Автор: Битарх

Stop fearing meteorites!

Imagine a person who puts on a ski suit on a hot summer day because “what if it snows?” Yes, safety is important, but if you over-insure yourself always and everywhere, you risk looking strange at best, and suffering from heatstroke at worst. Of course, as libertarians, we adore freedom of choice and personal responsibility. But when it comes to designing a product, a policy, or another “revolutionary” startup, many suddenly turn into apostles of insurance against the universal flood, literally screaming: “What if a meteorite hits? Let’s urgently triple the budget for a titanium dome!”.

But let’s try it! The problem? Resources are finite. If you pour everything into one parameter, others shrink like a student before final exams. As in the classic tale of the fortress: you can build walls two meters thick, or you can dig a moat, or you can maintain a garrison. Do everything at once? Only if you have the bank account of Saudi Arabia. For everyone else, it is an inevitable choice of only one option.

Evolution explained the rule of balance long ago. Look at the peacock: the tail is glamorous, but it flies like a sack of potatoes. The peacock invested its “evolutionary points” in marketing rather than in the R&D of migratory aviation. Or the ostrich: it gave up fighter-jet wings, but in exchange, it runs like a Formula 1 car. To each their own, but none of them tried to be Batman and Superman simultaneously—it’s too expensive.

Now let’s move from the savannah to the modern world. Take, for example, government structures that love to “play it safe.” In the pursuit of total security and control, they create cumbersome laws and regulations, turning life into a bureaucratic hell. The result? The economy becomes “heavier,” less agile, and the citizens become unhappy. All resources go toward fighting imaginary and rarely occurring risks, while startups flee to neighboring jurisdictions where they are allowed to make mistakes—and grow.

It’s the same song in business. Companies that are afraid to take risks and spend all their strength and money on insurance and re-insurance almost never become market leaders. They are overtaken by those who know how to take reasonable risks and understand that it’s impossible to prepare for everything at once. Want absolute server uptime? Pour money into redundancy, like into a “breakthrough” NFT in the winter of 2021. But be prepared that nothing will be left for UX, marketing, and salaries.

While you are building a bunker for a zombie apocalypse, your competitors are quietly conquering the market. And if the apocalypse does happen, it might look quite different from what you expected. And to hell with it—let the zombies worry now about how to deal with entrepreneurs who are used to taking risks and adapting faster than anyone else!

Of course, you cannot “ignore risks.” Calculating and considering them is very important. But do not become slaves to a single nightmare. The paradox: the more you cling to the “worst-case” scenario, the closer the “second-worst” scenario sails in—the one for which there was neither time nor nerves. The main thing is to remember the balance. Preparing for the worst-case scenario is useful and perhaps even necessary, but if you bet only on that, there is a great chance you will miss a mass of opportunities and be left with nothing. Life, economics, evolution—these are all games with limited resources. Success awaits those who understand that it is impossible to be ready for absolutely everything.

So there’s no need to wear a foil helmet; it’s better to check the weather, choose a moderate sunscreen, and go ahead—start building. Yes, you might get splashed by the first puddle. But the alternative is living in a spacesuit, where you can’t even drink coffee. And if a meteorite does happen to fall tomorrow… at least we lived the day without extra titanium on our heads.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From Napoleon to a ban: the route of a toxic commenter

We all know this kind of character: sitting behind a screen at 3 a.m., and they just won’t settle down. They leave a caustic comment with few or no actual arguments, check if they’ve been answered, reply even more causticly, and so on ad infinitum. It seems they don’t even need coffee anymore—they are energized by pure indignation.

Why is it important to pay attention to this? Network trolls are not just bored thrill-seekers. In reality, these are people with a whole set of psychological “special effects.” Psychologists have long found that internet trolls often possess a whole bouquet of unpleasant traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and even sadism. Such a “commenter” usually has an overly inflated ego; they believe themselves to be absolutely right and smarter than everyone else. Trying to prove something to such a person is the same as explaining etiquette rules to a cat: you can try, but the result is predictable.

Such trolls couldn’t care less about the feelings of others, but they love infuriating people and watching them suffer. They are like emotional vampires who feed on your indignation. And the most interesting part is that they often develop a peculiar addiction. Every new comment, every reaction from the “victim,” is pure dopamine for them. The troll throws out the “bait” and waits for a reaction, like a fisherman at dawn. That explains why they literally live in the comments: their self-esteem and enjoyment of life directly depend on how many people they manage to anger today. Interestingly, according to research, narcissism is linked to social media addiction.

Their obsessive need to have the last word in an argument reaches the point of absurdity. Even if everyone has long since gone home, the troll will return and write one more comment. Because they must. Because they can. And the trolls’ main trump card is anonymity. While in real life one could easily lose friends and be ostracized, there are no consequences online. The troll is protected by a nickname, an avatar, and the ability to create a few dozen more fake accounts. They are like James Bond in the world of forums: no one knows their face, and they always return.

Why do some people engage in endless trolling? There are many options. For example, such people usually have little power in their real lives. However, in the comments, they can feel like Napoleon—even if their “empire” is limited to a couple of discussions on Telegram. For some, trolling is like an extreme sport; they are simply bored living without drama. And sometimes, personal grudges are the cause. If the neighbors didn’t let them sleep peacefully, now they won’t let the entire internet sleep peacefully.

An interesting nuance: many trolls mask their behavior as freedom of speech. They love to say, “I’m just expressing my opinion!” But there is a huge chasm between constructive criticism and aggressive trolling. Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s opinion, not the right to boundlessly insult and humiliate others within their own communities. Trolls who hide behind liberal/libertarian ideas actually discredit the very essence of freedom of speech and only contribute to increased censorship and control. The irony is that their behavior only brings them closer to what they supposedly fight so fiercely against.

So what can be done about this? Resource owners and administrators should be tougher on their private territory. A troll who tries to infuriate and insult others is best sent to “read-only” mode—let them observe adequate communication from the sidelines. Sometimes this is the only way to restore a healthy atmosphere in the comments and let others know that rules of decency exist even online.

And the main piece of advice for ordinary users: don’t feed the trolls. Your reaction is vital to them. The best punishment for a troll is being ignored. A troll without attention is like a rock star without an audience: sad and meaningless. And remember: on the other side of the screen, there is most often an unhappy and insecure person! This doesn’t excuse them, but it explains it. Sometimes it’s enough to just remember this to stay calmer in the face of such provocations.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

May my cow die, as long as the neighbor’s two die

It is widely known that the higher a person’s psychopathy scores, the less they are concerned with honesty and causing harm to others. However, researchers were interested in what values psychopathic individuals adhere to in such cases and what motivation shapes their behavior. To this end, an assessment was conducted of 3,521 adult volunteers regarding their level of psychopathy (using the Levenson test), values, aspirations, orientation toward social dominance, as well as a preference for absolute or relative well-being.

First and foremost, psychopathic individuals showed a greater drive toward achieving financial success than toward improving the world around them. Additionally, they—and especially those with high scores in primary psychopathy (traits such as callousness and lack of empathy)—identified material possessions as a central good in human life and a source of happiness, as well as the idea that a person’s success in life is determined by the amount of property they own.

However, it is unlikely that such views can be considered inherently bad, as it is an individual’s choice which values are important to them, provided they do not involve causing harm to others. But what truly can be called a problem is the preference of psychopathic individuals to be wealthier than other people, even if this means having less wealth in absolute terms. In the completed questionnaires, they expressed a reluctance to obtain a higher income, better education, or more leisure time if other people around them would receive even more of these things and have a social status higher than theirs. In absolute terms, they are willing to have less wealth if other people have even less than they do, allowing them to achieve a higher social status in comparison.

It seems that sayings like “let my cow die, as long as my neighbor’s two cows die” or “let my shed burn down, as long as my neighbor’s cow dies” did not appear out of nowhere, but describe the preferences of a specific category of individuals—psychopaths. Apparently, it is primarily important for them to assert themselves at the expense of others and to be relatively better than them, rather than to achieve a specific level of well-being. The strong inclination of psychopathic individuals toward such values once again reflects how dangerous their mental state is, caused by a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. Normal people should certainly be wary of them, as they are capable of and willing to cause any harm if, in relative terms, it elevates them above everyone else. And in the long term, such a pathology, as we have pointed out many times, requires therapy.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Laws exist, but protection does not: why Ubisoft is farting on the labor code

The recent loud scandal surrounding Ubisoft makes one wonder: why are all these massive codes and bureaucracy even necessary if people in the most progressive countries are still not protected from sadistic bosses? As we recently learned, bosses in Ubisoft’s French office abused employees for years: they made crude advances, drew obscenities on their desks, and sometimes literally released intestinal gas right in their faces. And this isn’t some trashy office in a basement on the outskirts of Voronezh—this is “enlightened France”!

The French state has long prided itself on laws and rights. But something went wrong. Ubisoft employees complained to human resources, only to be told to go away and not make a fuss. Only after years of public pressure and the MeToo movement did the matter reach court. “Well, it reached court, so what?” you might say. The result: the accused face suspended sentences and fines, which are pocket change for them. Did justice prevail? Yeah, keep dreaming.

If you think France is an exception, welcome to the USA! There, justice is sold at wholesale prices. Activision Blizzard, Fox News, Starbucks, and others—each high-profile case ended the same way: large corporations paid their way out with “fines” amounting to a couple of percent of annual profits and calmly moved on. For employees who dared to speak openly about the problems, life turned into hell. They were fired, harassed, and quietly silenced with money. The law seemingly exists, but it’s useless.

And how are things in Russia? Formally, the labor code guards your rights, but in reality, an employee before a boss is like a bunny before a wolf: if he doesn’t eat you, he’ll at least take a bite. And as for sexual harassment at work? One might recall Deputy Slutsky, regarding whom the “Ethics Commission” decided that grabbing women’s buttocks is somehow normal. The girls were even advised to go to the police, though going there is pointless because there is still no law against harassment in Russia. A classic vicious circle!

So what should you do if the state cannot protect you? Here, libertarians shrug and say: friends, maybe it’s time to stop believing in the mythical power of papers and bureaucrats? Maybe it’s time to take control of your own life? Because while hundreds of inspectors allegedly protect you on paper, in practice, only publicity, competition, and the right to leave freely save you.

Libertarian prescriptions are simple and sound. First of all, one must understand that reputation is a serious matter, and the Ubisoft scandal would have happened much sooner if the victims had not been afraid to speak openly. Also, workers must have the freedom to leave at any moment, because nothing sobers up a boss better than a mass exodus of talent to competitors—this will force him to use his head, and not other parts of his body. Independent employer ratings are also needed—things like Glassdoor clearly show where it is better not to go to work. If employees know the truth in advance, bad employers will quickly be left without people or money. And finally, attention should not only be paid to companies as a whole. Specific people who created the chaos and violence must be judged and punished, and their behavior should be widely publicized. Then others will be deterred!

No one wants to live in a society where a boss can afford to release gas in your face. But the state has already proven a hundred times: it is either blind, corrupt, or simply does not want to actually protect us. This means we need to trust bureaucrats less and trust ourselves and the people around us more. A free person is better protected than a subjugated one, and if people are given freedom and tools for self-defense, it will work more effectively than any cumbersome laws. And remember: changes do not come from the offices of officials—they start with each of us. If we do not respect our own dignity, no one else will. Therefore, it is worth befriending common sense rather than waiting for protection from a paper law!

Weapon bans – for the sake of humanism or dominance?

Have you ever noticed how great powers suddenly become “humanitarians” when it comes to weapons and methods of war? On paper, it all looks beautiful: “we ban chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons because we are good.” But let’s look at this whole affair without rose-colored glasses. Doesn’t it seem to you that such bans are not at all about concern for humanity, but a clever trick to maintain the global hierarchy? It’s as if the world boxing champion banned all opponents from using their left hand. Why? Because it makes it easier for him to win!

Take, for example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Five countries (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) officially gained the right to possess nuclear arsenals. The others were told: “You can’t! It’s dangerous!” Why? Because when you have an atomic bomb, no one risks touching you. Recall the fate of Libya: Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program, and then his regime was blown to smithereens. North Korea, in turn, decided to avoid this, and now Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons, and for some reason, no one is bombing him. Or take chemical weapons. For decades, the USA turned a blind eye to the chemical attacks of Saddam’s ally against Iran, but suddenly remembered these atrocities when Iraq stopped being a friend. It looks like selective amnesia.

But it’s even more interesting with the rules of warfare. According to international laws, rebels are forbidden from hiding among civilians. It seems reasonable: fewer casualties among the civilian population. But what is a poor partisan to do if the enemy has drones, satellites, tanks, and aircraft? Go out into the field with an open visor? That’s a guaranteed one-way ticket. It turns out that the great powers tell the weak: either fight by the rules and be guaranteed to lose, or fight as best you can and you will be declared terrorists.

By the way, it is interesting that “legal terror” is only available to the state. The carpet bombing of Dresden in World War II, the nuclear strike on Hiroshima, NATO missile hits on Belgrade bridges and the television center in 1999—these are not terrorism, but “military necessity.” But one explosion by rebels is already a terrible sin. Of course, no one here is justifying violence against civilians, but why can the state do such things while a rebel cannot?

Let’s also remember humanitarian law in conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq. Western countries always emphasize that they fight “cleanly” and by the rules. But as soon as the rules get in the way, they are easily forgotten. Remember Abu Ghraib? Torture and abuse of prisoners who were “unlawful combatants.” The rules exist, but we don’t apply them to you because you are “not dressed in uniform.”

And then there are psycho-chemical weapons—substances that are meant to selectively and temporarily affect the brain without causing long-term harm to the enemy’s health. A typical example is the incapacitant BZ, which the USA experimented with during the Vietnam era. Officially, it is a “non-lethal means of suppression,” but in a large dose, it turns a person into a helpless zombie. Or take the opioid hybrids used in 2002 during “Nord-Ost”: hostages were put to sleep with a fentanyl-based aerosol—130 people suffocated, yet formally this is not a “combat toxic agent,” but a special tool. Convenient: when the strong need magic dust, it is an “anti-terrorist gas,” but if the weak try to do the same, they instantly become violators of all conventions.

Supporters of humanitarian law say: “Yes, the rules are imperfect, but at least there are some standards.” But if the rules work only in one direction, the question ultimately arises: could it be that they were created not to protect the weak, but to maintain the balance of power in favor of the strong?!

P.S. When authoritarians call libertarians “free-riders,” suggesting we demand that everyone “for free” agree with our “wants” (observe the NAP), they should realize that non-interference in their nervous system, for example, using drugs for forced reinforcement of the violence inhibitor, is self-restraint and a final attempt to peacefully establish a dialogue, not a technical impossibility!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a free market rid us of oligarchs?

It is highly likely that you have frequently encountered the question of oligarchic growth and capital accumulation. It may also have arisen the question of whether this problem could be solved with decentralization and deregulation of the market. Of course, we immediately note that no one can offer a miraculous and magical solution to all of humanity’s problems. But let’s still look at how a free market and genuine competition can ease – if not completely solve – this long-standing disease of the economy.

The essence of oligarchy is simple – capital attracts capital. Money begets money, as they say. The richer you become, the easier it becomes to get even richer. Eventually, all large business begins to resemble a closed club where entry for an ordinary person is forbidden. Many may now find this clear – it’s necessary to strictly regulate the activities of the wealthy and take away part of their funds. But if you dig deeper, state regulations often help them more. They not only do not fight against oligarchy but also create favorable conditions for its flourishing. Why? Because large companies have the resources to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists who skillfully circumvent all barriers. Meanwhile, small entrepreneurs drown in bureaucratic jungles.

So why can deregulation help? Imagine: a market is a vast ocean. State regulations are artificial obstacles, reefs and islands around which it’s convenient to build personal kingdoms. If they were removed, the vast ocean would become much harder to divide into cozy “corners.” Free competition is like a storm that constantly breaks up any monopolies and prevents them from consolidating. To compete – means to live, to stand still – to drown. Remember how the internet destroyed traditional monopolies: taxi services, media, retail. New players emerged – Uber, YouTube, Amazon – and turned everything upside down. Yes, now they are new giants, but they appeared precisely because old regulations did not keep pace with technology.

Decentralization is another tool for protection against oligarchy, a new level. This is not just the cancellation of rules, but the transfer of control over resources and assets from a group of “chosen” people to the hands of many market participants. Recall cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Their main idea: to replace centralized control with transparent rules that cannot be changed for someone specific. As a result, a system is built in which no participant can gain an advantage simply by virtue of their position or connections in government. Decentralization destroys the very ground for oligarchy. It’s impossible to build an empire on control over something that doesn’t belong to anyone.

But this is not a perfect pill – a free market and decentralization are not an absolute cure for greed and dishonesty. Some people will continue to try to create cartels, conspiracies, and fraudulent schemes. But without state patronage, without bureaucratic “quiet harbors,” it will be much harder for them.

Let’s wrap it up: yes, deregulation and decentralization aren’t perfect. But they definitely deprive the oligarchy of its main trump card – state support. They don’t just treat symptoms; they eliminate the very source of the disease. A free market is a continuous battle of ideas, products, and talent, where no one can rest on their laurels. Of course, the decision is yours – what to choose. In any case, it’s more interesting to live in a world where everyone has a chance to win, not just those sitting closer to the state trough.

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Transhumanism originating from the 17th century: what did Bacon and Locke dream of?

When we hear the word “transhumanism,” the imagination usually paints pictures of robots, flying cars, and other fantastic achievements of scientific progress. But what if we dig deeper and say that the roots of transhumanism go much further back than smartphones and drones?

Imagine 17th-century England. It’s rainy, gloomy, tea hasn’t arrived yet, and scientists and philosophers are already trying to figure out how to make life a little better and a little longer. One such dreamer was Francis Bacon. He wondered how to radically extend human life and enhance human capabilities using science. True, the times were such that declaring this loudly was dangerous: the church believed that man was the property of God and any attempts to improve man were blasphemous. What did Bacon do? He wrote “New Atlantis,” a sort of philosophical “novel with a key,” where behind a beautiful allegory, sages secretly work toward the victory over aging and disease. As if to say, “It’s not me; it’s the characters in my book who are so progressive!”

But Bacon was not the only one who decided to outsmart time and the church. Next in line for history was John Locke. He proposed an idea revolutionary for his time: a person belongs only to themselves, and therefore, they have the right to dispose of their own body and life. And it was this principle of self-ownership and personal freedom that became the key to libertarianism and future transhumanism.

This daring idea provided not only a philosophical push but literally changed the world: thanks to it, the first secular state—the USA—appeared, along with revolutionary slogans like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea of complete personal autonomy turned out to be not just a pretty phrase for philosophers, but a truly powerful engine of social progress. Thus, a philosophical tradition gradually formed, where Bacon’s ideas about overcoming human limitations merged with Locke’s belief in total human freedom. And these proto-libertarian thoughts, like beads on a string, were threaded onto the fundamental philosophy of transhumanism.

Today, technology has caught up with and even surpassed the dreams of past philosophers. What Bacon dreamed of and what Locke timidly hinted at is becoming quite real today: biotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence. It seems we stand on the threshold not just of a new era, but literally a new version of the human being.

But here comes a new wave of critics who are in no hurry to celebrate technical progress. Some fear the deepening of social inequality, claiming that the rich will live forever while the poor will only get the crumbs. Some worry about the loss of human identity. And some fear that we might accidentally create a new class of technological elite that will rule over all others.

Well, any great idea always faces criticism, but it is precisely the discussion that makes it alive and active. Transhumanism is not just about technology and science; it is a challenge to our very notion of humanity, a chance to rethink everything we have accustomed to considering immutable: life, death, consciousness, and even who we actually are.

Ultimately, whether we like it or not, transhumanism is already influencing our society, forcing us to ask uncomfortable but very important questions. And who knows—perhaps we will live to see the time when these questions become reality rather than just pages of philosophical books. And then, perhaps, someone will write a novel about us—but hopefully, without the Aesopian language!

For now, let’s observe, ask questions, and dream about what tomorrow will bring us, participating personally and helping biohacker enthusiasts whenever possible. For who knows, maybe right now we are taking the first steps toward a world that Bacon and Locke saw only in their boldest fantasies.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Hack the Aggressor’s Brain, Not Humanity: Mistakes of Stephen King’s Dystopia

Stephen King’s “The End of All This” is a vivid dystopia that warns us about the classic trap of good intentions paving the road to, well, you know where. But let’s look deeper and soberly assess the main mistakes of the characters and how they could have been avoided.

The main character, Robert, discovered that the water in the town of La Plata possesses unique chemical properties that suppress aggression and the propensity for violence. Driven by a sincere and understandable dream to rid humanity of violence, he decides to disperse a similar substance across the entire world, using a volcanic eruption as a delivery mechanism. The experiment initially seems successful—the level of violence in the world drops to zero. However, a terrible side effect soon emerges: the substance causes an irreversible decline in intelligence, gradually turning people into helpless beings incapable of taking care of themselves or maintaining civilization.

As we can see, Robert messed up big time. Instead of reasonably and cautiously testing his idea, he simply sprayed a poorly studied drug on all of humanity at once, “flooding” the planet with unknown chemistry via a volcano. This is roughly like finding an old canister in the garage and pouring it straight into a new Mercedes without any checks. Naturally, the consequences were disastrous: aggression vanished, but brains melted right along with it.

Robert’s main mistake was not the desire to change “human nature,” but the absence of elementary caution and common sense. In a developed society, no one would apply radical methods without long-term research; moreover, “forced therapy” for all of humanity contradicts the very spirit of libertarianism. Coercion is only permissible toward those who have already violated the NAP by committing violence. It is with such people that cautious, gradual, and carefully controlled experiments should have begun.

How might this have looked in practice? Instead of turning the entire planet into guinea pigs, he could have started with small groups of particularly dangerous criminals. If society in some countries allows execution for heinous crimes, why not first try a much more humane and promising alternative—drugs to enhance violence inhibition? One could gradually observe the effects of the drug over years, record side effects, improve the formula, and only expand its application after full certainty. And even then, as a mandatory requirement without the right of choice, it should apply exclusively to those who have already initiated violence.

There is a whole set of tools for reducing catastrophic risks that our hero completely ignored. First and foremost is staging and gradualism—start small, observe, and correct. “Measure seven times, cut once,” not the other way around. Next is targeted application—limit use exclusively to aggressors rather than spraying “happiness” on everyone indiscriminately. This is simply more ethical and effective. Then comes independent oversight and transparency—scientists, ethicists, and supervisory boards acting as a system of checks and balances to eliminate the errors of a single genius (no matter how much he wanted everyone’s well-being). And finally, reversibility—the ability to roll back changes or minimize damage at the first signs of a problem. After all, transhumanism is not about playing Russian roulette with brains, but about controlling biology for the sake of expanding freedom.

Robert’s problem was not that he tried to hack human nature, but that he did it sloppily and hastily. When dealing with powerful tools like biohacking or biotech, responsibility and awareness of the consequences are vital. Here, the “do no harm” principle applies with an adjustment for progress: change whatever you like, but don’t break the whole planet in the process. The conclusion here is simple: hacking “human nature” is possible and even necessary, especially if it brings more freedom and less suffering, but it must be done intelligently so that instead of a brave new world, we don’t end up trapped by our own overconfidence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

If buying is not owning, then copying is not stealing

When someone talks about piracy, images from pirate movies usually spring to mind—a wooden leg, a bottle of rum, and a parrot. But in the digital world, things are a bit different. There, a pirate isn’t some guy stealing “riches” from poor authors. It’s more like a guy or a girl who keeps the doors of a massive digital library open for everyone.

Imagine Nintendo. The legendary company has released over 1,500 games over the last 40 years. Many of them are now lying in dusty boxes in attics or have long since rotted in landfills because it’s not profitable for the corporation to maintain old content. But who saved these games for history? Exactly, those same “pirates.” In the digital age, they are a kind of volunteer guarding cultural heritage. Piracy today is a guarantee that we won’t lose priceless culture tomorrow.

But isn’t this theft? This is where it gets interesting. Theft is when you take something from someone, and that person no longer has it. By downloading a movie, a song, or a book, you aren’t taking it away from the author. The file remains exactly where it was, in its original form. No real loss—except, perhaps, the copyright holder’s illusions about their hypothetical income.

Fine, but shouldn’t authors be paid for their work? Of course they should. But for the first copy of the product that buyers voluntarily purchased, the money was indeed paid. Everything else is an artificial monopoly imposed by the state (i.e., a privilege from a stationary bandit, which is what patents were openly called in the past).

It’s also important to understand that the modern copyright system (let’s call it “copyrism” for convenience) doesn’t allow us to fully own even the things we’ve already paid for. You bought a game? Great, but it’s tied to a dozen DRM protections that vet you like a border guard at an airport. Bought a Netflix subscription? You aren’t the owner of the movies, just a temporary tenant. Subscription ends—goodbye, favorite series. Copyrism is a cult of control where the user is always under suspicion. We have become tenants rather than owners of our own culture. Admit it, that’s not very market-like at all.

Lost sales are a myth. Companies love to calculate virtual losses: claiming that since you downloaded 10,000 copies of our album, we lost 10,000 sales! No, folks, you lost at most the chance to sell it to a few dozen people. The other 9,950 would most likely never have bought your product if they couldn’t download it for free. And you know what’s funny? The most active pirates spend more on music and movies than the average consumer! Because piracy is more like a sampler than a robbery.

Piracy also helps in cases where the copyright holder doesn’t want to or cannot help. Remember how HBO ruthlessly deleted favorite series from its servers when closing HBO Max? They were saved specifically by pirates. When a book is banned by censorship, the only hope of reading it is again through pirate sites. They literally support the freedom of information.

Free does not equal immoral! Libertarian ethics are simple: violence is bad. And when you make a copy of a digital file, you aren’t taking anything from anyone. But government raids on servers, million-dollar fines for students, and criminal cases against “pirates”—that is real violence. If an author is talented, grateful listeners, readers, and viewers will support them voluntarily. This is fair and free, and most importantly—non-violent.

What can we do? Advocate for the abolition of copyrism. Don’t be afraid to say out loud: copying is cooperation and the dissemination of knowledge, not theft. We are not obliged to feel guilty for simply wanting to freely manage our files and the culture that has long since become part of a common heritage. And one last thing: keep your torrent client handy. Because while corporations are playing Monopoly, pirates are the only ones truly ensuring the preservation of culture!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Privacy That Is Too Expensive: How the Good Intentions of Officials Are Destroying the Internet

Do you know the difference between good intentions and actual results? Naturally, it’s the number of ruined lives. When the EU and USA launched GDPR and CCPA to protect personal data, it all sounded beautiful: “We will protect your data from malicious corporations!” Russia, with its Federal Law No. 152, also jumped on board with the idea that they would protect citizens from digital bandits and Western agents. The concept looked decent, but what happened in the end?

Paradox one: your data is still floating around the web like a cat on the rooftops in spring. Leaks? Every year they break records! Just imagine: under GDPR in Europe, more than 160 thousand leaks occurred in the first year and a half. In Russia, the situation is practically farcical: the data of nearly all adult citizens has already been leaked online. What kind of protection are we talking about in this case?

Paradox two: the laws are supposedly against market giants, but they are the ones who came out on top. Google and Facebook’s share of the advertising market only grew after the introduction of GDPR. Why? They simply have enough money for an army of lawyers and technicians that others cannot afford. Moreover, compliance with GDPR or CCPA became a nightmare for small businesses and startups; many simply couldn’t handle it and shut down.

Paradox three: instead of growth in trust, we received only irritation from endless cookie banners and permission requests for every single breath. People don’t read—they just click “I Agree.” It’s like those bank terms and conditions that nobody reads, only to be surprised later: “How did I end up owing 5 thousand rubles a month for account maintenance?”

Another unpleasant point is data localization. In Russia, the law requires storing citizens’ data on local servers, allegedly to protect information from Western intelligence agencies. The result? Instead of Google or LinkedIn, Russians got local analogues with questionable security and low service quality. It’s like being forced to buy bread from only one store, with the justification that it’s “safer.” But when there is no choice, quality usually drops and prices rise.

There are also amusing examples: many American websites simply blocked access from the EU after GDPR, deciding that European users were “too expensive” to maintain. Imagine you want to visit your favorite resource, and it tells you: “Sorry, you are too expensive a customer, goodbye!” Absurd? Yes, but such is the new reality of data protection.

So what should we do? A libertarian approach, instead of suffocating state regulation, offers common sense and market mechanisms. First and foremost, these are voluntary standards instead of bureaucracy. Let businesses develop effective data protection rules themselves. And if consumers don’t like something—they will go to competitors who respect privacy. After all, if a company screws up, the market will punish it, customers will leave, and profits will fall. This works more effectively than any Roskomnadzor inspection or fines.

But what will help best is the use of technological solutions instead of paperwork. For example, end-to-end encryption, where access to your messages and files is available only to the sender and the recipient. Even if the data falls into the wrong hands, the hacker will simply see a meaningless set of characters. Another important approach is data minimization. Why collect every single piece of data if only the bare minimum is needed?! For most web services, a login and password are enough. The less data, the fewer risks. And also—decentralized storage. Instead of one large database that lures hackers, information can be distributed across many independent points, making the attackers’ lives many times harder. In short, technology allows for the protection of privacy far more effectively than government laws and endless inspections.

As we can see, a good intention does not equal a good law. Officials wanted the best, but they got what they usually get. Let’s trust people and business instead of bureaucrats and the instructions they impose!

Voluntarist, Bitarch