamental difference between a right and a privilege? The main difference is that a privilege is a thousand times easier to annul. To put its own citizen in prison (that is, to deprive them of the basic right to freedom), the state machine has to sweat. It needs investigators, prosecutors, a jury, ironclad evidence, appeals, and a heap of bureaucracy. Why? Because a right is something a person possesses by default. Now let’s take a foreigner with a visa. A visa is a privilege. To throw a foreigner out of the country, you don’t need to prove they are a world-scale villain. It is enough that they violated a couple of residency rules. A snap of the fingers—the privilege is revoked, suitcase, station, deportation.
 
Now let’s look honestly at history. Where did parliaments come from in the first place? If we discard the pretty fairy tales, then historically any parliament is nothing more than a monarchical privilege. A hypothetical king with an army of thugs could have simply chopped off the heads of all these “fighters for popular representation.” He could have declared them traitors and drowned the very idea of transferring power to some murky deputies in blood. But for various reasons (somewhere the money for war ran out, somewhere it became too tedious to deal with taxes personally), monarchs made a concession and granted a privilege.
 
As a society, we are today the collective sovereign. But for some reason, we have forgotten that these people sitting in plush chairs are a concession we have made to them. And since it is a privilege, the rules of the game must change radically. Deputies should not tell us how to live. They should wake up in a cold sweat from the thought that they could be thrown out into the cold today. A parliamentarian must live under a constant, invisible sword of Damocles.
 
How could this look in practice? We need institutional asymmetry so that any decision can be overturned with disproportionate ease. Laws should be hard to pass, but quick to die. For example: to pass a new law restricting anything at all, 50% of the deputies’ votes are needed. But to repeal it, 25% of the votes of those same deputies should be sufficient! Or, even better—just 1% of the citizens’ votes in a referendum. Collect the signatures, and the law flies into the wastebasket. Deputies must physically feel that their papermaking hangs by a thread.
 
A presumption of guilt for the authorities is also necessary. We must make the profession of a politician as unattractive as possible for careerists, psychopaths, and lovers of other people’s money. How about requiring everyone who enters parliament to sign a voluntary waiver of some of their civil rights? Messed up? Passed a law that destroyed the economy? No immunity. Confiscation of property down to the seventh generation, loss of rights, and for serious failures—expulsion from the country with a “wolf’s ticket” (blacklisted) for any reason, even the smallest. Ideally, only those ready for self-sacrifice should become deputies. It should not be a prestigious job, but an obligation. Hard, dangerous, and thankless.
 
For minarchists, the state is not a caring mommy. It is a Leviathan. And parliament is simply a temporary “necessary evil,” a kennel where a chained dog sits. Our task is to make the chain as short as possible and the collar strict, with spikes on the inside. So that at any attempt to bark at the owner (that is, at you and me), the dog cuts off its own oxygen.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How to explain the philosophy of voluntarism to children?

One might think that ideas of freedom are too complex to convey to children. However, in reality, explaining such things to them won’t be that difficult if the right approach is chosen. In this matter, instead of complex conversations about politics, philosophy, and economics, it is worth appealing to a simple sense of justice and examples from everyday life.
 
For example, let’s imagine two children. One built a tower out of blocks, and the second came over and knocked it down. Almost any child will immediately agree that doing so is wrong, because the tower belonged to the one who built it, and the other destroyed it without permission. It would also not hurt to ask the child how they would feel if someone destroyed their construction. This is exactly how one can easily explain the importance of private property.
 
Now let’s imagine another situation. One child baked cookies with their mother and offers to exchange them with friends for stickers. One gives two stickers, another three, and a third doesn’t want to trade at all. Everything happens voluntarily; there is no coercion. Most children will also see nothing wrong here.
 
In essence, this is the basis of the ideas of voluntarism and libertarianism: do not harm others and interact only by voluntary consent. This alone is enough to convey to a child which actions are permissible and which are not.
 
And as for forced redistribution? Ask the child to imagine that a teacher, without permission, took candies from all the children and began deciding for themselves who would get how many candies. Most children in this situation would feel an injustice. Of course, someone might try to say that such redistribution is done with good intentions. But the child’s initial feeling is based on the very simple idea that you cannot take other people’s things without the owner’s consent.
 
Or let’s consider an example of coercion to perform some activity. One child wants to play football, and another wants to draw. If no one forces anyone, each can do what they like. But if one person starts to forcibly compel the others to do what they want, it will inevitably lead to conflict. It would be much better to agree, split into groups, or find a compromise. After all, voluntary cooperation is a more peaceful and pleasant way of interaction than coercion.
 
Of course, children are not familiar with complex concepts such as “property,” “contract,” or “voluntary exchange.” But they will perfectly understand the essence of the following questions: “Is this yours?”, “Did you give permission?”, “Do you both agree?”. Such simple questions will help make sense of many situations much better than long lectures and books.
 
Of course, adult life is much more complex. In it, cases arise where it is necessary to resort to self-defense and the protection of the weak, to fulfill complex obligations to others, to solve the problem of people who violate the previously mentioned principles of coexistence, and many other difficult situations. However, the foundation in the form of respect for other people’s boundaries, the impermissibility of initiating violence, and the search for voluntary ways to resolve conflicts should be understood from an early age.
 
Perhaps it will be even easier for children to understand the ideas of freedom than for adults. After all, adults are already used to perceiving many forms of coercion as something taken for granted and necessary for the functioning of society. Whereas children evaluate a situation without relying on attitudes that have not yet had time to be hammered into their heads by decades of propaganda. When it comes to taking someone else’s property or forcing someone to perform some activity against their will, they will certainly ask whether this is fair.
 
All explanations boil down to a very simple thought: every person must respect other people’s boundaries just as they want their own to be respected, and has no right to harm anyone, as they themselves would not want to become a victim of robbery and violence. And the best way to tell this to a child is to provide appropriate examples from everyday life, since it is still too early to read them complex lectures on politics, philosophy, and economics.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is not smartphones and tablets that maim children, but adults

Now in the news, you can see yet another official or important “uncle” in a white coat, with a tragic face, preaching about a lost generation, bad smartphones that turn children into depressed zombies, and the need to ban them. This, of course, is nothing new. In the 1950s, politicians accused comic books of increasing juvenile delinquency with equal fervor. In the 80s, the game “Dungeons & Dragons” supposedly turned children into satanists. In the 90s, video games were to blame for everything. And now, the era of the holy war against smartphones has arrived.

But as it turns out, such panic has no basis. Recently, psychologist Christopher Ferguson conducted a monumental study. He analyzed data from more than 80,000 young people. The goal was simple: to find out how the age at which a child received their first smartphone or tablet affects their psyche in adulthood. It turned out that this parameter does not correlate at all with depression, anxiety, or other mental problems in their 20s or 30s.

An alarmed public might point to the emergence of smartphones as the most obvious reason for how widespread mental health problems are among the younger generation today. However, the study did not confirm this. It found that the single greatest predictor of a broken psyche is what scientists call ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences). To put it simply, the problem is not that a child watches Peppa Pig on YouTube, but what happens around them when the screen goes dark.

If psychological or, even worse, physical abuse is practiced in the family, if parents scream at each other like victims in a tragedy, if no one cares about the child emotionally—that is when the psyche begins to crack. And it doesn’t matter if that child was on TikTok or gathering pinecones in the forest. Trauma is trauma, and the gadget, being merely a tool, has nothing to do with it. But why then do we hear so much hysteria specifically regarding screens? Who benefits from this panic?

Firstly, it is needed by politicians and bureaucrats. Solving real, difficult social problems is slow, expensive, and does not bring quick political points. You cannot simply pass a law forbidding parents from being jerks, because the state is fundamentally unable to enter every single family and “fix” love and mutual respect there. On the other hand, the state loves to simulate frantic activity! Ban gadgets in schools. Fine the Meta or Apple corporations for “harmful algorithms.” Introduce internet censorship under the slogan “Think of the children!”. As a result, the bureaucratic apparatus swells, budgets are siphoned off, and politicians earn a reputation as saviors of the nation. Meanwhile, children in truly toxic families continue to suffer just as they did before.

Secondly, it is incredibly convenient for some parents. Admitting that your child became anxious because of your outbursts at them, that you completely failed as a parent—that is painful. It is much easier and more pleasant to say: “It’s all because of that damned phone and the Chinese algorithms!”. An artificial enemy is found, and the conscience is cleared.

No one is arguing that balance is needed in everything. Of course, it is beneficial for children to breathe fresh air, play ball, experiment, and read paper books. Endless screen time, where eyes become square, cannot be defended. But one must also not fall for this cheap trick. The panic surrounding smartphones is a smokescreen that shifts the focus of public attention away from the only thing that truly matters: individual responsibility. The responsibility of adults for the atmosphere they create in their home.

Neither Mark Zuckerberg nor Steve Jobs can inflict a trauma on a child as great as their own parents can. Children need to be loved, spoken to, respected as free individuals, and provided with a safe haven at home. And then no tablet or smartphone will harm them!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Machiavelli in Diapers: How Overprotection Creates Bureaucrats

Have you ever wondered where all these officials come from, the ones who couldn’t care less about our rights and freedoms? Where is the factory that produces dictators, fans of “state regulation,” and those who love sticking their hands in other people’s pockets? Of course, they don’t teleport into leather chairs from other galaxies; they grow up in ordinary children’s rooms where parents, without even realizing it, install the wrong program in their heads.

Of course, all parents can make mistakes in upbringing. But a recent study published in Current Psychology provides a stunning hint as to what exactly should not be done. Psychologists analyzed the “dark triad” (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and found exactly how our parenting style influences whether a child grows up to be a supporter of freedom or becomes a small domestic (and later, state) tyrant. So, let’s take a closer look at what they discovered.

Many think that villains only grow up where they are beaten and humiliated. This is partially true, but it doesn’t always happen only that way. The study showed that one of the main triggers for the development of psychopathic impulsivity and narcissism is excessive indulgence. Imagine the scene: a child falls to the floor in a store, demanding their one hundred and fifth toy, and the parent obediently pulls out their wallet. There are no boundaries and no refusals; all desires are satisfied at the snap of a finger.

Does this remind you of anything? It is the ideal model of a welfare state. When we raise a child with the mindset that “everyone owes you simply by virtue of your existence,” we break the basic principle of cause and effect. Growing up, such a person sincerely does not understand why they cannot take what belongs to others (through taxes, lobbying, or direct violence). They have no brakes, because they are used to resources coming from a bedside table and that restrictions exist only for losers.

Another nail in the coffin of a healthy personality is the restriction of autonomy. These are the “helicopter parents” who decide who the child should be friends with, how to tie their laces, and what to think. When you deprive a person of the right to make mistakes and violate their personal boundaries (even with the best intentions), you foster hostility and dependence on authority. From infancy, the child learns: my choice doesn’t matter; the one who is stronger controls everything. First, it’s an overprotective mother, and later—Big Brother. People grow up who are panicky about freedom and beg a stationary thug to introduce new laws and regulations, not understanding how to deal with problems any other way.

But how do you raise a free person? The study gives a clear answer: the secret lies in adequate praise and the recognition of the child’s intrinsic value. First and foremost, independence should be encouraged, and praise should be given for effort, not for status. One should say, “You did great solving this difficult problem yourself,” rather than “You are the best, beat them all at the Olympiad at any cost!”.

It is also necessary to teach a child the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) while they are still in the sandbox. The motivation “don’t hit Petya, or I will punish you” is authoritarian morality. Whereas the motivation “we don’t hit Petya and we don’t take his shovel because it is his shovel, and you wouldn’t want yours to be taken” is libertarian ethics.

And finally, do not be afraid of frustration: the word “no” does not traumatize a child forever. It may be unpleasant for them, but it teaches them to respect reality, other people’s property, and other people’s boundaries.

Think about this: libertarianism doesn’t start with reading the works of Mises or Rothbard, but with our attitude toward children. And the state becomes merely a reflection of the people who compose it. If we raise children in an atmosphere of respect for the individual, without overprotection, but with a clear understanding of personal responsibility and others’ boundaries, we will simply cut off the oxygen to authoritarianism. After all, where will the thief-officials and manipulator-politicians come from if self-sufficient, empathetic people grow up in society, valuing their own autonomy and not demanding that someone else pay for their whims?!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why the collapse of Pindostan is the best news for freedom, and why it is time for us to stop praying to Washington

It is often possible to see how some “libertarians” (in quotes) continue to look across the ocean with breathless admiration. They pray to the US Constitution, quote the Founding Fathers, and seriously believe that America is the bastion of a “free republic.” Except they are stuck in the 18th century. That republic has long been gone, and what we see today is “Pindostan.” This is not a federation of equal states, but a real, classical, bloated, and last surviving empire of our days. And do you know what happens to empires? They collapse, and that is great! So let’s break down exactly what is what.

What is an empire in the classical sense? It is when one center, greedy for taxes, forcibly holds under its power absolutely different peoples and territories that are culturally alien to one another. Now look at the map. How can Alabama and New York seriously be called a “single country”? Wyoming and California? These are different universes. In one state, people want to go to church on Sundays, own an AR-15 to protect their families, pay minimum taxes, and have bureaucrats simply leave them alone. In another, they demand total control over the economy, a ban on plastic straws, insane taxes, and regulation of how you breathe.

But as soon as the subject of a possible breakup of the USA into separate independent states (or at least a confederation) comes up, conservatives and mainstream libertarians begin to panic: “This will be the end of the world! Madness! The collapse of civilization!”. But let’s take a breath and open a history textbook. Do you know who screamed like that a hundred years ago? Supporters of the “One and Indivisible” Russian Empire. When the Russian Empire began to crack at the seams in 1917, it seemed as if the heavens were falling to earth. But let’s ask the Poles and Finns how they like this “terrible collapse”? For them, it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Poland and Finland jumped away from the imperial corpse in time. They stopped feeding bureaucrats in a foreign capital, stopped sending their guys to die for someone else’s imperial ambitions, and built their own countries. No one in Helsinki today is crying: “Oh, what a pity that we no longer send taxes to Petersburg!”. The collapse of an empire is not the end of the world. It is spring, decentralization, and secession in its purest form—the sacred right to self-determination that Rothbard wrote about.

Why is the collapse of Pindostan beneficial to libertarians worldwide? First, it is the death of the global policeman. For the last 80 years, Washington has exported not freedom, but bombs, sanctions, and inflation. The breakup of the USA into 5-10 independent jurisdictions means that none of them will any longer have a budget for 800 military bases around the world. There will be fewer wars, less intervention, and less blood.

Second, it is the collapse of dollar hegemony. The Fed (Federal Reserve System) is the main sponsor of global etatism. They are the ones who allow budgets to bloat and print candy wrappers, for which the entire world pays through a hidden inflation tax. The collapse of the empire will bring down the fiat system and open the way for hard money—gold and crypto.

Additionally, this will create a market of jurisdictions. Imagine that in place of one monster, half a hundred states of various sizes will appear. A brutal competition for minds, capital, and labor will begin. California wants a 90% tax? Please! Only all businesses will move to an independent free Texas or Nevada within an hour. This will be the greatest experiment in jurisdictional competition in history.

It is time to get rid of the cargo cult! The fact that the Founding Fathers wrote a cool piece of paper 250 years ago does not make modern Washington a holy place. Today it is the same kind of imperial center as Rome was before its fall, London at the beginning of the 20th century, or Petersburg in 1917. There is no need to fear the balkanization of America. This should be welcomed! Division is the path to freedom. After all, the smaller the state, the closer the power is to the land and to the specific person, and the fewer opportunities it has to build a digital GULAG.

Voluntarist, Bitarch