Автор: Битарх

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

Trade unions can be cool – if they are voluntary

Trade unions are usually associated with dreary offices, imposed dues, and dubious characters who are more likely to walk the corridors of power than the shop floors and warehouses. But originally, the idea was completely different! Real trade unions are not a club for bureaucrats, but associations of free people who voluntarily protect one another. Without the state, without violence, without “you owe me, or we’ll get you fired.”

Think this is a utopia? Not at all! History knows many cases where voluntary unions, without any state privileges or coercion, achieved real success. Take, for example, the London Dock Strike of 1889. One hundred thousand people calmly and peacefully stopped working, demanding a pay raise. The authorities, of course, did not help: the workers simply marched through the city with rotten fish on sticks, vividly showing the bosses how they lived. And, unexpectedly, they achieved a pay raise. Without violence, without lobbying for laws, simply based on solidarity and a sense of justice.

Or consider the American grape pickers in the 1960s, led by the legendary Cesar Chavez. Instead of burning or smashing things, the guys simply organized a grape boycott across all of America. Imagine: millions of Americans stopped buying grapes in solidarity with the farmworkers! After a few years, the plantation owners simply could not take it and signed the first collective bargaining agreements in history with the workers. Again—without state aid and violence, through pure voluntary mutual aid.

And what about the Polish “Solidarity” in the 1980s? Workers independently dismantled the communist regime simply by uniting into a giant independent trade union. The state arrested them, banned them, crushed them with tanks, but they went ahead and won—peacefully, persistently, and voluntarily.

Why, then, do trade unions often look so dreary now? The answer is simple: the state loves to “help.” And when bureaucrats “help,” it usually gets worse for everyone except the bureaucrats themselves. The state monopoly on trade unions strips them of competition and motivation, mandatory dues create “reluctant passengers,” and privileges turn union leaders into ordinary officials, far removed from the workers. The stationary bandit provides privileges to certain unions, including mandatory dues from all employees, monopoly representation of all enterprise workers (even those who do not wish to join the union), and exemption from liability for damage caused during strikes. As a result, trade unions begin to look more like bureaucratic organs than independent associations of workers. Paradoxically, it is a fact: the more the state tries to “protect” workers, the fewer real opportunities workers have to protect themselves.

By the way, remember the recent history of Amazon in the USA. Ordinary warehouse workers, who had grown tired of working in harsh conditions, decided to create an independent union. The Amazon company—huge, influential, and most importantly, unwilling to allow a union organization—spent millions of dollars to prevent its creation. But the people simply organized themselves and won the vote. In this way, simple employees without resources or connections were able to prove that the power of voluntary solidarity works today as well.

The solution here is simple and libertarian: return voluntariness and freedom of competition to trade unions. If people do not like a union, they should be able to calmly leave or create another one. If a union protects its members poorly, people will simply leave and choose one that does it better.

History shows that it is precisely voluntary associations of workers, without state-imposed rules, privileges, and bureaucracy, that achieve the most impressive successes. Solidarity and mutual aid do not need a state “roof”—they are always born naturally where there is freedom. And voluntariness and freedom of association are not some kind of luxury, but the only real way to protect the rights of those who work!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The City of Diaspar – how excessive control turns a utopia into stagnation

In Arthur C. Clarke’s novel “The City and the Stars” (1956), the majestic city of Diaspar is described as the last bastion of humanity in the distant future. Its inhabitants live in luxury and safety, with practically eternal lives. But this stability comes at a high price. The city is completely closed off: no one leaves its walls, and nothing truly new ever happens. Diaspar is a “high-tech monument to stagnation,” where millions of years pass without change, and the spirit of adventure and discovery has been lost. It sounds like science fiction. But don’t you think our modern world is moving in the same direction? Let’s analyze how this manifests in different spheres of our society.

First, let’s consider the aspect of comfort and technology. In Diaspar, the needs of the residents (food, housing, entertainment) are fully met; access to high-tech entertainment and “virtual worlds” is practically unlimited; people live almost forever thanks to regeneration from “memory banks.” In the developed countries of the modern world, there is also a high level of domestic comfort—stable supplies of food, services, medical care, and housing conditions; the digital environment (social networks, virtual reality, computer games) can “lock” a person within their own informational “bubble” reality; scientists are working on life-extension technologies. Of course, one should strive for high technology and comfort, but it must not be forgotten that the absence of encounters with the challenges of the external environment prevents a person from developing resilience and flexibility.

It is important to pay attention to the fear of change and self-isolation. The residents of Diaspar are convinced that there is nothing beyond the city walls, and if there is, it must be hostile; exploration of the outside world has ceased; at the level of public consciousness, there is a taboo on the very act of leaving the city. In modern society, the fear of the “alien” is also quite common (due to immigration, cultural and political contradictions, terrorism, etc.); in some cases, states or communities erect “informational,” economic, and political barriers, striving to maintain internal stability; sometimes an excessive desire for a safe and “sterile” environment leads to a rejection of openness, flexibility, and dialogue. But when a society begins to perceive the entire external environment as a threat, it closes in on itself and loses the creative impulse for development.

Even more important is the factor of the loss of risk. In Diaspar, practically everything is under control: from the climate to human lives (immortality, regeneration); social and personal “risks” are minimized: any mistake can be “overwritten,” and any danger is excluded in advance. In modern society, more and more spheres are being automated; society increasingly seeks to insure itself against all risks—complex legal frameworks, security measures, censorship of potentially “traumatizing” topics—while the element of challenge and overcoming, which were once an integral part of growth and development, is lost. The common point is this: in striving for “zero risk,” one can miss the very essence of the human experience—the ability to go beyond the boundaries of the known.

The factor of the “bubble” of self-sufficiency and global challenges is also dangerous. Diaspar closed in on itself; people do not even imagine what resources or threats might exist beyond its limits. In the modern world, many people are not concerned with global problems (demographic collapse, environmental degradation) as long as everything is fine in their “local comfort zone.” Thus, by living in a “bubble” of stability, society becomes vulnerable to sudden crises because it stops observing reality in its fullness.

Personal freedom and responsibility are the best remedy for stagnation. If people are given more autonomy, many will act reasonably and creatively. Yes, freedom is a risk, a chaos of possibilities. But development and the energy of life go hand in hand with risk. Diaspar chose absolute security at the cost of stagnation. We, however, can choose freedom and forward movement. The world does not necessarily have to be either comfortable or alive—a balance is possible if we do not forget the value of freedom.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How investment restrictions strengthen the power and wealth of elites

Imagine that you are a talented, smart and, most importantly, hardworking person. Perhaps even financially savvy: you read books about Buffett, follow a few investor bloggers, and even know the difference between a bond and a stock. In short, you’re a winner, ready to take everything life has to offer.

But then the state gently pats you on the shoulder and says: “Hey there, buddy, stop-stop! You’re too poor to invest in interesting things. Why don’t you just put your money in the bank at 4% and don’t make a fuss.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the world of restrictions for “non-qualified investors.”

What is actually happening? In many countries (USA, Russia, EU), a roughly similar scheme is in place: authorities divide investors into two castes — “quals” (those with plenty of money and the right papers) and “non-quals” (everyone else). Quals can invest anywhere: venture startups, hedge funds, IPOs, cryptocurrencies, complex derivatives — in short, any juicy opportunities with the potential for hundreds of percent growth.

But for an ordinary person, even if their IQ is higher than that of many millionaires, the road there is closed. True, in some cases, people have found workarounds through cryptocurrency: thanks to it, one can invest in startups and projects that would otherwise be completely inaccessible due to formal restrictions. The state is protecting us, mere mortals, from risks. Like, just in case — what if we lose our money and become even poorer?

But here is the paradox: casinos and betting shops — please, go ahead. Lotteries — always welcome! Loans at 25% per annum — “dear, come in, we’re glad to see you!”. But a startup by your acquaintance — no way, too risky, you’re not a millionaire to invest in such things! Ironic, isn’t it?

Such restrictions lead to a banal financial apartheid: the rich gain access to the juiciest investments and become even richer, while the middle class and the poor are forced to settle for crumbs — deposits and low-yield bonds. In the USA, for example, only 13% of households fall into the category of accredited investors. And it is they who get access to venture deals that turn 1,000 dollars into a million. Meanwhile, the average John Smith has to sadly watch the success of others, settling for boring S&P 500 ETFs.

Russia has gone even further: “non-quals” are completely forbidden from investing in foreign stocks. Tesla, Apple, Nvidia? Forget it! Your lot is Gazprom shares, a deposit with a yield below inflation, and a state pension. In short, stay quiet and dream of a salary increase at the factory. And Europe? There, regulators have decided that people “do not have a legitimate need” to invest in crypto-derivatives or use high leverage. This is like telling a person: “You do not have a legitimate need to earn more.” Thank you, so very caring!

Who benefits from this? Imagine: if a person earns a lot from investments, they become financially independent. They are no longer afraid of the boss, layoffs, or a crisis. They gain money, time, and the most terrifying thing for the authorities — the ability to think about politics. It is not in the interests of the authorities for the middle class to get rich quickly and stop depending on a salary and the state. After all, as long as you slave away from morning till night at a job you hate, paying off loans and trying to make ends meet, you certainly have no time for rallies and protests. No time to wonder who up there is stealing the budget — you have to feed the family and pay the mortgage! Thus, investment restrictions play into the hands not only of the super-rich (who maintain exclusive investment opportunities) but also of states, for whom it is easier to manage a tired and economically dependent population.

What to do and how to live on? The problem is not that investing is dangerous. The problem is that the state has decided that you are a child, incapable of making a decision about your own money. If a new Apple or Google appears tomorrow, you will be the last to know, when the shares have already hit the exchange and grown dozens of times. Until then, the “quals” will skim the cream. It is time to return the right to take risks!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

RPM

The number of experiments being conducted in society at a given moment, or the conditional “revolutionariness,” has a good analogy with a car engine. In English, even the names coincide—you have surely noticed the RPM abbreviation on the tachometer, which stands for “Revolutions Per Minute.” If the needle is at zero, the car will not move at all; too low an RPM means poor traction and the engine may stall, and if it is in the “red zone,” the engine roars violently and fails very quickly. Only in a narrow range around 2K RPM is stable engine operation ensured, where it simultaneously provides good traction and does not fail too quickly.

Put simply, “revolutionariness” is an indicator of entropy in a system: the higher it is, the faster the development, but also the higher the probability of the system “spiraling out of control” and self-destructing. At a zero “revolutionariness” indicator, development stops, and for any living system, this means death.

A great example is the planned economy of the USSR. A quote from one article reviewing the reasons for its collapse:

“A mobilization economy of the Soviet type implies, suddenly, some task for the sake of which the mobilization is carried out. Previously, these goals were quite obvious—develop an industry like the capitalists, win the Great Patriotic War, create a nuclear bomb. Further it became more difficult: a developing economy requires the search for creative solutions for the further growth of the population’s standard of living/increasing labor productivity/searching for new energy sources and so on. In a market, this issue is solved by each agent individually at their own risk, and out of a thousand failed attempts, a couple or three correct solutions will be found. In a planned economy with a single decision-making center, experimenting is more difficult.”

Here lies the most hypocritical position of many authoritarian conservatives: they oppose any experiments in society, but at the same time, for some reason, they violently criticize the USSR. Although from the outside, it was precisely the Soviet communists with Gosplan who were the embodiment of the ideal world of conservatives, in which any experiments were maximally limited, providing a sense of “order” and a reduction of entropy. And the fact that zero entropy is death was perfectly demonstrated by the USSR in 1991, ceasing its existence. Worse still, the hypocrisy of authoritarians extends across the entire planet: they openly express a desire to ban any experiments globally (here one can recall American conservative organizations like the ADF, which pursues the goal of criminalizing homosexuality not only in the USA but also in other countries), while constantly criticizing modern globalists like Soros and Schwab.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a libertarian society withstand the pressure of hereditary inequality?

Imagine this: one person works hard their entire life, building a business from scratch—while another is born with a “silver spoon” in their mouth and receives millions without lifting a finger. A couple of generations pass—the grandchildren of magnates bask in luxury, while the descendants of laborers barely make ends meet. Unfair? Absolutely. And with each new generation, the gap only grows.

Of course, a person has the right and freedom to dispose of their labor and property. But it’s important to understand those who feel a boiling sense of injustice within. Imagine: you strive, you slog away, and next to you, some privileged kids live off the interest of their grandmother’s capital and look down on everyone else. It hurts, right? And although life never promised to be fair, you still want everyone to have a chance, not just those lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. It is a serious question: how to ensure the stability of society amidst accumulating inequality—while remaining true to the principles of freedom?

To start, a bit of optimism. It is often said: “the first generation earns, the second squanders, the third begs.” Often, that is exactly what happens: the grandfather built a fortune, the son spent it all—and the grandson has nothing left to inherit. Wealth without effort slips through the fingers, so part of the accumulated inequality dissolves on its own over time.

But relying solely on this is cold comfort. Yes, many “golden children” sooner or later end up with nothing. But there are also families like the Rockefellers, who manage to stay at the top for many generations. They say their secret is simple: they force every new heir to work no less than the previous one. No free rides—if you want to use the family capital, multiply it. Such an approach helps preserve wealth for a long time.

So what should we, as a society, do? We want to preserve freedom and create more opportunities for everyone. How can this be achieved?

First, fair competition and equal rules for all. If a wealthy heir conducts business poorly, they should go bankrupt like anyone else—no special privileges or state monopolies. Without friendly officials, even a huge inheritance is not insured against bankruptcy. Conversely, a talented and hardworking person, even without connections, will be able to break through if obstacles are not placed in their way. Competition is the best equalizer when it is truly free.

Second, equality of opportunity. A talented child from a poor family should have the opportunity to study and realize their potential, rather than remaining poor forever simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Society, through private foundations, scholarships, and mentoring, can facilitate this. In the end, everyone wins: more talented and productive people will emerge. By the way, many wealthy people understand this and invest in education and startups—investing in the future.

Third, a culture of responsibility. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. If you were born into wealth, it is not your achievement, but it is also no reason to rest on your laurels. Consider it an advance that must be justified. Many heirs do exactly that: instead of a life of leisure, they start their own business or engage in science—trying to leave their own mark.

Finally, social elevators—the opportunities to rise from the “bottom.” Fortunately, the free market regularly provides chances for the talented and energetic. An example is WhatsApp founder Jan Koum: he arrived in the States as a poor immigrant, and a couple of decades later sold his creation for billions. No titles or special connections were required—only an idea and perseverance. There are many such stories, and they are inspiring: even without any “silver spoon,” it is possible to make it in life.

It turns out that the recipe for stability under freedom is this: ensure that the “playing field” remains fair and open to all. Yes, some have a head start from the beginning of the game—wealthy parents did their part. But the game is not lost as long as others have the opportunity to make their move. The most dangerous thing is if the rules of the game begin to be written for the chosen few. This must not be allowed to happen!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A hardware problem cannot be solved with software

When a capacitor on your motherboard bulges, you resolder it rather than trying to solve the problem by changing some variable in the Windows registry. When a shock absorber in your car dies, you certainly won’t go in and reprogram the electronic control unit in the hope that the problem can be solved without “dirty work.” But for some reason, when it comes to malfunctions in human “hardware,” many mistakenly believe that these problems can be solved purely “programmatically” (through philosophy, religion, social institutions), without therapeutic intervention in the defective systems of the body.

This misconception is especially noticeable in discussions about the violence inhibitor. But in fact, it is exactly the same kind of hardware system as processor elements like the ALU and registers. If a processor has physical defects or has degraded, no firmware update will help — this sad lesson was well learned by owners of the latest generations of Intel “stones.” Likewise, in the case of a degenerate rapist, no amount of persuasion will help — the problem is purely “hardware,” it is in his “noggin.” It’s time to accept the truth and abandon the illusions: hardware (physical) problems require a corresponding hardware solution (action in the real world)!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Golden cage or contract slavery: why non-compete is inhumane

Imagine this situation: you are a talented engineer at a tech giant. You love your work, you are passionate about your ideas, and you want to push the industry forward. Suddenly, you decide to change jobs to continue growing and keep pace with the times. But then comes a surprise—your contract forbids you from doing what you do best. How is that possible?

Recent news about Google DeepMind employees in the UK, who it turns out are forbidden from working for competitors for a year after leaving, is a great reason to discuss why “non-compete” contracts are, to put it mildly, a very bad idea. And not just bad, but inhumane and contrary to the basic principles of freedom.

What is a non-compete? It is an agreement according to which, upon leaving a company, you pledge not to work for its competitors for a certain period. Moreover, you may continue to receive a salary during this time. Sounds almost dreamy, right? But it’s not that simple. In effect, you are sent to a “golden cage”: you get paid, but professionally you degrade. This is especially true in fast-changing industries like IT and AI, where a year of downtime can cost you your career.

Why is this unacceptable from a libertarian perspective? The core value of libertarian philosophy is personal freedom and the right of self-ownership. When an employer restricts your freedom to pursue your favorite activity, they are infringing upon your fundamental right to dispose of your own labor and talents. Furthermore, such contracts contradict universal human rights. They go against basic humanistic principles by restricting freedom and forcing talented people to either “sit on the bench” or move into another field, losing their skills and motivation.

The good news is that not all courts support such agreements. For example, in the US, the California Supreme Court long ago recognized most non-compete agreements as illegal because they “unfairly restrict a citizen’s ability to earn a living.” In 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to recognize non-competes for restaurant workers, ruling that there were no fair grounds to prohibit waiters from moving to competing establishments.

Other examples of inhumane contracts:

– In 2017, a British court ruled a contract illegal that prohibited nurses from leaving a public hospital to move to private clinics—the court considered this an infringement on the freedom of labor.
– An American court overturned agreements under which Amazon employees were required to reimburse the company for training costs if they resigned early—this was recognized as a form of debt bondage.
– In 2019, a German court overturned a football club’s contract that prohibited a player from playing for competing clubs in the same league upon leaving. The judge argued: “A human is not a commodity.”

Why is this important now? The world is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology—these industries are evolving so quickly that losing even a few months can result in complete professional obsolescence. Are we really ready to allow corporations to control not only our present but also our future, dictating where and as whom we can work tomorrow?

The libertarian view is broader: freedom of contract is good, but freedom should not turn into chains. After all, freedom of contract ends where the restriction of fundamental human rights begins. One cannot sell or buy the right to someone’s future! And the authoritarians who disagree and are ready to forcibly impose such an order on others must understand that the rejection of universal human rights will inevitably work against them as well—for example, through the rejection of non-interference in their nervous system without consent, which is currently perceived as a given, but is actually someone’s goodwill and desire to observe conventions, rather than the laws of physics.

Let us remember: people are not resources. Talent is not company property. And a person’s freedom to dispose of their own life and career is sacred.

Voluntarist, Bitarch