Автор: Битарх

The state is a form of violent hierarchy of dominance

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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].

Sources:

1. M. Olson “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development”: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/2012/11/22/1251382788/13.pdf

2. R.L. Carneiro “A Theory of the Origin of the State”: https://vk.com/@bitarchy-teoriya-proishozhdeniya-gosudarstva-roberta-karneiro

3. Konrad Lorenz “King Solomon’s Ring,” chapter “Morality and Weaponry”: https://vk.com/@bitarchy-moral-i-oruzhie

4. V.R. Dolnik “Ethological Excursions into the Forbidden Gardens of Humanitarians”: http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/ECCE/VV_EH4_W.HTM

5. Pavel Khokhlovsky “Universe 25: Crushing Critique of Myths and New Conclusions”: https://tjournal.ru/analysis/212316-vselennaya-25-razgromnaya-kritika-mifov-i-novye-vyvody

6. Bernard Thierry “Feedback Loop between Kinship and Dominance: The Macaque Model”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519305804850

7. Kathryn Stutzman “Are war and violence natural? Animal behavior and how it relates to humans”: https://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers05/Kat.html

8. Voluntarist “Violence: Problems and Solutions”: https://medium.com/voluntarity/насилие-проблемы-и-решения-c348a72c5bdc

Private monopolies pose no threat to you

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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.

Violent bans and nonviolent condemnation

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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.

Provocation or violence?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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.

The next step in the evolution of humanism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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!

What to do with people who currently work for the state or receive aid from it?

Voluntarist

A significant portion of the population consists of so-called “budgetniki”—employees of government structures and corporations. According to various estimates, about 30% of the working-age population in Russia are budget employees. A very reasonable question may arise: what happens to them in the event of achieving a free society? After all, they are accustomed to working according to state standards, which often lag behind the requirements of the private sector. For example, the professionalism of government teachers or medics is very often inferior to that of private workers. If the state ceases to exist, these people will not be able to realize themselves in a private environment, as it is unlikely that anyone will need them given their relatively low qualifications, and thus their poor ability to attract clients and generate income for an organization. Moreover, undergoing additional qualification is a rather difficult task for people who have been working at the same pace for many years without any changes.

Will all budget employees find themselves on the street in an instant? But that would lead to a catastrophe, as they constitute too large a part of the population. Most likely, they would demand the return of the monopolistic and coercive power they are used to, because under it they at least had no problems with survival; the state provided them with funds even if they brought relatively little benefit to other people. According to Hirschleifer’s criteria, a stable free society requires that there be no people driven beyond the edge of survival, because having nothing to lose, they will do anything, including acts of violence; the more such people there are, the more violence there will be, potentially reaching scales that threaten the preservation of a non-violent social order.

Besides budget employees, we must also remember the people who receive assistance from the state without which they simply cannot survive. The disabled, pensioners, orphans—can they really be deprived of the benefits they receive for survival, thereby condemning them to a short, impoverished life on handouts or death altogether?

However, there are at least two solutions to this issue, which, of course, cannot cover absolutely all the problems of civil servants and social assistance recipients, but should handle the vast majority of them.

The first solution will arise on its own in the process of practicing agorism. The creation of alternative social institutions to the state while the state’s monopolistic power still exists is very important so that people are not left with nothing, but have the opportunity to switch at a pace convenient for them from state work to work in similar independent organizations. This mitigates the problem, as budget employees will not be put in a position where only immediate dismissal and the need to find an alternative right away await them. No, they will be able to seek alternatives while having the ability to continue their accustomed life for some time, without worrying about their own survival.

Also, in the process of practicing agorism, various interest-based communities will emerge, and budget employees can use them to organize mutual aid systems. This same answer applies to socially vulnerable layers of the population; they too can find a place in such systems.

If this answer seems unconvincing to you, then there is another option. Achieving a free society does not consist of eliminating the state as an organization; no, this process is aimed only at destroying its power structure, which allows it to impose a monopolistic order on everyone through the threat of violence, and at equalizing the Balance of Violence Potential among all subjects of society, so that no one can simply recreate power by force. This is also called the non-violent state scenario. In this way, we only achieve the appearance of alternatives to the state organization, which anyone wishing can use, but not its complete destruction.

Naturally, many people accustomed to the state will remain. Even without coercion, they will pay it for the services provided to them. Many people are simply used to state schools, clinics, and other institutions, so they will continue to use them even under conditions of freedom. This means budget employees will not lose their jobs. Likewise, the socially vulnerable layers of the population will not lose their social payments.

Of course, for a non-violent state to survive in conditions of freedom, it will have to become an efficient and competitive organization. It can be expected that the officials managing it will succeed, as they will now have the necessary market tools to evaluate the effectiveness of their activities, since it will make sense to compare income with expenses (currently such a comparison is pointless, as any expenses can be covered by taxation and the use of monopoly privileges). Moreover, they will have to work honestly, without deception, corruption, or theft; otherwise, the state-organization will go bankrupt, and they will find themselves on the street in poverty and debt. It is also quite expected that the leadership of the state, once it becomes a competitive organization, will quickly be replenished by people who know how to work in a market environment, as, again, this is also a very good way to avoid bankruptcy.

But even if the state does not become efficient in conditions of freedom, it will still be able to hold on for some time thanks to the people who are accustomed to it. An analogy can be drawn with the fear of progress. Some people fear that new technologies will lead to crowds of displaced workers who have become obsolete. However, it doesn’t work that way; if, for example, a sufficiently good autopilot is invented that can replace human taxi drivers, it will still take many years, if not decades, for its widespread implementation. The taxi driver profession will disappear gradually, allowing current taxi drivers to work out their careers; there simply won’t be a demand for new taxi drivers, and people currently choosing their professional path will simply look at other, more relevant options.

The same applies here. If the state, having become a private organization, gradually falls apart, then current budget employees and social assistance recipients will be able to live their lives as they planned; it is simply that new employees and needy people will seek work and receive help from alternative organizations. In the non-violent state scenario, that day when everything collapses in an instant is unlikely to occur.

Don’t criticize the fight against violence, or how to argue with those who are against the fight against violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As you know, we promote certain methods of combating violence: the use of reputational and financial tools to exert non-violent but quite effective influence on criminals of various kinds; universal armament (a balance of violence potential) to ensure everyone has the ability to defend themselves during a direct attack; and gene therapy as a means of eradicating violent tendencies in people prone to them. These methods are often criticized. Most often, this criticism stems from a lack of understanding—the critic has merely learned of the existence of the idea, dislikes it, and without even bothering to study it in detail, immediately begins to criticize it. But even if you have sufficiently grounded criticism of these ideas, there is no need to try to actively destroy them. This will only make things worse, and I will now explain why.

I will begin by stating that none of these ideas are promoted on a compulsory basis. Reputational and financial tools do not involve violent influence at all. Self-defense is justified, as it is a necessary response of a victim to the direct initiation of violence against them. The main point is to never initiate violence yourself. Gene therapy against violence is also not promoted as a forcibly imposed measure—it should be used only as an additional tool for protection against violent offenders during a direct attack (moreover, it is more humane; putting a bullet in the forehead is certainly worse than injecting a drug that suppresses violent tendencies). Additionally, people prone to violence can be pressured via reputational and financial methods so that they begin to seek treatment for their violent nature. As you can see, we are not proposing that anything be imposed on people by force. Our methods are either entirely non-violent or are implemented within the framework of self-defense during a direct attack.

If someone does not like our methods, simply do not apply them to yourself. After all, from our side, they will not affect you in any way unless you commit violence against us. Develop and promote your own methods of fighting violence, if you have any. Collectively, we will achieve a better result if each of us fights violence in their own way, rather than trying to sink those who are on the same side. Of course, any ideas are worth discussing—this is necessary for their development. But if those fighting violence spend their time actively “destroying” one another instead of developing their ideas, it will only play into the hands of the violent and nothing will change in the end. And I think you do not want your own actions to help violent people and support the existence of a social system whose order is based on the threat of applying violent measures, do you?

After these words, it is hardly possible to reasonably criticize any methods of fighting violence that do not involve forced imposition. Of course, the critic themselves may not be against violence but may be a supporter of violent methods of implementation. Well, in that case, they should first admit that they are, in fact, a supporter of violence, or perhaps a violent person themselves, so as not to mislead anyone. After all, the following rule applies in any case: if you support violent methods, then you are a supporter of violence; if you initiate violence against someone, then you are a violent person. And if someone speaks out against violence but simultaneously supports violent methods, then that person clearly has an issue with logic—one cannot be simultaneously for and against violence. In such a case, one must either think carefully about this contradiction or stop deceiving others and finally admit the violent nature of their position.

Violence is irrational – rational incentives against it do not work

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In the modern world, surveillance using various digital means, especially surveillance cameras, is actively practiced. Most major cities in developed countries are already covered by them from top to bottom. This is promoted to the public as a method of fighting crime, including violent crime. If there are cameras everywhere, few people will dare to steal property or attack others due to the inevitability of punishment. But it is not that simple. Surveillance cameras do help in preventing non-violent crimes. But in the case of violence, they are useless.

An analysis of 41 studies on this topic shows that everything depends on the type of crime. Cameras are best at preventing car thefts and property theft. Accordingly, the greatest effectiveness of cameras is achieved specifically in parking lots (a 51% reduction in crime), while in city centers, the impact of cameras proved to be insignificant. But most importantly, no evidence was found that cameras have any influence whatsoever on the number of violent crimes.

This fact only confirms that violence is not a rational and conscious act; the tendency to commit violent acts depends on the “nature” of the specific person. One cannot stop violence, which is irrational in its essence, by resorting to rational stimuli and deterrence mechanisms. Neither surveillance nor the punishment following a violent crime can reduce the level of violence.

The tendency to commit acts of violence, or more precisely, the inability of a specific person to restrain their aggressiveness, can generally be explained by a weak version of the Lorenz mechanism that inhibits intraspecific violence. Given that it is observed in a wide range of very diverse species, its presence in humans would be unsurprising. The only difference is that there was no evolutionary pressure on humans to develop a strong version of it, so some people possess precisely the weak version.

Understanding the irrational nature of violence, the fight against it must be based exclusively on an understanding of human biology and psychology. An obvious alternative to surveillance cameras is universal armament (a uniform balance of violence potential). Almost every aggressor has a self-preservation instinct, so knowing that a potential victim is highly likely to have a weapon, they will not attack. And if someone attacks anyway, the victim’s armament will not only allow them to deal with the violence specifically at the moment it is committed but will also exert that very evolutionary pressure to strengthen the innate inhibitor of violence, as in the case of some species that are heavily armed by nature and possess a strong version of it. Post-factum punishments, again, do not work. This includes even the adoption of the elimination of violent offenders after the fact, as this also requires people capable of violence outside the framework of self-defense (that is, initiating violence on their own part), which means this will not help reduce aggressiveness.

A more humane and effective option would be the development of gene therapy for violence, which would activate and strengthen that very Lorenz mechanism. In this case, pressure could be applied to violent offenders to stimulate them to take the corresponding drug. Alternatively, a dart could be fired at them during a direct attack, using this alongside non-lethal means of self-defense.

There aren’t actually that many rapists

Voluntarist

There aren’t that many violent people

Sometimes it seems that there are many people prone to violence all around us. Almost every day in the news, you can see how someone beat, maimed, or even killed someone else. Perhaps you often encounter various kinds of hooligans and “gopniks” on the streets. Therefore, it is difficult to even imagine how to fight violence if so many people commit it. However, this is a quite deceptive perception that does not correspond to reality. In fact, there are very, very few people prone to violence, and therefore, by applying certain strategies, the problem of violence is entirely solvable. Now we will perform a detailed calculation of the actual number of violent offenders to ensure that there really are not that many of them in society.

The peculiarity of acts of violence is that, in their visibility, they far outpace all other events. Millions of different events happen every day, but it is exactly a few cases of violence that end up on the front pages of news resources and on television broadcasts. Hundreds of thousands of people live beside you, leading their ordinary lives, and you don’t even notice them. On the other hand, you will easily notice a dozen hooligans whose behavior will naturally stand out strongly among everyone else. You see them; you don’t see the other people. That is the whole point. In reality, violent offenders and the acts of violence they commit are very, very few on the scale of society as a whole; it is simply that acts of violence are among the most noticeable deeds.

How does this assertion relate to real data? Let’s look at the statistics of violent crimes in Russia. Non-violent crimes do not interest us, as they are not related to the infliction of direct physical harm to a person or forced coercion. Material damage can be fully compensated, including obtaining compensation from the perpetrator himself by applying various reputational and financial sanctions, and moral harm can be avoided by not maintaining relationships with people who might inflict it (of course, there are situations where a person is forced to interact with someone against their will, but here everything again boils down to forced coercion itself). Only the infliction of physical harm and forced coercion are real problems. Furthermore, our topic is the determination of the number of violent offenders specifically, and not just dishonest and unscrupulous people.

In 2020, 2,044,221 crimes were registered in Russia. Of all crimes, 1.53% are murders (7,695), intentional infliction of severe physical harm (20,019), kidnapping (411), and rapes (3,535). Another 0.26% of crimes are robberies (5,280). Let’s also add 2.7% threats of murder or infliction of severe physical harm (55,223). Of course, this is not the infliction of physical harm itself, but we will consider these acts as failed attempts to commit violence by people prone to it. And finally, 1.66% of crimes consist of intentional infliction of moderate health damage (28,185) and battery (5,716). In total, about 6.1% of crimes are violent in nature [1].

We find that on average, 1,393 crimes were registered per 100 thousand people. Of these, 85 crimes are violent. Of course, far from all acts of violence are registered. This may include domestic violence, small fights, and many other cases. It would be quite reasonable to multiply this number by 4. I made this choice based on the results of a study by the Institute for Law Enforcement Problems at the European University, which discusses how many people actually report to law enforcement agencies and for how many reports a case is initiated. Unfortunately, the study does not have such a clear division of crimes by category as in the case of official crime statistics, so I will assume that about 25% of violent crimes fall into these statistics, based on the percentage of initiated cases for assault (55% of assault victims report to the authorities, and cases are initiated for 44% of reports) [2].

This gives us 340 acts of violence per year per 100 thousand people. The number may seem too small because some violent offenders commit violence frequently and regularly (for example, a bad parent may beat their child, or a bad husband may beat his wife every day). Therefore, for 1 act of violence, we will take all violent actions of one specific person toward another specific person, especially since the repeated commission of similar acts of violence by one person against another in official judicial proceedings will most likely be registered as one crime, and therefore will enter the statistics as only one crime. Out of 852,506 identified criminals, 492,107 (57.7%) had previously committed crimes. The statistics do not specify the number of previously committed crimes; most likely, in reality, 1 violent offender commits more than 2.36 acts of violence on average, but due to the lack of data, we will accept exactly 57.7% of acts of violence as those that do not increase the total number of violent offenders, but only indicate which of them committed violence again. Additionally, it is worth noting again that the vast majority of crimes you notice are non-violent in nature (most often they relate to the economic sphere), whereas we are considering exclusively the commission of acts of violence.

As a result, we find that 144 violent offenders are discovered per year per 100 thousand people, which is 0.144% of the total population, or 1 person out of 695. A very insignificant number, right? Some might say that in their place of residence there are clearly more violent offenders, however, the statistics we are considering concern all of Russia at once, where crime is distributed very unevenly. For example, if we consider severe violent crimes (including robbery), which make up 1.79% of all registered crimes in the general statistics, in Moscow they account for only 1.13% [3]. The total number of crimes registered in Moscow is 146,559, which is 7.2% of all crimes, which is also a more positive result than for Russia as a whole, since Moscow accounts for about 8.6% of the population.

From these calculations, of course, it is impossible to draw exact conclusions about how many violent offenders we have in society at a specific moment, i.e., at what level their number remains. However, as we have seen, the growth of violent offenders is minuscule, and it should be noted that there is also a decrease in violent offenders; they are no more invulnerable or long-lived than other people. Quite the opposite—violent offenders live less on average, as they more often expose themselves to risk due to active participation in violent clashes, whereas other people will not initiate them and will try to avoid them. The absolute number of violent offenders will, of course, grow with population growth, but their percentage ratio to the total population, all other things being equal, will not change.

Note that this result, revealing one violent criminal per 695 people per year, is the worst possible scenario, since we made a series of assumptions in the worst direction: all threats of murder and infliction of severe physical harm were taken as unsuccessful attempts to commit violence; the number of registered violent crimes was multiplied by 4 because many people do not report to law enforcement agencies or they do not initiate a case upon report; we assumed that 1 violent offender commits 2.36 acts of violence on average, but this would be true only for a single recidivism (whereas many violent offenders have multiple). There are all grounds to assume that the real number of violent offenders is many times smaller. However, it is not possible for us to find it, so we calculated the worst possible value, below which it certainly cannot be.

Another important point to mention is that we considered only cases of inflicting fairly serious physical harm. The least brutal of violent crimes that can be found in official statistics is battery. Of course, there are many more people capable of violence that is very weak compared to battery, for example, hitting someone with a fist once or intentionally pushing. This is the kind of violence you notice most often, which is why it may seem to you, again, that there are many violent people. Of course, this violence is also a problem, but far from such a large one, considering the following factors:

1) such violence is not enough to maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (one form of which in human society is the state), nor can it seriously threaten people in general;

2) it is very easy to control through upbringing, condemnation, as well as the threat of ostracism and other reputational methods;

3) it is easy to defend against using simple means of self-defense, such as pepper sprays;

4) its danger is not that great, so there is no need for a priority struggle against it; it is sufficient only to concentrate efforts on fighting violence exhibited by a small percentage of brutal violent offenders, and weak violence can be dealt with later.

From everything we have now considered, a simple conclusion can be drawn—real violent offenders are not that many; they make up a very tiny percentage of the population. This means that the deterrence, and in perspective the complete eradication of violence, is a completely achievable goal, which clearly does not face the problem that there are too many violent offenders and therefore we cannot deal with all of them.

Sources:

1. State of crime in the Russian Federation for January – December 2020: https://мвд.рф/reports/item/22678184/

2. Crime and victimization in Russia: https://enforce.spb.ru/images/analytical_review/irl_rcvs_memo_29.10.pdf

3. Departmental statistics for January – December 2020: https://epp.genproc.gov.ru/web/proc_77/activity/statistics/result?item=58390629

Maintaining strategic parity for “pacifist” countries

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Between different jurisdictions, there has always been the question of maintaining strategic parity—that is, an equality of chances of emerging victorious in the event of a military conflict. Without this, it is impossible to either deter a potential aggressive attack or repel it should it occur. But what strategic parity can there be in the case of an excessive difference in power potential? And the problem here consists not only in the quantitative and qualitative difference in weaponry, but also in the difference in violent tendencies among people. However, a solution exists even for absolutely pacifist societies, which we will now discuss.

Imagine Scandinavia, where although violence has not been completely eradicated, certain social factors have clearly reinforced low violent tendencies in the vast majority of the population over time. Even among state security agents, violent tendencies there are relatively low; at the very least, they are not even close to the violent tendencies of similar agents from other countries, such as Russia. If we assume that a military conflict arises between the Scandinavian states and Russia, the latter would be able to seize them almost without a fight. Even weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons or a class 4 pathogenic virus, would not help if they suddenly came into the possession of the Scandinavians, for because of their pacifism, they would hardly dare to actually use them. And given a similarly pacifist army and the lack of a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population), for security forces highly prone to violence—those who previously toured actively in Donbas and Syria—it would be no problem at all to march across the entire territory of Scandinavia and easily deal with any possible resistance in their path.

This same problem can be transferred to a potential free stateless society in which different contractual jurisdictions exist. Imagine that in such a society there is a jurisdiction of pacifists, in which violence is completely eradicated, and any offenses are punished by non-violent methods (ostracism or financial sanctions). But alongside this, there exists a violent jurisdiction, in which all problems are solved by brute force and cruel physical punishments (such a jurisdiction might be created, for example, by some conservatives). Obviously, there is no strategic parity here either; the order of the second society will lead to the reinforcement of violent tendencies in its participants, whereas in the case of the first society, these tendencies will be maximally suppressed (reinforcing a strong version of Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism). I think it is easy to understand who would win in the event of a direct military conflict.

An excellent solution to the problem of maintaining strategic parity on the part of more pacifist jurisdictions and societies is the creation of gene therapy against violence. It could be implemented in the form of a drug delivered to attacking agents via a fired dart. In an extreme case, implementation as a pandemic virus is possible (we do not approve of this option). Of course, the latter faces many risks, including the fact that bystanders would be affected, some of whom might die (even with the highest quality vaccination, not everyone tolerates it). However, such a “non-violence virus” is not a traditional weapon of mass destruction in terms of the physical destruction of the attackers; it is intended only for the forced eradication of violence in the aggressor’s army and is therefore the best possible solution within the framework of the classical MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) that can be imagined if there is no chance of stopping the aggressor through immediate resistance.

Both darts with the drug and a pandemic “non-violence virus” (personally, I do not approve of this option, but the opinions of others regarding the admissibility of such a “weapon” may differ) could be used even by fierce pacifists, given that such a “weapon” does not initiate violence in the biological sense, and even a person with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism would be able to apply it. They would allow for the deterrence of potential aggressors, as they would fear losing their violent tendencies as a result of attacking pacifists. But if someone still decides to attack, then we will arrive at the following scenarios:

1) Security agents sent to the front by the aggressor will come under fire from darts with gene therapy. And these darts will reach their target far more often than bullets do now, because soldiers, for the most part, are not rapists or violent criminals; they most often try to simulate activity at the front, avoid shooting, and if they do shoot, it is not at people on the other side of the front, but into the air, again, merely to create the illusion of performing some activity. There are quite few actual violent criminals in war, and this is confirmed by research, which you can find here. But anyone can fire a dart. And if the darts accurately hit the soldiers on the other side of the front, including those actually prone to violence, then the aggressor will soon find themselves completely without people capable of pushing the war further.

2) It is impossible to stop the attack; even darts with gene therapy are not enough to deter the overwhelming forces of the aggressor. In such a case, a pandemic “non-violence virus” is deployed across the front. After this, a few weeks may be enough for the aggressor’s forces to be completely disorganized and the soldiers to turn into pacifists incapable of attack. The war ends quite quickly.

Do you see now what an effective means of deterrence and ending war gene therapy against violence is? In principle, this is the only possible salvation for peaceful and non-violent societies from attack by violent aggressors. Moreover, compared to the weapons of mass destruction that are currently suggested as means of deterring aggressive attacks, this solution is extremely humane.

By the way, this solution is an excellent answer to the question of how a free society can protect itself from aggression by surrounding states in the event of a local rather than global achievement. It is also very useful in the very process of achieving a free society—the same darts with gene therapy can be successfully launched at security agents who beat and arrest peaceful protesters. Ensuring a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population) to achieve a state of affairs where any aggressor can be eliminated upon immediate attack can be a quite difficult task, but it is not necessary to provide everyone with darts with gene therapy—a small number of activists ready to fire them upon seeing another security officer in case of need will suffice (this is especially effective if security officers are deanonymized, as is currently done in Belarus; then they can be caught even in everyday life). And activists will be able to do this even while being less violent people than the security officers, or even absolute pacifists, because, again, this is not a means of inflicting physical harm or killing another person, but merely a means of depriving them of their violent tendencies.

As we can see, for the sake of maintaining strategic parity on the part of pacifist societies and for the sake of ensuring an effective struggle of peaceful protesters against the security agents of the state, it is very advantageous to develop gene therapy against violence. What is very important for us is that this is advantageous even to many modern governments, for example, in Scandinavia, and it is quite likely that they will want to help us. This would be the best and most humane solution to these problems that could possibly be imagined.