Автор: Битарх

Authoritarian Conservatism and Cognitive Abilities

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A rather interesting study was conducted by Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri from Brock University regarding the explanation of adherence to prejudices and support for authoritarian-conservative ideology based on a person’s cognitive abilities. This work analyzed two large representative datasets from the United Kingdom: the 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS). Both datasets contain data on the cognitive abilities of the participants, as well as their attitudes toward racism and social conservatism. Cognitive abilities were assessed using standardized measures when NCDS participants were 11 years old and BCS participants were 10 years old; attitudes toward social conservatism and racism were assessed at ages 33 and 30, respectively. In total, 15,874 people participated in these studies.

As a result of forming statistical models, it was found that a lower level of general intelligence in childhood predicts a greater tendency toward racist prejudices in adulthood and, furthermore, adherence to social conservatism largely mediates this effect. This model is particularly convincing because in both the NCDS and BCS, the measurement of childhood intelligence preceded the assessment of adult prejudices by at least two decades. Moreover, all predictive effects were independent of socioeconomic status and education.

A secondary analysis was also conducted based on a dataset from a 2010 American study by Kayler, in which 254 students participated. It was confirmed that a low level of abstract thinking predicts anti-homosexual prejudices. This relationship is partially mediated by both support for right-wing authoritarianism and a low level of intergroup contact. The results of this analysis align with the results of the analysis of the NCDS and BCS datasets: the hypothesis about the influence of cognitive abilities on adherence to prejudices was confirmed by sample data from another country. This means that the tendency toward prejudice and authoritarian conservatism can be confidently explained by a person’s low cognitive abilities.

Another study was conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He uses the “savannah principle,” according to which human behavior, remaining to some extent adapted to the ancestral environment of early Homo in the savannah, can lead to problems in a modern (industrial or post-industrial) environment. In a 2010 article, Kanazawa proposed the savannah-IQ interaction hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that smarter people are more likely to acquire and maintain evolutionarily novel values and preferences than less smart people. He used data from a national longitudinal study of adolescent health. A sample of 15,197 adolescents from 80 high schools and 52 middle schools in the USA was taken (their first survey was conducted in 1994-1995, the last in 2001-2002). Data from the General Social Surveys (GSS) were also taken as a sample of adult US citizens, with 1,500 people for each annual survey and 3,000 for each biennial survey. The results of the study confirmed that people with higher IQs are more likely to be liberals than conservatives.

Incidentally, some might object that this study is merely a fabrication by a liberal scientist; however, Satoshi Kanazawa was once even suspended from writing articles for claims regarding the difference in intelligence levels between different races, and the London School of Economics banned him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed publications for 12 months, so he can hardly be accused of being linked to the current social-liberal movements of the West.

“Masquerade” against violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

One of the primary methods of fighting violence can be described as achieving a balance of violence potential—that is, the general armament of the population, where every person is able to quickly and effectively eliminate a violent offender during a direct attack. However, some people may doubt the possibility of implementing such a scenario due to economic inequality in society or the simple unwillingness of some people to own weapons. But there is one interesting method through which the number of violent offenders in society can be significantly reduced, even with the help of a small group of armed activists. It will create the exact same natural selection pressure to strengthen the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism in the population as in the case of general armament, but will require far fewer resources to implement.

Of course, I am not proposing preemptive violence, because for its implementation, our activists themselves would have to be violent offenders capable of initiating violence against other people. To rely on a group of armed violent offenders for one’s own security, even if they currently claim to be on your side, would be great foolishness. Activists must be people capable only of self-defense. Furthermore, it should be understood that we cannot know for certain whether a specific person is prone to violence until they find themselves in circumstances that provoke its initiation. Only if they were unable to restrain themselves and exhibited violence can it be said that they are prone to it. In this regard, preemptive violence would ultimately lead to casualties among ordinary and peaceful people, which we absolutely cannot allow.

What I am proposing is specifically a method of “provoking” violent offenders to reveal their violent nature. To make it clear what I am talking about, I will refer to one example of the practical implementation of this strategy. We are talking about the eradication of banditry in post-war Odessa, or the so-called “Masquerade” operation, organized by Marshal Zhukov himself. Of course, this operation was carried out by government decree, but in this case, that is not so important, since it still consists of using only self-defense, and therefore can be adopted by those fighting against aggressive violence. When well-dressed men, sometimes accompanied by equally fashionable ladies, began to appear on the streets of Odessa under the cover of night and in dark alleys, bandits simply could not restrain themselves from attacking. However, the victims of the attacks were actually disguised and armed officers of the Soviet militia, and upon being attacked, they shot to kill.

I think you already understand the essence of this strategy. Armed activists simply need to provoke people prone to violence into attacking. And I am not even talking about some kind of intrusive provocations (although a normal person would not respond to those with violence either); provocations on the level of the aforementioned walks through dark alleys are sufficient, and many, many variations of these can be devised. For example, walking through a predominantly conservative neighborhood in LGBT attire. When some bandit or violent offender decides to carry out an attack, all that needs to be done is to defend oneself using weapons—an absolutely normal action in the case of any violent attack.

Some may dislike such an approach for its cruelty, but it is unlikely that anything can be found in it that would make it not worth applying. It does not propose the initiation of aggressive violence, only self-defense against violent attacks, which is an absolutely normal and justified action. It cannot lead to casualties among ordinary and peaceful people, because such people simply will not attack the activists under cover; this will be done exclusively by bandits and violent offenders. And there is nothing wrong with provocations of this kind. In the scenario we have already examined, we would not justify the violent offender and blame the victim of the attack if the event took place not in broad daylight in a crowded place, but somewhere at night in a dark alley, would we? Every person has the right to walk where they want and in whatever they want; the problem lies exclusively with the violent offender who is unable to follow the simple rule “one can offend, but one cannot be offended”! If someone is unable to restrain their violence and attacks people, then they fully deserve a response in the form of armed self-defense.

Why there is no absolutely-universal armament (balance of violence potential) in the USA

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The idea of leveling the balance of violence potential (BVP) so that every person could deter and repel attacks from various types of violent offenders and maniacs, as well as to ensure the impossibility of recreating a violent hierarchy of dominance in the form of a state imposing its monopoly on violence, is often criticized by pointing to the example of the USA as a society with universal armament. Since there is a state in the USA and acts of violence are very frequent there, it is argued that this demonstrates the failure of this idea. But is there actually a uniform BVP in the USA?

Of course not. A Pew Research Center survey shows that only 30% of Americans own a weapon, and another 11% live with someone who does. Among gun owners, 72% possess handheld firearms, such as a pistol. Of these, 11% carry a weapon constantly, 26% from time to time, and 57% only rarely. Summarizing these statistics, we find that among all Americans, only 2.4% of people carry a weapon constantly, another 5.4% from time to time, and 12.3% rarely.

It should be added that the distribution of armament in the USA is very uneven. First, different states and counties have different gun laws. While in Maine and Louisiana you can acquire a weapon with ease, in New York, California, or Massachusetts, you would have to struggle significantly to do so. Second, recently, representatives of minorities have been obtaining concealed carry permits much more frequently than the white population of the country. For example, over the last 10 years in North Carolina, the number of permits issued to Black people has grown twice as much compared to whites.

Overall, 7.3% of Americans have a permit for the concealed carry of weapons. Of course, considering that in 16 states it is sufficient to legally own a weapon to have the right to carry it concealed, and assuming that some people own and carry weapons illegally, the number of owners and carriers still should not be that much higher, given that according to 60% of Americans, gun laws need to be made even stricter.

As we can see, there is no absolutely universal armament in the USA, meaning no uniform balance of violence potential. And the armament that does exist is distributed very unevenly. For this reason, the example of the USA cannot tell us anything about how universal armament affects society.

If it seems to you that Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism is not working, then it really only seems that way to you

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As a critique of Lorenz’s theory, I am often sent images where an enraged bear or lion inflicts fatal injuries on another member of its species. But how can this be, since they are heavily armed species, and Lorenz’s mechanism, which inhibits intraspecific violence, is weakly expressed in them? Does this not mean that in reality, violence does not threaten the survival of any species, and the Lorenz mechanism is merely a fiction? Let us examine this question much more deeply than those who make such claims have done.

In this argument, the second premise—the pressure of natural selection to strengthen the Lorenz mechanism—is always overlooked. This is the impossibility of escaping in the event of an attack, or the inherent inability of certain species to avoid situations that lead to violence. In the case of solitary species, such as bears or jaguars, it is very easy to see where an escape occurs—they basically do not contact other members of their species outside of the mating season or the process of raising offspring. Of course, the presence of an intraspecific violence inhibitor is not that necessary for them, as they very rarely find themselves in a situation that makes the commission of violence possible.

As for lions, one should look at their social life. In natural conditions, male lions, upon reaching a certain age, leave their natal pride in search of a new one or to create their own. There are usually no more than three adult males in one pride. The low concentration of violence-prone individuals within specific social units also reduces the risks of violence, and they become far less threatening; thus, no evolutionary pressure arises to develop a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism. If you show me a lion tearing another apart, then that is exactly the case where the concentration of violence-prone individuals became too high. In artificial parks or enclosures, dozens of adult male lions are often in one society, so the probability of a fatal fight increases significantly.

In addition to this premise, I would also like to recall the argument that animals are sometimes prone to killing and eating the offspring of others, or even their own, in case of food shortages or under stress. Obviously, the activation of the Lorenz mechanism could not have developed here because juvenile individuals do not yet have developed weaponry; therefore, an adult individual committing an act of violence against them does not risk dying and thus never fails to pass on its weak version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism. When there are insufficient resources to support its own offspring, a mother’s decision to kill them in no way affects the survival of the species as a whole. And the inhibition of killing the offspring of others is sufficiently handled by the innate weaponry of their own mothers.

One could try to provide many examples of why the Lorenz mechanism does not work, but if you dig deeper, there will always be an explanation that fits the premises necessary for its development. Simply try to analyze each such case in more detail, and you will see it for yourself.

State violence threatens corporations

Bitarch, Voluntarist

We have already previously considered the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight against violence. In order to produce new products and generate profit from their sales, it is extremely important for them to develop and implement new technologies. However, if violence as a general phenomenon continues to exist, further scientific and technical progress will simply become impossible. New technologies also provide new opportunities for committing acts of violence, including catastrophic ones. Imagine if a smartphone battery became energy-dense enough to cause a large explosion, or if home computers became powerful enough to allow any random person to create and test viruses using artificial intelligence for simulation, which could then be recreated in real life using a DNA/RNA synthesizer that has also become more advanced and accessible. For corporations, this is a collapse; they must participate in solving the problem of violence to preserve and increase their own income. You can find more details on this argument in the material “Corporations Against Violence”.

But one must consider not only the risks of individual acts of violence. If dangerous technologies available to the general masses have not yet been released on the market—meaning corporations have nothing to worry about in that regard for now—then violence on the part of the state threatens them directly already. Recall what recently happened to Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba Group. Due to critical remarks regarding state economic regulation, the Chinese authorities began to pressure him in every way and destroy him as a businessman. In general, China has taken up the harsh subordination of all large technological corporations on its territory.

Such a scenario could happen to any billionaire and any corporation. Well-known figures such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos possess enormous funds and influence in society. But the state can nullify all of this at any moment by applying certain sanctions supported by security forces, who are always ready to forcibly compel obedience if the orders of a stationary bandit are not followed. Using China as an example, we clearly see that rulers like “Comrade Xi” do not care at all about the funds and influence of corporations and their owners; for the sake of their own desires, authoritarians will take all of this by brute force.

It would be correct to note that specific governments may not be interested in using force against corporations. But what guarantees eternal power to those specific people in government? Nothing! Sooner or later, power always changes. And if the current government is peaceful enough not to threaten corporations, the next government—regardless of whether it was elected democratically or seized power in an armed coup (although this scenario is more dangerous, as it most often brings deranged dictators to power)—could well declare so-called “nationalization” for corporations and subject the corporation owners to harsh repression. Moreover, such changes can occur even within a single administration—after all, nothing can guarantee its commitment to the same interests over a long period of time.

For these reasons, it is quite profitable for corporations to invest in the fight against violence, and they will do so if initiatives to combat violence become noticeable enough to attract their attention. It is far better to invest a few percent of their profit in balancing the potential for violence or, for technology companies, to participate in the development of gene therapy against violence, rather than constantly risk being destroyed by violence.

The Inadequacy of the Open Access Order

Voluntarist

One of the options for achieving a social order in which human rights are respected, property is protected, and there is the maximum possible absence of violence is proposed by the concept of open access order, described in the work of Douglass North, John Wallis, and Barry Weingast titled “Violence and Social Orders.” Those seeking a solution to various social problems, including the problem of violence, while remaining within the framework of the institution of statehood, are increasingly turning to this concept. But is it truly workable, and can it solve these problems?

To begin, let us briefly familiarize ourselves with what is meant by open access order. We will do this in comparison with another concept – limited access order. In limited access, state power is held by a coalition of elites who mutually recognize and share rent-seeking income (income from monopolized economic spheres and natural resources, as well as the issuance of licenses to conduct activities). In contrast, open access means the impersonality of political management mechanisms, the influence over which is available to all citizens of the state.

Some conclusions can already be drawn from this definition. Political management mechanisms cannot, in principle, be made impersonal, since in any case they require managers and executors. Even if one imagines some kind of absolute direct democracy (the reality of which does not exist on a large scale), an infrastructure for executing decisions is still necessary, which, again, contains these groups of people. In this case, the managers are indeed the elites of the established system. Why? To explain this, we must point to another fact – rent from monopolies does not disappear upon the achievement of open access order. Economic spheres, natural resources, and types of activities that no one has the right to manage without appropriate state permission still generate income directed into the centralized budget of political management bodies, meaning directly into the hands of those same managers. I believe that corruption, lobbying of interests, and the embezzlement of budget funds, which currently exist in any state, should indisputably explain that these managers are merely another elite redistributing these funds for their own benefit, thus deriving income from them.

Another thing that clearly does not align with the reduction of violence in society is the fact that a mandatory prerequisite for achieving open access order is the consolidation of all security structures in the hands of a single organization. In effect, we have the complete elimination of the balance of violence potential in favor of a monopoly on violence, which, by the way, is an inherent property of the current state. And what reduction in the level of violence can be discussed if the monopolist of violence, due to the defenselessness of other subjects, has greater opportunities to commit acts of violence?

This can be particularly confirmed by examples of open access orders in the form of states that have reached this condition. The work “Violence and Social Orders” lists 20 such states. This list includes the USA, Great Britain and its former dominions, Scandinavia, Benelux, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, as well as some other states with certain reservations. And really, has violence been defeated in these countries? Does the monopolist of violence there never abuse its position?

And finally, I will give you a general fact – any state that has a monopoly on power, regardless of its structure, is an organ that commits violence. Even if one imagines the same absolute direct democracy, it is inevitably linked to the forceful coercion of the minority to the will of the majority. Furthermore, the very fact of the existence of a state, in which you are required to be a member by compulsory order, points us to the impossibility of eradicating violence with its help.

Transaction Insurance

Voluntarist

The topic of non-violent tools for implementing measures against those who violate agreements has been raised by us several times before. Usually, in such cases, the conversation revolves around reputational institutions and ostracism, but besides this, the case of financial instruments providing the possibility of predetermining mechanisms to cover damages caused by a breach of agreement is particularly interesting. Transaction insurance can be called a fairly universal tool of this kind.

To demonstrate what is meant by transaction insurance, let us look at a case of an existing implementation of this practice. It is actively used in lending, especially when it comes to large loans or mortgages. The essence is that the person borrowing the funds also signs an insurance contract, under which they undertake to additionally pay an insurance premium, usually in the amount of a certain percentage of the remaining debt. This percentage is small; its value rarely exceeds 1%, and in the case of a mortgage, one can find an insurance premium rate as low as 0.25% of the remaining debt.

Why is this necessary? If a person finds themselves unable to repay the loan, or if they took it solely for the purpose of stealing the credit funds with no intention of returning them, then these funds are covered by insurance. Given that, in reality, not such a large percentage of people actually violate the terms of the transaction, the funds collected through insurance premiums are quite sufficient to cover the damage caused by a small percentage of deceivers.

As for me, transaction insurance has very great potential. This concept could be applied to a wide spectrum of transactions in principle. During any transaction, the parties could register the contract with an insurance company and contribute a certain small percentage of the transaction amount to an insurance fund. If one of the parties violates the terms of the transaction, the insurance company where the insurance was registered compensates the damaged party.

This method can also be combined with other types of non-violent sanctions, such as the aforementioned ostracism. A violator of a transaction will, of course, end up on blacklists; the insurance company, which had to spend funds from its fund to compensate for the damage, is especially interested in this. The violator’s life will be very difficult; many will refuse to conduct transactions with them or offer less favorable terms that account for the risk that this person might cheat. But, of course, they can get out of this situation if they eventually agree to cooperate and make concessions to those who suffered from their violation. Of course, they may not have the opportunity to compensate for the damage caused at the moment, however, in such a situation, the parties usually agree on more accessible terms for fulfilling obligations. In the credit sphere, a good example is the debt restructuring procedure, when payments are shifted to the future, stretched over time—which reduces the payment amount—or when a part of the interest rate or the debt itself is written off. In the end, all parties prefer some solution to the problem over the absence of one.

Reputational institutions can also be combined with transaction insurance in a different way. If someone is known for their honesty, with many transactions behind them that they did not violate, they may be offered lower insurance premiums, or even their complete absence. If, however, someone is a known violator or an unreliable agent, transactions with them can be concluded only on the condition of paying higher insurance premiums. Thus, it becomes profitable for people not to violate agreements, since the replenishment of the insurance fund will be shifted specifically onto the violators.

Harm reduction instead of forceful coercion

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There are various ways to explain why forceful coercion is an ineffective, useless, or even harmful approach to achieving certain goals. We will examine one of them now. I was inspired to write this material by an article about an alternative, more effective method of fighting the coronavirus pandemic than the total ban on certain types of human interaction. You can read the full version of it via this link. I will provide a brief overview of it here.

In the fight against the pandemic, it is important to avoid social contacts. However, humans are beings who, in most cases, cannot fully do without them. Research shows that humans are strongly psychologically dependent on social contacts. And attempting to ban them will only lead to the fact that they will still occur, they will simply go underground.

The concept of “harm reduction” comes to our aid. Based on this concept, a much better result is achieved not through prohibition and blame, but through awareness and an attempt to encourage a person to make decisions that, while not completely eradicating risky behavior, will allow the associated harm to be reduced. This concept emerged during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s; it was implemented as a needle exchange program for drug addicts so that they would not risk contracting various infectious diseases by using one syringe for several people. Naturally, drug addicts were far more willing to engage in harm reduction than to submit to bans. Furthermore, the opportunity to choose harm reduction as opposed to harsh measures often encourages people to abandon risky behavior. This is confirmed even by statistical data in the case of drug addiction—the health of participants in needle exchange programs only improved; they were less likely to start taking drugs and more likely to seek treatment for addiction.

Another important concept called the “abstinence violation effect” tells us that harsh measures fundamentally do not work when getting rid of risky behavior, because a person stops perceiving failures adequately. For example, when a person tries to quit smoking by abruptly giving up cigarettes, a relapse will most likely lead them to think, “since I’ve already ruined everything, there’s no point in trying anymore,” and they will cease any further attempts to do so. A more effective strategy is a gradual withdrawal without the use of harsh measures and treating relapses as a normal phenomenon in the process of getting rid of a bad habit.

In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, governments decided to fight it specifically by introducing harsh measures and blaming people who do not comply with them. However, as we can already see, this does not solve the problem in any way. People see no point in submitting to such measures and giving up social contacts; on the contrary, they only hide their behavior and resist the measures being introduced. A more reasonable strategy in this case would have been harm reduction—that is, informing people about the risks of certain types of social contacts and promoting a competent approach to assessing these risks in various situations, rather than attempting to establish total bans. Then they would have been more inclined to follow measures that are useful in the fight against the pandemic.

In conclusion, by familiarizing ourselves with psychological concepts such as “harm reduction” and the “abstinence violation effect,” and by observing them in practice in cases such as drug addiction and the pandemic, we can conclude that forceful coercion—that is, harsh measures to implement certain types of behavior—cannot be an effective approach to achieving any goals; people will simply evade or resist. It would be far more effective not to pressure people, not to blame them for anything, and to give them the opportunity to freely choose less risky behavior as opposed to submitting to harsh measures.

What will happen if the mechanisms restraining violence are disabled?

Bitarch, Voluntarist

The development of biotechnology is bringing us closer to a moment when it will be possible to create gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this comes the risk of the emergence of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed specifically at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, since if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it may be found among some psychopaths, maniacs, and people who overly value their violent nature, 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 personnel 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 will happen if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through it step by step:

1) There is a possibility of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the entire world will sink into 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 updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to ensure 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, and absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clear to every average person that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained by the fact that 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 first attempt to initiate violence.

4) The stationary bandit (the state) will survive neither the appearance of gene therapy against violence, as it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker for the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it would 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 fiction, nevertheless quite accurately convey what would happen to the state in such a scenario.

As a result, it turns out that creating a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and force-based 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/violent offenders can be liquidated during their attack.

Non-forceful measures and the logic of proponents of violent coercion

Voluntarist

As you know, proponents of voluntarism and ideas of non-violence actively advocate for non-violent measures for damage compensation, as well as punishments for those who violate agreements and criminals, such as ostracism, financial sanctions, deposits, transaction insurance, etc. The use of force is permissible only for the purpose of self-defense against a direct attack; in other cases, violence is absolutely unacceptable. There are many reasons why such a behavioral model is most optimal, which I have already discussed extensively in my previous materials. Now, we will examine one very common argument aimed at discrediting non-violent measures.

So, I am talking about reputational institutions and ostracism, about how a person who violates agreements or has committed an act of violence in the past can be blacklisted and denied future transactions. And do you know what argument often follows? “This looks like the social credit system in China, you are actually inhuman totalitarians! This is the ‘cancel culture’ currently practiced in the West; you just want to cruelly torture people and deprive them of the right to a normal life!”

Now I want to ask a question to those who express such criticism. What alternative do you propose? Let me guess: should everyone who has erred be beaten with clubs, dragged through courts in handcuffs, or perhaps locked behind bars for many years? Nothing else can be proposed; there is only one alternative to our non-violent measures—violent measures. So, how does it work: we, with our ostracism and financial sanctions, are inhuman totalitarians, but your clubs and prisons are humane and extremely civil tools? If anyone believes this, they are simply a complete idiot!

And, by the way, we do not propose a lifelong “cancellation” of the offending person, which some also mention. In fact, it can be avoided entirely: if a person immediately admits their guilt and willingness to compensate for the damage, no ostracism or blacklists threaten them. In the end, everyone benefits if the perpetrator works off the damage they caused at their own pace and in conditions where they can work with maximum productivity. Also, to put a person behind bars, you will need to forcibly take a portion of peaceful people’s funds (i.e., forcibly tax them) to maintain the prison infrastructure and the prisoner himself. Of course, if someone doesn’t mind paying for this—let them pay, and let them offer criminals their own measure for lifting ostracism in the form of voluntary imprisonment. But I do not want to pay for this. What will you do, beat me with a club too? Then you are a violent aggressor, absolutely no better than any other!

Furthermore, one should not say that non-violent measures won’t work because a criminal can bypass them simply by committing further acts of violence and stealing for their own sustenance. Even in such a case, their life would be extremely unpleasant, since a whole range of goods and services cannot simply be taken and stolen, and if a criminal decides to attack, they can be stopped by means of self-defense. Do not forget that we advocate for general armament and have nothing against self-defense during a direct attack!