Previously, we have already examined the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight violence. In short, they make their money by selling products that must be constantly improved technologically. In effect, new technologies are the source of their profit. However, as technologies develop, they become increasingly dangerous. In the future, it can be expected that, for example, even typical consumer electronics will require ultra-high-capacity energy sources due to the rapid expansion of functionality, which could then be used for violent purposes, including terrorist acts. Or someone could use widely available DNA/RNA synthesizers to begin creating dangerous viruses. As a result, violence hinders further progress, which is critically important for the survival of humanity as a whole, and also becomes a barrier to profit for private companies. This is precisely why it is in their interest to fight violence.
Of course, one might hear the argument that large corporations and elites are only interested in fighting violence among ordinary people, so that they cannot balance the potential for violence in their own favor and threaten them. In this view, technology is in the background and means nothing. I do not dispute that this was relevant in the past, and even in the 20th century, since dangerous technologies (such as nuclear weapons) were held only by major governments. However, now the issue of dangerous technologies is becoming more relevant than it has ever been before.
Alright, let’s assume the elites decide to strip ordinary people of their capacity for violence, for example, through gene therapy implemented “from above,” so that they can safely use dangerous technologies and not even think about committing acts of violence. At the same time, they would reserve violence for themselves, in order to permanently secure an endless potential for violence and maintain the ability to continue a violent policy toward the population, promoting their interests through government security forces.
But let us not forget—the elites themselves mean absolutely nothing without the security agents who serve them. We have already discussed this in the material titled “Our Goal is the Elimination of the Violence of the Pawns”. If gene therapy against violence becomes common knowledge, it could be used against security agents in direct clashes, for example, by firing a dart containing the corresponding vaccine at them. But suppose that gene therapy is implemented from the top down and ordinary people do not yet have the opportunity to obtain or recreate this technology. Even then, this state of affairs would change nothing.
The point is that the security agents working for such elites are also ordinary people, part of the rest of the population. Protecting the elite is just their job; outside of work, they lead ordinary lives, including using new technological gadgets. Consequently, the elites face the following problem: if they want to maintain their security functions, they must leave the violent tendencies in the agents who work for them. But these agents could also, at any moment, use dangerous technologies for violent purposes—for example, if someone among them is no longer satisfied with the policy imposed from above, or simply due to an unrestrained desire to commit violence. This, in turn, forces the elites either to slow down technological progress—which would result in loss of profit, the futile consumption of limited resources, and a decrease in humanity’s chances of survival—or to implement gene therapy against violence for everyone, including the agents working for them. I believe that when the moment comes to choose, they will find the second option more acceptable, as they all want to continue living and improving their living conditions, even if it means losing the ability to conduct a policy of force.
Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.
First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!
1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.
2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).
3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!
So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!
Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA
The development of biotechnology brings us closer to the moment when it will be possible to create a gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this, there arises the risk of the appearance of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed precisely at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, as if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it could be found among certain psychotics, maniacs, and people who overly prize their aggressiveness, consider it the meaning of their life, and are unwilling to part with it because of some dart with a drug fired at them during another attack. Additionally, some groups of people (supporters of authoritarian power) may consider it important to achieve certain goals by force, meaning that the security forces executing these orders must be protected from the risk of losing their capacity for violence.
Of course, the vast majority of scientists are against violence, and it is unlikely that any of them would engage in such developments. But what happens if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through this step by step:
1) There is a probability of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the whole world will be mired in violence and wars, and the survival of humanity will become impossible (practically repeating a typical scenario from a zombie movie).
2) This risk will lead to the necessity of creating an updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means whatsoever; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to make it so that a person dies from an attempt to remove their own restrictions on violent behavior. Allowing the survival of people striving for violence in such a situation is simply impossible; otherwise, the previously mentioned scenario will occur.
3) After this, a fairly rapid equalization of the balance of violent potential will occur; absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clearly apparent to every average Joe that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained because a minority of sadists will be afraid to deactivate the Lorenz mechanism to attack the majority of non-violent people, who are capable of destroying them at the very first attempt to initiate violence.
4) The stationary bandit (the state) will not survive either the appearance of gene therapy against violence, since it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it will receive Molotov cocktails, bottles of sulfuric acid, infectious agents, bursts of automatic gunfire, etc., instead of peaceful protests, from the very people who removed their restrictions on violence and will manifest it toward everyone, including them. Zombie movies, although pure fantasy, nevertheless quite accurately convey what will happen to the state in such a scenario.
As a result, it turns out that the creation of a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and forceful measures love so much and consider the best mechanism for achieving any goals. They do not understand this, but even worse, they do not understand the catastrophic scenario that the creation of such a drug would lead to if gene therapy against violence is not updated in time according to the parameters in the second point, or at least if the balance of violent potential is not equalized so that all resulting rapists and violent criminals can be liquidated during their attacks.
The potential structure of a free society is usually presented as a system of territorial and extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (CJs) with voluntary participation and various internal orders. Thus, proponents of differing views on life and social organization can unite into separate communities to realize their own scenarios of happiness. Such an approach assumes absolute freedom and voluntariness of human choice. However, along with this, a question arises: what should be done if violent practices begin to be carried out in one of the CJs?
First, let us examine the question of “violent” CJs more closely. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how violence could occur against the will of the participants themselves. Effectively, a CJ is simply a service provider that has no ability to restrict freedom of movement within certain territorial borders (as states do now), which is necessary for carrying out forced violent practices. Moreover, this becomes impossible if there is any sort of uniform balance of violence potential in society (universal armament), because in such a case, infringing upon their freedom to exit would be, at the very least, disadvantageous for rational agents.
But besides the scenario of forced violence, there is also the option of consensual violence, or violence against people who are not fully capable of self-defense and are not considered independent legal subjects in that CJ, such as children. Such a CJ could be established by some fanatical traditionalists and conservatives. Through propaganda, they could convince weaker members of society that a violent hierarchy of dominance is normal, or even necessary. And as for children, no one will ask them at all. By the way, regarding children, the idea of a pedophile CJ is sometimes brought up as an attempt to discredit the concept of a free society. But, of course, no true supporter of freedom and the impermissibility of violence would support such a thing and, in the event of such practices, would advocate for intervention aimed at stopping them. In real life, intervention would also inevitably occur in CJs that support any forms of slavery, regardless of any previously concluded contract.
Some might believe that there is nothing wrong with consensual violence, or with violence as a method of raising children, and that these are acceptable practices within separate communities. However, violence in any form leads to sad consequences. It becomes a “normal” social phenomenon, and the people most prone to violence, who best fit violent orders, achieve the greatest success in life, while people without such inclinations effectively become outcasts. Both socially and in terms of “human nature” (evolutionarily), violence is reinforced and becomes an integral part of life.
Recently, I posted a picture depicting human sacrifice, typical for the Mesoamerican peoples who lived in the territory of modern Latin America, where one spectator says to another: “It’s fine, they built the roads for us.” In the comments, people immediately began to point out the inaccuracy of the analogy with current states, since these sacrifices were performed with the voluntary consent of the victims, who often sought benefit for their relatives, who received certain privileges after the ritual. But I am sure no one will dispute that such practices clearly leave behind only people prone to violence, capable of murder, while those not prone to it become the victims. Selection works in favor of violence and violators, reinforcing extremely weak variants of the Lorenz violence-inhibiting mechanism in the population. We can even see the result of such negative selection in Latin America today, especially its northern part (not to be confused with North America where the USA and Canada are located). Many people living there now are descendants of the indigenous population with their violent rituals and descendants of cruel Spanish conquerors. This mixture ultimately caused an extremely high homicide rate (it is the highest in the world in El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela), as well as excessive brutality in the massacres occurring there, against which even the activities of some Islamic terrorists pale in comparison.
Obviously, it is precisely from violent CJs, due to the extremely high percentage of violators within them, that one can most expect military attacks on other peaceful CJs and their participants (including the use of weapons of mass destruction), and ultimately the restoration of a violent hierarchy of dominance across the entire society. We cannot justify even voluntary violent practices, as they will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of people capable of violence and the corresponding consequences.
Of course, we are against violence and war as a solution to any problem, including the problem of violence itself, therefore we do not support military intervention. Moreover, to carry it out, we ourselves would have to become violators, capable of initiating an aggressive attack. But overall, specifically on this issue, we are for intervention, as only it will prevent the growth of the number of violators and the expansion of the problem of violence. Any violent practices, such as intentional infliction of physical harm, forced coercion, and even more so killings (even if they are voluntary), must be condemned, and their perpetrators must at least be subjected to various reputational and financial sanctions, making their lives extremely difficult and unpleasant (of course, until they decide to abandon such practices). If this proves insufficient, then the opposition (opponents of violence in such CJs) should be helped with supplies of weaponry and gene therapy drugs, so that they can eliminate violators at the immediate moment of attack on themselves, as self-defense. Not even the slightest justification of violence can be allowed. And this intervention is not a violation of freedom and voluntariness as such, since we are not proposing specifically forceful measures. And various non-forceful measures of influence are absolutely justified in the case of the risks carried by any violent practices.
The security forces of a stationary bandit (state) are, on average, staffed by people who are clearly more prone to violence than the general population. However, even their violent tendencies are not absolutely unrestrained. Most of them would still be unable to kill a person by initiating violence against them, rather than acting in immediate self-defense. Murder is an order of magnitude more serious act of violence than knocking someone onto the asphalt, twisting their arms behind their back, or beating them with a baton, which we can observe at the same rallies. To commit it, a person must be a completely reckless violent criminal. But in most cases, such individuals are unlikely to even make it into the security services, having been caught committing violent crimes in their adolescence. This means we can develop one very radical but effective strategy for fighting the stationary bandit.
To implement this, we will need a “self-destruct device,” for example, a collar with a small amount of explosives. Few people would voluntarily put such a device on; however, there are activists who, as a sign of protest, go so far as to commit self-immolation, and here, sustaining significant or fatal damage to oneself is not even necessary, as the goal is not to commit ritual suicide, but to deter security forces from committing an act of violence. How? An automatic activation device must be built into this collar, for example, triggered by any attempt to strike or immobilize the wearer (an artificial intelligence program can be used to determine this). The activation must be specifically automatic, since only a very small percentage of people (only those capable of self-immolation) would dare to manually activate it. Security forces know this, and therefore they would likely venture to immobilize and disarm a person if the activation were not automatic, which they would most likely succeed in doing. Additionally, the activist must inform the media before the action or the security forces directly during it that they are wearing such a device.
Thus, any violent action by the security forces would lead to serious injury or even the death of the activist. And they cannot afford this; after all, there are very few completely deranged maniacs among them, and even they might not dare, given that this would result in serious consequences for them, considering that such a death of an activist and the security forces responsible for it would immediately be in the public eye. Even with terrorists, security forces initially try to negotiate rather than liquidate them immediately. By the way, there was a recent case where an armed man, visited by security forces on suspicion of stockpiling weapons, decided to offer armed resistance, barricading himself in his home. The simplest option for the security forces to solve this problem would have been immediate liquidation, given that there was no one else in the house except this man. However, for a full 9 hours, they spent time cordoning off the house and attempting a storm; in the end, it ended with a grenade launcher shelling, which caused a fire in the house, during which the defender died.
Now imagine that even a small percentage of activists put the security forces before a choice: either don’t hit, or kill? Effectively, the activity of the security forces would be paralyzed; they would have to spend their strength and time dealing with these activists (though they would not be successful, as the only acceptable option for the security forces would be to persuade the activist to remove the device, which not everyone would fall for). Meanwhile, other protesters would be able to conduct their actions more freely and calmly while the security forces are distracted from them. Also, over time, they may generally begin to fear using violence against protesters, as such a device could be on any one of them.
A state, which possesses undisputed power and a monopoly on violence, is typically regarded as a purely human social phenomenon. However, if we look at the very foundation of the state’s structure—namely, the fact of coercive force exerted on people by political power—it can boldly be called one of the forms of a violent hierarchy of dominance, much like the hierarchies that arise under certain conditions in many animal species. This prompts us to analyze the phenomenon of the violent hierarchy of dominance as a whole, the prerequisites and consequences of its emergence, including in the case of humans.
We will cover all points of this topic. We will examine the history of the emergence and development of states and compare it with how violent hierarchies of dominance arise in animals, including known experiments such as “Universe 25,” in which a mouse population went extinct despite an abundance of resources, or the experiment by Didier Dezos, where some rats forcibly compelled other rats to swim across a pool for food. As a result, we will draw certain conclusions regarding the influence of violence on society as a whole.
First, let us confirm the violent nature of the state. To do this, we must turn to the theory of the stationary bandit. According to this theory, the state is a settled (stationary) bandit who decided to establish themselves in a certain territory, control it exclusively, and rob the population in the long term [1]. We should look at what serves as a prerequisite for the independent emergence of states in different corners of the world. Consider the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus valleys in the Old World, and the Mexico Valley, as well as the mountain and coastal plains of Peru in the New World. All these places have one thing in common: lands suitable for agriculture that are limited by seas, mountains, or deserts. In such places, there is simply nowhere to flee from coercive force, which led to the appearance of the first states there. We should also add social boundaries to this. Communities located in the center of populated lands are far more likely to be subjugated than those located on the periphery [2].
Over time, the entire world came under the violent control of certain groups of people, and this continues today. Let us not forget that modern state borders were drawn as a result of wars and subjugations. Even if we assume that in the past some group of people truly volunteered to form a monopoly government, they were either forcibly subjugated by someone else, or they themselves engaged in the subjugation of others. The same happened with subsequent generations, who did not initially agree to such a contract. Current states also actively control your life and their borders, resorting to all possible means. If the state does not allow you to do something, your chances of hiding or escaping from it will be extremely slim.
Let us keep in mind what the stationary bandit theory tells us about the state and move on to considering the issue of violence in the animal world, which is very important for understanding the reasons behind the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. It is worth starting with the research of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which showed that species with strong innate weaponry have evolutionarily developed a strong innate intraspecific morality of non-violence—that is, a mechanism that inhibits the manifestation of violent behavior in intraspecific clashes [3]. The following example can effectively demonstrate this mechanism:
“During a territorial clash, venomous snakes exaggerate their size by stretching, competing to see who can stand higher; they sway and push each other, but they never bite, nor do they even display their weapons. Some species even threaten each other by turning their heads away. It is no wonder that not only ordinary people, but many zoologists, mistook the tournament battles of snakes for mating dances.” [4]
No one will dispute that venomous snakes are heavily armed species; with a venomous bite, they can instantly kill a member of their own species. But they do not bite their own. This is all due to the Lorenz mechanism (LM), for if its development had been impossible over the course of evolution, many species would simply have self-destructed. However, the development of this mechanism is a fairly obvious process, given that individuals without an innate inhibitor of violent behavior would very often face death due to repeated attacks on heavily armed conspecifics, and therefore their genetic material would not be passed on to future generations.
This mechanism can be observed to varying degrees in many species. The more heavily armed a species is, the more strongly the LM is expressed in its representatives, and conversely—in weak species, it is weakly expressed. Lorenz gave quite interesting examples regarding wolves, which do not bite their tribesmen in the neck, and ravens, which under no circumstances peck out the eyes of other ravens even during clashes. However, after leaving two turtle doves—seemingly peaceful birds of the pigeon family—in one cage for some time, Lorenz discovered that one of them nearly killed the other. Of course, a strong LM could not have developed in turtle doves because, in this case, its absence does not threaten their survival, as they have weak weaponry and can easily flee from an attacker in nature.
Based on this, we can link the development of the LM to two factors: the presence of strong innate weaponry and the impossibility of escaping from violent pursuit. Now it is time to move to the topic of the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance among animals, and we will take the famous experiment called “Universe 25” as an example. In this experiment, ethologist John Calhoun created an enclosure for mice in which he provided an abundance of resources. Initially, the mouse population grew rapidly up to 2,200 individuals, but after that, their numbers began to decline, and in less than 5 years, the population became completely extinct.
Many reasons for this can be cited; the conditions of Calhoun’s enclosure were actually far from paradise, and there is also an opinion that the problem lies in the abundance of resources itself—and humanity, by the way, with its current high level of prosperity, faces the same fate. However, the main factor that led to extinction, especially compared to vivariums in other laboratories where mouse populations lived peacefully for decades, was that the design of the enclosure promoted the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance:
“The enclosure built by Calhoun, unlike a standard vivarium or natural environments, had one characteristic feature: an extremely irrational and inconvenient systematization of space for the mice, as a result of which a situation arose where the 65 largest males were able to monopolize access to food sources and females, while the mice driven into the center of the enclosure were forced to lead a wretched existence.” [5]
Under such conditions, further reproduction became impossible. The stress level of the mice simply skyrocketed, and the males who occupied the top of the dominance hierarchy did not allow other males access to females even after losing their own ability to reproduce due to old age.
Let us recall another experiment conducted by French researcher Didier Dezos. Six rats were placed in a cage with only one exit—into a pool. At the end of the pool was a feeder with food, but the rat could not eat there—after swimming across, it would take the food and had to return to its companions in the cage. Under these conditions, a rigid hierarchy of dominance formed, in which some rats forced others to swim for food and took it from them. Here too, we can clearly link the emergence of a dominance hierarchy to the limitation of space and the impossibility of escaping from it.
Interesting cases can also be noted in the world of primates. Observation of three species of macaques showed that in two of them (the rhesus macaque and the crab-eating macaque), a strong hierarchy of dominance can be seen, whereas the social relationships of the third species (the Tonkin macaque) are non-violent in nature [6]. Different researchers explain this difference through both environmental factors and genetics. However, it is most likely that a combination of these factors is at play—the corresponding environment led to the development of corresponding innate tendencies, specifically a weaker LM in the first two species and a stronger LM in the third (this explanation is not provided in the macaque study, but it fits perfectly based on the explanation of the nature of violence in many other species).
Another interesting case was observed by biologists Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Sher regarding a troop of baboons—primates known for their aggressiveness. In 1982, the most aggressive males of this troop began feeding at a tourist dump and ate contaminated meat. Eventually, they all died, leaving behind less aggressive males. As a result, the level of violence in the troop decreased sharply [7]. It is also worth remembering the pygmy chimpanzees—bonobos, whose behavior is less violent than that of other chimpanzees. This fact is explained by the fact that they do not have to share their habitat with large and aggressive gorillas. The latter displace and limit the resources of other chimpanzees, which effectively leads them to the very situation where there is nowhere to flee from violence within society due to the limitation of available living space.
Let us now return to humans. Humans are naturally a weakly armed species, which is one of the prerequisites for the development of a weak version of the LM. Combining this with the fact of the limited space suitable for agriculture in the territory where the first states emerged, one can conclude that the state is the same form of violent hierarchy of dominance as in the case of other species when they also find themselves in similar living conditions. And over time, people most prone to violence, who occupied the top of this hierarchy, gained increasing opportunities to control and restrict the freedom of all other people. Thus we have arrived at the modern state of total control, in which, as we mentioned at the beginning, without permission from above, you have no right to anything, including the right to escape from the violence of the stationary bandit.
This state of affairs seriously threatens the survival of humanity. Let us recall Calhoun’s experiment. Many call it prophetic in view of the observed decline in birth rates in developed countries. But usually, incorrect reasons are given, related to the high level of prosperity. The only correct reason is the existence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. This also explains why birth rates do not decline as sharply in less developed countries—states there simply lack the technical means and resources to control their population, regardless of what level of control is written in their laws.
Another reason why violence is a major problem and must be fought is the multitude of negative externalities. These include the increase in stress levels in society and the slowing of economic development, but most importantly—the risk of the destruction of humanity due to the use of weapons of mass destruction. And such means are becoming more accessible every day, even for small organizations and individuals. For example, trends in the development of biotechnology tell us that creating artificial viruses will soon be a fairly easy task, which in turn will allow some violent individual to create and release a very dangerous infection, far more serious than the coronavirus we recently faced. You can learn more about these externalities and methods for fighting violence in another material titled “Violence: Problems and Solutions” [8].
One of the claims against a free society is that monopolies cannot be avoided because there are certain physical limitations. For example, it is unlikely that several companies providing water or electricity could operate in a single building simultaneously. Living in a certain place, you will in any case have to accept that some services will be provided by only one supplier, meaning they will be able to manipulate the prices and quality of these services as they please, since you will still have no way to opt out due to a lack of alternatives. This is why political control and regulation of the activities of some service providers are necessary.
This argument often confuses many supporters of the ideas of freedom, but the answer is actually quite obvious. Let’s consider what happens when a state-owned company (or a state-regulated private company) and an independent private company try to inflate the prices of their services and lower their quality.
If you cannot simply switch to an alternative, people in such a situation usually begin to boycott the unscrupulous service provider. They stop paying them money, organize rallies at their offices, block entrances—in short, they hinder the organization’s ability to continue its activities in every way possible until the problem is solved. How, exactly, does a boycott affect the activities of different types of companies?
For a state-controlled company, a boycott is not scary at all. It can always receive subsidies from the state to cover all associated costs. People are more likely to give up and accept high prices and poor service quality than the boycotted company is to suffer any damage. Of course, there is a chance that through their boycott, people can influence political power, but even in such a case, improvements are not guaranteed. Most likely, one politician will be replaced by another who promises improvements to appease the people, but will also do nothing much himself.
For an independent private company, a boycott is quite critical. It can rely only on its own income, which simply will not exist in the event of a boycott. There is no one to provide it with subsidies. Any unwillingness to please consumers can lead to bankruptcy. The company would have to be run by complete idiots not to react to a boycott appropriately, as anything else would lead to a loss of profit. But even if there are actually idiots there—this company will simply go bankrupt, and another company with more adequate management will take its place.
As we can see, private organizations are quite easy to boycott, even if they hold a monopoly position, because their profit still depends on voluntary payments from customers and the fact that they will not hinder the company’s work. Boycotting state-controlled companies is almost useless, because they do not care if they do not receive profit through market means—they will receive it from your taxes.
The conclusion is simple: natural monopolies arising in a market environment do not threaten you in any way, because you always have the option to boycott their activities. However, you have almost no chance of defeating a state monopoly and demanding that it fulfill its duties with quality.
The fight against violence, like any other social activity, implies the unacceptability and inadmissibility of certain phenomena and practices, as well as the use of specific methods to achieve the intended goals. In this regard, those who popularize the idea of fighting violence are accused of wanting to forcibly compel everyone to submit to their own ideals. Sometimes one can hear statements suggesting that life in a society where our goals have been achieved would be less free and more unjust than even under some quite authoritarian state regimes.
However, such argumentation is linked to a simple lack of understanding, and often a refusal to understand, the methods we propose using in the implementation of practices to combat violence. The gaze falls exclusively on the practices themselves, while the methods are completely ignored. To make it clear what this conversation is about, I will list both the practices and the methods.
What, in our opinion and based on our research, should be achieved to suppress, or even eradicate, violence? The inadmissibility of any violent practices, universal armament (a balance of violence potential), and the application of gene therapy against violence. All of this reaches critics, at least partially. What methods do we propose? The application of non-forceful pressure using reputational and financial instruments, as well as self-defense during a direct attack. But this point is very often ignored. For some critics, even repeated explanations fail to convey that we propose a completely different approach to implementing our goals. They view everything within the exact same framework used by states.
But that is not the case at all. Even the aforementioned gene therapy against violence, which some critics claim we want to use to turn all people into “vegetables,” is absolutely not proposed for forced imposition. The scenarios for its application do not go beyond the methods we listed earlier. We propose applying it to specific violent offenders during the commission of direct attacks as a means of self-defense. We also propose introducing reputational and financial sanctions against those who have committed violence in the past, and as an option to lift these sanctions, offering them a choice of gene therapy against violence. And that is all!
Another point that was subject to criticism is our condemnation of any violent practices, even those by mutual consent. The argument is that we have no right to interfere in what is done by voluntary agreement, even if as a result someone causes physical harm to another (a vivid example of this would be no-holds-barred fighting). Yes, we propose interference, because such practices lead to an increase in violence in society as a whole. But we absolutely do not propose forceful interference.
Condemnation and the promotion of anything on our part always fit within the framework of applying non-violent pressure and self-defense during a direct attack. And if someone says that our methods are cruel, or even totalitarian, they are simply criticizing the idea without having understood it at all, merely for the sake of criticizing. Such accusations sound even more absurd given that we never propose the initiation of violence or forceful coercion toward anything. Yet it is precisely this that is the tool of any totalitarian and cruel policy, so we are clearly very far from totalitarianism (or more accurately, not connected to it at all). In fact, accusations of cruelty and totalitarianism look very foolish coming from those critics who advocate for forceful punishment and violence in general as a method for achieving various goals. And it is very foolish to equate non-forceful pressure with forceful coercion.
One of the methods of fighting rapists and violent offenders is the strategy of provocation, a “masquerade” against violence. For those who are not yet aware, this concept suggests provoking people prone to violence into attacking and applying self-defense against them, including the use of lethal weapons. This will allow for the identification of many hidden violent offenders, or even their destruction during the act of violence (initiating violence from our side toward anyone is not required; we only defend ourselves against violence). Moreover, the provocation does not suggest anything intrusive—it could be as simple as walking in expensive clothes through a dark alley or wearing LGBT symbols in a city square. If someone wants to attack a person with physical violence solely because of this, then they are a violent offender, against whom self-defense is entirely justified.
However, criticism of this concept can be heard from those who believe that force is an acceptable method for achieving goals and maintaining certain orders. In their opinion, even the smallest provocation, which involves no active actions at all, is still one of the worst and most immoral things one could possibly devise. Yet, beating someone up or even killing them for such a provocation is considered perfectly normal. I think certain conclusions can already be drawn about this position, given its violent nature.
I, of course, agree with the expression “don’t bring your own rules to someone else’s monastery”; in certain cases, it applies to this criticism (for example, if an LGBT supporter wanders into a conservative neighborhood). But if someone does venture in, must they be immediately attacked with fists? This is a non-violent violation, and therefore it can be resolved by non-violent methods. The threat of reputational sanctions would be particularly appropriate. And if someone cannot restrain themselves from attacking, then they are, again, a violent offender.
This strategy is also accused of being violent itself, since its practitioners calculate in advance that they will commit violence. But they are calculating only on defense, not on attack. Anyone who goes out into the street with means of self-defense calculates that there is a certain probability they will be attacked; otherwise, they would not take those means. So now, is everyone who wants to protect themselves a violent offender?
I remind you once again: any non-violent violation of order can be dealt with in a non-violent manner, using reputational and financial sanctions. And any initiation of violence indicates that the person who committed it is a violent offender. That is all one needs to understand to dismantle any criticism of this kind.
We all know well how the history of punishments for offenses has evolved. In the distant past, the death penalty was an acceptable, if not mandatory, measure in the event of violations of various social orders. Usually, this concerned religious norms and traditional life principles. Burning, hanging, or stoning could occur for some kind of “witchcraft,” for treason, for non-traditional sexual relations, for theft, or even simply for words that contradicted the dominant opinion in society. And this was considered absolutely normal; violence bothered few people—on the contrary, crowds of onlookers often gathered to watch such a spectacle.
Over time, the scope of the application of the death penalty has steadily shrunk. This punishment was abolished for non-violent crimes; it remained only as a supreme measure against particularly distinguished brutal rapists. But even this did not last long; in most developed countries, this measure was soon completely abandoned and replaced by imprisonment. And punishments for non-violent crimes became even more lenient.
But even this cannot be called a desirable state of affairs. Of course, many are still at the very beginning of the path of humanism, and in some countries, one can still be stoned for treason, theft, or an improper lifestyle. But at the same time, some societies have already surpassed everyone else in the development of humanism. A good example is Norway, where even the most hardened rapist, Anders Breivik, was placed, effectively, in luxury quarters with all amenities. Of course, he was deprived of his liberty—this is still a coercive measure—but the punishment ends there; besides the loss of liberty, nothing bad awaits the prisoner. In general, the Norwegian law enforcement system is one of the most humane in the world; several prisons are closed annually due to a lack of prisoners, and those who do end up in incarceration have many benefits and considerable freedom (including movement) within the prison institution. To some, it may seem extremely surprising that prisoners can freely, solely of their own will, go to the football field, the library, or the kitchen, and in the latter, kitchen knives may even be at their disposal. But for some societies, this is already a reality.
Now I want to make a small note regarding why we should be humane at all. This may seem completely unfair in the case of certain categories of criminals. But the answer is quite simple and obvious: to carry out violent punishments, we need people prone to violence. If no one can pull the trigger at the sight of an unarmed person, then a death sentence cannot be carried out. However, if someone is capable of doing this, nothing will stop them from killing not only to execute the “supreme measure,” but also to punish insignificant and non-violent offenses, or even to pursue personal goals or satisfy their violent nature.
By making violence a normal phenomenon, even as a measure of punishment, we contribute to the negative selection of the species Homo sapiens in favor of people more prone to violence. Without this, there would be no executioners, who are necessary for a legal system based on force. But an executioner can always become a rapist, and by fostering executioners, we cannot help but foster rapists in general. And it will be impossible to restrain this phenomenon. If a person is not prone to initiating violence, they will not commit it regardless of what views they hold. If a person has such inclinations, then with a change in views, only the circle of victims of their violence will change, but in general, there will always be victims. They will also always initiate violence in situations that provoke it, for example, in conflicts, quarrels, when raising children, and in many other cases. Violence in society will only increase, and the problems of violence will worsen.
In some societies, executioners have almost disappeared; there are only people capable of limiting the freedom of others by force, and even then, not fully. But this is not the end of the development of humanism, because according to the scenario we described, by fostering even such minimal agents of force, we will quite possibly get people who, while perhaps not as dangerous, are still capable of initiating violence. This, among other things, will be enough to maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (the current state system). Likewise, the development of scientific and technical progress will be impossible due to the probability of catastrophic consequences for all mankind if (or rather, when) dangerous technologies fall into the hands of a person prone to violence. Therefore, we need to take one more step in the development of humanism.
This step is the complete renunciation of the initiation of violence, including for the execution of punishments. The only scenario in which violence may be permissible is defense against a direct attack. This is defensive violence; people capable only of such violence pose no problem, as they cannot initiate violent actions themselves for any reason whatsoever, including the fact that they cannot create and maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance, as it requires precisely the initiation of violence in the form of forcing people into submission. Such a behavioral model is evolutionarily optimal for all highly armed species in nature, one of which is Homo sapiens thanks to the ability to manufacture weapons. In all other cases, non-forceful measures of pressure and punishment must be used against criminals and violators of order. These can be various reputational and financial instruments.
This step is a natural continuation of the process of making society more humane, which has already lasted for many centuries and has currently led us from the permissibility of widespread killing to punishments that, while still forceful, are quite lenient and involve only the restriction of freedom without depriving one of the benefits necessary for leading a normal life. This step is needed to further suppress, and in perspective, eradicate violence as a phenomenon as a whole. This is the next stage in the evolution of man and human society. Let us contribute to this process, rather than hindering it and sliding back into violent barbarism!
