Автор: Битарх

Financial freedom and violence are incompatible

Supporters of authoritarian-right (conservative) ideas should consider whether the financial and economic freedom they so praise is even compatible with the persistence of physical violence in society.

Those who believe that free economic relations can be ensured in a society where violent activity is permissible—and where a strong centralized organ of violence exists—are making a fairly significant mistake. Let us correct this error.

Let us first note that the problem is much broader than state violence, meaning that the mere destruction of the “stationary bandit” will not solve it. The problem lies in aggressive violence as such, regardless of its source. The public will only continue to support states in strengthening financial control as long as the threat of financing violent activity, such as terrorism, exists. And even in a stateless society, people, fearing they will become victims of violence, will continue to pressure free and independent financial structures to control the flow of finances as strictly as possible. Moreover, the structures themselves are interested in control, as violence threatens them as well.

Perhaps you have heard of cases where some European banks voluntarily blocked the accounts of cryptocurrency traders due to suspicion of financing terrorism, even though the traders provided all legally required documents within the AML/KYC procedure. The state did not compel the banks to do this, but they nevertheless decided to forego a portion of their profits to reduce potential reputational damage (if the cryptocurrency was indeed obtained for jihadism or contract killings and this later surfaced, clients concerned with their own reputation would not want to do business with these banks, even if the banks had done everything correctly from the perspective of state law).

Also, do not forget that in a society with an unresolved problem of violence, financial control will inevitably grow with scientific and technical progress, as potential violent actors will have more opportunities to cause significant harm—for example, by using high-capacity energy sources, new types of explosives, or even biological threats in the form of intentional viral infection (DNA synthesizers are becoming more accessible every year).

Where will all this lead? To the fact that many market agents, driven by fear, will most thoroughly verify the origin of funds of any subjects entering into transactions with them. After all, who would want to conduct a transaction with a person who earns their money by selling explosives to terrorists, thereby putting their own life at risk?

As a result, transaction costs will only increase, and any inaccuracies or suspicions will lead to the blocking of bank accounts and the seizure of funds from a suspicious person, just to ensure that violence is avoided. Many may be caught in the crossfire for no reason (the problem of “false positives” remains). This will clearly slow down the economy, making it quite inefficient, which will ultimately lead to a sharp decline in people’s well-being and the stagnation of progress. Even the use of uncontrollable financial instruments, such as cryptocurrencies, will not help, as they will be useless if the majority of agents in the economy refuse to accept them, again, fearing a violent origin.

Conservatives may object—that this is exactly why a strong state is needed: to deter violence. They believe that if it is properly organized within constitutional frameworks that limit its growth, it is possible to ensure both economic freedom, so people can earn money and engage in entrepreneurial activity without hindrance, and a low level of violence.

However, a strong state cannot exist without financial control; for its existence, it needs enormous funds, which can only be obtained by levying high taxes on people and enterprises, as well as by using monopoly privileges in a significant portion of economic spheres. A strong state is incompatible with a free economy. And even a weak, minimal state is also incompatible, as it always degenerates into a strong state; politicians cannot be stopped from expanding their powers, as we have clearly observed throughout the history of states. Even the most seemingly liberal states, such as Switzerland, strengthen economic control over their citizens every day.

Moreover, politicians have interested groups of people supporting them and many justifications for increasing control—be it the expansion of state social programs, the increase of defense capabilities, or the supposed development of the economy. The latter is the most absurd thing one could imagine—how can the violent extraction of funds from the economy through the taxation of its participants, as well as the strict limitation of their activities in certain economic spheres, help it develop? Nonsense! Yet some interested groups follow even such nonsense.

I think it should now be clear that the fight against violence as a phenomenon in general is critically important for achieving financial freedom and all its accompanying positive aspects. And social models that permit the initiation of violence—whether it be state-monopolized and centralized, or private and independent—clearly contradict financial freedom.

Bitarch

The most underrated danger—the viral destruction of humanity as a result of human violent tendencies

In the modern world, the fight against the phenomenon of violence plays a critically important role, as we could very well face the use of weaponry of an extremely destructive scale. And I am far from talking about nuclear weapons. Even the most powerful nuclear warhead would only be enough to destroy and radioactively contaminate a small city and its surroundings, and even the multiple use of nuclear charges, in the worst case, would only destroy a part of humanity, increase the rate of oncological diseases, lower the quality of life, and temporarily halt technological progress, but many people would survive such an event and would have a chance to deal with the resulting situation.

One should not think that weaponry truly capable of destroying humanity is merely a future prospect that is still far off. Usually, such weaponry is envisioned as a very powerful energy source, such as antimatter, of which even a small amount would be enough to completely destroy the biosphere of an entire planet. Of course, violent tendencies in people should be fought against for the sake of ensuring there are no psychopaths in the future capable of arranging such a thing, although with such advanced technologies, there will likely be no problem with conducting genetic therapy and modifying embryos aimed at combating violent tendencies as a congenital disease, which is impossible at the current level of progress. Nevertheless, this is also necessary against the threat that exists right now.

But what is this threat? A fairly obvious, yet widely underestimated threat: the viral destruction of humanity. Look at what is happening now. Even a relatively weak coronavirus, whose level of infectivity and lethality does not come close to values capable of putting human civilization face-to-face with catastrophic losses, let alone its destruction, was still enough to cause quite a stir and demonstrate people’s inability to deal with a viral threat effectively enough. Furthermore, let us not forget that the production of a vaccine is generally a matter very demanding of time and resources.

However, what do people’s violent tendencies have to do with this? The fact that in modern conditions, arranging an artificial pandemic, even one much more serious than the coronavirus, is not difficult at all. Research laboratories store various samples of viruses, including quite dangerous ones. Additionally, they have the capabilities to create artificial (synthetic) viruses that are more infectious and deadly than those that arose in the natural environment.

Now let us imagine several scenarios capable of leading to an irreparable catastrophe. For example, an employee of one of such laboratories, possessing aggressive tendencies, realizes the power available to them, seizes virus samples, hides them in different places, and threatens to release them if humanity does not make concessions to them. Or, the laboratory could be seized by a group of people who also have an interest in subordinating everyone to their conditions, or, worse, fulfilling some fanatic’s prophetic scenario of an apocalypse. And there is no need to say that this problem will be solved as soon as governments realize the full danger of such scenarios and decide to significantly strengthen the security of such facilities. The mobilization of force would only demonstrate to all interested parties and individuals with aggressive tendencies where they can obtain the power to realize their plans; likewise, strengthening control would increase the level of stress among the population and the facility’s workers, which would only intensify such a risk. Let us also not forget that governments can experience crises, and someone might take advantage of weakened control and the turmoil during one of them. Also, someone might attempt to collect a set of pathogens slowly but surely, in different places and in different convenient situations, storing them for a long time until the necessary quantity is gathered.

From there, the matter is not particularly complicated—a psychopath who has seized virus samples either achieves, effectively, universal slavery before their power and the establishment of totalitarian violent orders, or releases them into the wild. If the pathogens are not particularly dangerous individually, but there are many of them and they are released in different places, people will have to fight all of them simultaneously. Now imagine how difficult this is, given that the struggle against even one coronavirus required numerous efforts and, nonetheless, was not effective enough to get rid of it even to some extent over nearly ten months since the start of the pandemic.

Furthermore, a psychopath might release only one virus, but one that is laboratory-developed. Imagine, for instance, a laboratory modification of HIV capable of surviving outside the human body, and thus being transmitted through touch, shared use of items, and airborne droplets. Considering that such a virus, like HIV, would have a fairly long incubation period, a lot of time could pass before it is noticed; however, due to the efficient routes of spread, it would already be too late—almost everyone would already be infected.

One should not rely on the mobilization of resources for the development of a vaccine and effective treatment either. In the case of fighting a large number of viruses simultaneously, one would have to conduct many research and development projects at once using the same resource base, which would greatly reduce the efficiency of each individual study. And a scenario involving a single artificially engineered dangerous virus could be catastrophic due to the very nature of the virus, which is difficult to research and treat. Let us not forget that the nature of HIV itself has made it impossible to invent a vaccine against it for decades, since it attacks the immune cells that, in the case of other viruses, are used to fight them, but cannot resist HIV due to their own infection. The only case of cure occurred during a bone marrow transplant from a person with a congenital mutation that prevents HIV from attaching to immune cells. However, such people are very few, and the material obtained from them cannot be used for mass treatment. Therefore, the scenario from many pandemic movies, in which antibodies developed in the organism of a “patient zero” are used to cure everyone after they are found, will not work either, as, again, the amount of material is very, very limited, while the virus meanwhile kills thousands of infected and is transmitted to thousands and millions more.

In a very rapid and destructive pandemic, the impossibility of resisting it is further caused by the fact that under such conditions, the infrastructure for the production and delivery of necessary means would be severely damaged, or even completely destroyed. Even if the scientists in the laboratory and those guarding them do not scatter in fear and panic, they will have difficulties obtaining the materials necessary for conducting research and development; they might even face a shortage of basic goods, such as food, which would make the further pursuit of their activities impossible.

I think there should be no more doubts about how real and catastrophic the threat of viral destruction of humanity is. If any of the scenarios I have listed occurs, then 99% of people face extinction, and the remaining 1%—those who hid well or have innate protection—will unlikely be able to revive human civilization; even if these people survive, they will have to start their journey from absolute zero, and moreover in a world where remnants of pathogens lie everywhere.

That is precisely why it is necessary to fight violence as a phenomenon in general, the result of which will be the eradication of violent tendencies in all of humanity. It is important to promote the idea of the viral destruction of humanity so that people understand the seriousness of the situation now and can begin to act. Perhaps it will be possible to get rid of violent tendencies with the help of biological technologies, such as the same genetic therapy aimed at eradicating violent tendencies just as vaccination is aimed at protecting against viral infection. However, this method is doubtful due to the insufficient level of technical progress at this moment. Therefore, the most realistic scenario would be the equalization of the Balance of Violence Potential—achieving a state in which different subjects have approximately equal opportunities to inflict unacceptable (including lethal) damage on each other. Under such conditions, people who do not have strong violent tendencies will be able to continue their lives, and they will have fewer incentives to lean toward acts of violence. And those who cannot live without violence will, through their own attacks on other people, run headlong into danger, be liquidated, and leave no offspring. This scenario is based on a scheme derived by ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which you can read about in detail here.

In closing, I will not forget to say that the achievement of freedom from violent tendencies must happen before the idea of using laboratory viruses for one’s own purposes occurs to someone who has access to them or the ability to seize them. Otherwise, catastrophe is inevitable.

“Revenge is a risky business because, if the enemy is dangerous enough to have harmed you, it is unlikely he will accept punishment without resistance.” Steven Pinker.

Bitarch and Voluntarist after consultation with a professional biologist

Corporations Against Violence

Many believe that conducting effective campaigns to eradicate aggressive violence from society is impossible through the activities of volunteers alone. However, the eradication of violence is beneficial not only to those for whom it is a personal interest, but also to high-tech entrepreneurs and corporations. Now, we will examine why they will inevitably invest in such an initiative.

Before answering this question, we should examine the current state of affairs regarding Scientific and Technological Progress (STP). Three subsequent scenarios can be listed:

1) Rejection of STP. In this case, the limited resources of our planet will not be enough to provide for the needs of humanity, even if the population decreases and people consume less. Resources will still run out, just a bit later. Furthermore, Earth’s existence is allotted a limited amount of time. Rejection of STP means the extinction of humanity in any case.

2) Promotion of STP without the eradication of violence. But STP is inevitably linked to an increase in energy consumption and the creation of potentially dangerous technologies. It can be expected that in the future, this will lead to the mass proliferation of very high-capacity but dangerous energy sources and carriers, such as atomic batteries, or even antimatter. Obviously, in such a case, any person could cause a local, or even global, catastrophe.

3) The promotion of STP is inextricably linked with the eradication of violence. Dangerous and energy-intensive technologies no longer threaten people; on the contrary, they serve their development and the survival of humanity as a whole.

Obviously, only the third scenario can be acceptable. But what do entrepreneurs and corporations have to do with this? It’s simple. This scenario is also the most profitable for them, even in purely monetary terms. A very large fortune can be made from the sale of products based on dangerous technologies. Imagine for yourself how much profit the sale of flying cars with built-in nuclear reactors, DNA synthesizers (although this technology does not threaten a big explosion, it can be used to create some deadly virus), or private transport for space travel would bring?

Of course, some will say that such technologies are still far off. But it does not matter whether we are close to this or far. The moment when only one step remains toward such inventions will come sooner or later, and perhaps it has already arrived. Government regulations, and overall the fear of catastrophic consequences of introducing new technologies into operation, will become barriers to further progress. STP, which is critically important for the survival of humanity, will cease.

But what is also important, within the framework of the topic we are considering, is the loss of profit for entrepreneurs and corporations. They will not be able to sell what cannot be sold due to bans or fears. But they will not be able to give up potential profit. That is why we can confidently expect that the initiative to eradicate violence will find support among them; they will certainly invest a lot of funds into such a cause, because in the end, it will all pay off handsomely!

By the way, for the reasons listed above, it is not profitable for corporations to become violent agents themselves (for example, states), because this will inevitably lead to the use of dangerous technologies, which, in turn, will destroy their entire business.

Bitarch

Balance of Violence Potential

Balance of Violence Potential (BVP), or more accurately, the uniform distribution of violence potential, is a certain state in society where any person is capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on another in a local clash. For simplicity, BVP can be viewed as maximum universal armament in society, where absolutely every resident of a given territory possesses a weapon for personal self-defense, for example, a pistol or even such ersatz weaponry as a blinding laser or a poison dart, preferably several units, so that it would be impossible to disarm anyone. It is assumed that residents of this territory have the opportunity (or rather an obligation in the form of a cultural norm) to possess weapons based on their physiological capabilities without any legal barriers (for example, age, citizenship, “criminal records” for activities undesirable from the state’s point of view) and financial need (volunteers and high-tech corporations will help the poor obtain weapons for free, just as vaccination is currently helped in poor countries, since this is profitable for them as well).

Why is BVP needed? To eradicate physical violence from society. This will allow for a significant increase in the quality of life and welfare of the population, eliminate tyranny of both the stationary bandit (the state) and the criminal mafia and touring bandits, and allow scientific and technical progress to develop peacefully, without fearing a global catastrophe.

By what means will BVP reduce/eradicate violence? In a multitude of different ways:

1) Classical deterrence doctrine (“deterrence by punishment”) against rational aggressors. Knowing that the victim of violence can inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor, including even killing them, the aggressor will think carefully and decide that the benefit from violence will be less than the costs and will ultimately renounce violence.

There is a good example of such a model in the wild — porcupines. Cheetahs also frequently live in porcupine habitats, and they are hundreds of times superior in physical strength. But here is the surprising part: a cheetah can theoretically maul and eat a porcupine, but practically never does. There are occasional stupid individuals who decide to do so, but as a result, they either die or sustain such injuries that they never dare to try again.

2) Deterrence through denial (“deterrence by denial”) against invader states. The authorities of such a state set a specific goal — to conquer a territory and subjugate its residents. An aggressor can, of course, drop a nuclear bomb, but radioactive land without residents is worth absolutely nothing. As for the political elite of the aggressor, this is the end, because their own population will tear them to pieces for such an act. It would also create a dangerous precedent for the permissibility of using WMDs against civilians and legitimize the creation of strategic deterrent weapons by everyone capable of doing so (even now, a biohacker student is capable of multiplying a deadly virus and does not do so only for moral reasons).

3) The impossibility of creating and maintaining a violently hierarchical structure in a society with BVP. In such a society, the use of violence locally between people becomes unprofitable; accordingly, it is impossible to create and maintain a larger hierarchy of dominance (for example, a state) through the sequential accumulation of resources in the format of a “military hegemon.”

For example, an aggressor Vasya, having only a pistol, attacks Petya to use his resources to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle. With it, he can attack Sasha with doubled force, buying a tank with the resources taken from him. Using this tank, he can attack billionaire Vanya with tripled force, who can even afford serious security, and use the obtained resources to hire a large army to conquer the entire country. But in the case of universal armament (uniform BVP), Vasya would be destroyed at the very beginning of his bloody path.

Imagine what would have happened if “little aliens” in the 1960s had arranged a “rain of pistols” over St. Petersburg? A teenager Pynya, who was prone to violence from birth, would with a probability close to 100% have died in a clash the next day, and the question of how to deal with him now would simply not be on the agenda.

4) Forcing natural selection that removes those prone to violence from the population. Analyzing many different species, biologist Konrad Lorenz found an interesting pattern — in animal species with strong innate armament (for example, hedgehogs, poisonous snakes, and insects) that allows them to very effectively inflict unacceptable damage on any opponent in a clash, an innate intra-species morality of non-aggression developed (more precisely — an instinct of aversion to initiating physical violence against a member of their own species), because otherwise the survival of the species would be under threat. This happened as a result of the most violence-prone individuals being destroyed during acts of aggression and thus failing to produce offspring. In humans, such a morality of non-aggression did not develop because humans are not a naturally heavily armed species; the mortality of fights with bare fists without the use of any additional means is very low, therefore there was no pressure from natural selection to develop this trait. More precisely, such a neurobiological mechanism also exists in the species homo sapiens, but in a very weak form. But if BVP is leveled in society, the pressure of natural selection will strengthen it in homo sapiens to the level of heavily armed species, since carriers of gene variants that cause less aversion to the initiation of violence in humans will be removed from the population before they even have a chance to pass them to the next generation.

Bitarch

If you vote, be responsible!

Perhaps you have read the latest book by the famous philosopher Nassim Taleb, “Skin in the Game“. If not, let me remind you of its main idea: in order for a person to have the motivation to carefully consider their action and its consequences before acting, they must not only benefit from the action but also risk something valuable (be prepared to face negative consequences).

The most famous example is the difference between a business owner and a hired manager. If the owner makes an important decision, they can either make a good profit or bankrupt the company, leaving themselves without means of subsistence. A manager is a completely different story: if they make a profitable decision, they will receive a substantial reward from the owner, but if they make a mistake, the company will go bankrupt, while they personally will lose, at most, their job and will most likely quickly find employment at a new company. Understanding this asymmetry of risks, business owners often offer managers stock options so that they are more invested in the fate of the company, “risking their own skin” by losing money if they screw up.

The same idea from Taleb’s book applies to politics. Every time you vote in elections or referendums, you are exercising violent coercion against all peaceful people in society while risking nothing. Suppose you believe that casinos should be banned in the country. If you were acting independently, you would have to go to every casino in the country and force their owners to close. Obviously, you wouldn’t do that—the very first casino owner you approached would simply shoot you. But it is a completely different matter when you, like some vile, cold-blooded pedophile, take advantage of the uneven balance of the potential for violence (BPV) between a casino owner and a stationary bandit (the state). You anonymously vote in a referendum to ban all casinos, pay a vanishingly small portion of your own income in the form of taxes (the enforcement of a specific ban that benefits you personally costs 0.01% of the total taxes you pay), and meanwhile risk nothing personally (you don’t have to go to each casino owner personally and risk being killed; the security forces will do it for you).

It is clear that such behavior leads to the degeneration of society. It is like giving maniacs free rein to rape children without risking meeting resistance. This must not continue… and it won’t! Participating in voting is not like receiving a billion bucks in your bank account; it is just a small moral satisfaction from the possibility of trying to coerce your neighbor for free. Since the satisfaction is small, the negative stimulus needed to deter participation in voting needs only to be tiny.

A fairly simple scheme emerges for how to raise the costs of complicity in initiating violence against one’s neighbor by participating in some vote. Did you find out that Vasyan from the next entrance voted for “United Russia” in yesterday’s elections? Pay 100 rubles to local hooligans and they will write “A maniac lives here” on his apartment door or post a flyer with his photo in the entrance saying “This person from your building rapes children.” The photos end up on social networks, and in the next elections, members of the election commissions sit in proud solitude. Coercing one’s neighbor has become “too expensive,” so one has to learn how to negotiate with them.

For the mass application of the described scheme, it is possible to create a crowdfunding service analogous to the previously described service for the deanonymization of officials and security forces. Harassing Vasyans will be a thousand times cheaper than harassing a well-guarded official, so one can count on mass appeal.

Bitarch

When the forest is cut, chips fly

Why is it that in many ancient narratives, ostracism/exile was mentioned as the only punishment, even for the most terrible criminals—murderers and rapists?

A truly interesting observation, for which even I could not find an answer for a long time. After all, no one was running a campaign for the humanization of punishments back then. Nor were there opportunities for a criminal to threaten significant damage to the entire society in the event of their arrest (the first mention of such a deterrence model was described by John von Neumann as “M.A.D.” after World War II, and even then it was realistic only for large group subjects—states, but not for individual actors).

So, the most plausible version is the extremely high value of human life in the described societies. For if people tried to arrest a criminal who was not initiating violence at that moment, he would likely be able to kill several people who came for him. In those societies, such a risk was considered unacceptable, so people simply motivated the villain to leave the community, ceasing all interaction with him. In mathematical terms, this solution was optimal in the game-theory matrix.

A different matter is strictly hierarchical etatist societies, where the phrase “The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is statistics” is a norm of life. There, sacrificing even a hundred security officers to arrest one person is a good way to demonstrate the power of the stationary bandit (the state), so that others fear to contradict it. As for the fact that the mothers of the fallen security officers will cry at their graves, that is nothing terrible; “when the forest is cut, chips fly.” You can provide a survivor’s benefit in the amount of two minimum wages, and they will even kiss the portrait of the “radiant leader.”

What conclusion can be drawn from this? If you support physical punishments, including the use of violence for the confiscation of property, and justify this by a “court decision,” then you are not a libertarian! You are a vile authoritarian bastard like Hitler and Pol Pot, for whom “the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is statistics.”

Bitarch

Why you shouldn’t work for the state

Many people see nothing wrong with cooperating with the state in every possible way, taking grants from it, working as a civil servant, or even building their entire career within the state sphere. Some may believe that there are certain prospects in this field, others think the state will help them, and still others believe they are working for the good of society. But let us look at what it actually means to tie oneself to the state.

1) You are easily framed

By working in the state sphere or even simply associating yourself with the state in any way, you automatically sign up for the risk that the crimes of other, more influential state officials will be pinned on you, or that you will be thrown behind bars simply because you displeased them in some way. Politics is characterized by cases where some bureaucrats shift their sins onto other bureaucrats, subordinates, or agents otherwise connected to them, and send those people to prison. In the private sphere, an attempt to set someone up can cost significant reputational and legal expenses. In the case of the state apparatus, a frame-up costs nothing, especially considering that the judicial system is under the patronage of the state itself.

The “Seventh Studio” case provides a good example of this phenomenon. In the end, state grants backfired on the founder of this theater troupe and some of his colleagues. This is a good example of why one should not get involved with the state, even if it promises help.

2) You will achieve nothing

If you decide to train for a profession in a field of activity that is either strictly regulated and subordinate, or entirely monopolized by the state, it is unlikely that anything good will come of it. In the private environment, different organizations compete with each other for employees. They have an incentive to raise wages and improve working conditions. But in the case of the state sphere, there are no alternative competing agents. That is why there are no economic incentives to raise wages and improve working conditions. Ordinary workers in the state sphere have nothing to gain!

Although, of course, a certain group of employees can lobby for their interests and get what they want, but in this situation, we move to point No. 3.

3) And if you do achieve something – at what cost and who will you become?

Suppose you were able to achieve something in the state sphere. Using your social skills, connections, bribery, and other corrupt methods, you either obtained certain privileges for yourself or occupied an important post in the state apparatus. In this case, you seem to be doing well. But this “well” is the same as the “well” of a thief who has robbed other people, or a rapist who torments their victims.

Unlike the market environment, where everyone within their private framework can promote their ideas without conflicting with other subjects, politics is always a conflict. And by winning this conflict, you only obtain benefits through the forced subordination of other subjects. Here, your interests are important, and the interests of others can be brutally ignored.

If you like this state of affairs, it is obvious what conclusions can be drawn about you. You are a robber, a rapist, and a maniac! And do not try to justify yourself by saying that you work for the good of society as a whole. You have certain beliefs and programs that require the implementation of specific ideas regarding the entire society at once, disregarding the desires of those who disagree and would want something else. Again, in a market environment, everyone can try to implement their ideas without a violent struggle against those whose ideas are completely opposite; no one needs to subordinate other people to their ideas for them to work (politicized ideas, however, cannot work without this).

Furthermore, let us not forget point No. 1. No matter what privileges you have now, it is unknown where they will lead in the future. Perhaps the highest state officials will dislike you for some reason, and you will have to prepare for the worst. Or perhaps power will change, and you will also be sent far away as a supporter of the wrong ideas.

Getting involved with the state is harmful to oneself. You may become a victim of a frame-up, you are unlikely to find anything good in the state sphere if you are an ordinary worker, and if you do achieve something, it will only be through robbery and violence against other people. Obviously, it is not worth it!

Vitaliy Tizun

The Only Road

Suppose road is the only one leading from point A to point B. Accordingly, a monopoly arises, and entrepreneur raises the price to an enormous value. In theory, some entrepreneur should appear who will break the monopoly and build their own road ; let’s assume that is what happens. After this, the owner of road simply lowers the price to the market rate, and entrepreneurs 1 and 2 compete. So what is the benefit for entrepreneur to break the first one’s monopoly if they get no advantage from it?

The situation modeled in this question does not correspond to the processes that actually occur in the market. Following this logic, after a certain business appears in a specific location, no one else would open a similar business there because it would be unprofitable. However, we observe something entirely different. On one street, you can almost always see several grocery stores; in one shopping center, several restaurants; in one building, several offices of different insurance companies, etc. A new business opens as long as any acceptable profit can be made from it, because that too is profitable.

Furthermore, let’s consider the specific case of roads. Even a monopoly owner of a road on a certain straight line between two points is unable to excessively inflate the toll cost simply because they are not actually a real monopolist. If people feel that this “monopolist” is hiking prices too high, they will decide that it is more profitable, for example, to take a detour that goes through point “C” between points “A” and “B,” or to use some alternative mode of transport (rail or air), or, in the extreme case, to travel off-road entirely. Therefore, even without direct competition, the monopolist cannot set the toll significantly above the market rate, as such a decision would bankrupt them. Nevertheless, it is still profitable for them to own the road, as they are still capable of generating an acceptable profit from it. Similarly, it will be profitable for any agent who decides to build another road parallel to it.

Vitaliy Tizun

Why capitalism and the free market are incompatible with the state

Among the authoritarian right, there is a widespread belief that capitalism and the market can exist and function only through strict state control. They believe that this is the only way to ensure the protection of property rights, the honesty and security of agreements, and to correct certain alleged deficiencies of the free market. Naturally, alongside this, they deny that such state intervention in market processes is an act of violence. In their view, this intervention is precisely what protects everyone from violence. But is this actually the case?

1) State intervention harms market processes

From economic theory, we know that by intervening, the state disrupts market equilibrium. The most obvious example of measures leading to such a process is the establishment of minimum and maximum prices. The first measure leads entrepreneurs to believe that the production of a certain good is more profitable than it actually is. As a result, an overproduction of this good occurs, and the entrepreneurs themselves, unable to sell it, only go bankrupt. The second measure, conversely, leads to a shortage of the good, as it becomes unprofitable to produce and sell, and the fact that the cost is lower than the market price leads to those first in line for the product buying up the entire available assortment immediately, leaving nothing for those who find themselves at the end of the line.

Usually, proponents of state control say that these measures are necessary to support entrepreneurs and to guarantee that all people are provided with a certain benefit, and that the listed problems are solved by additional measures (subsidizing entrepreneurs and controlling the redistribution of benefits among people). But, of course, these measures require additional bureaucratic expenses, which negate the alleged benefits obtained from introducing these regulations.

The state also takes a portion of the population’s funds through taxation, and thereby partially deprives people of the ability to invest their funds in the types of production in which they are genuinely interested. Furthermore, through its regulations, the state makes it difficult for businesses to enter certain economic spheres, which also distorts market equilibrium and complicates people’s access to certain types of benefits.

Let us also not forget that in some spheres, the state declares itself to be an indisputable monopolist. Unable to compare the results of its activities with possible alternatives, and unconditionally receiving profit in the form of tax funds regardless of the quality of these results, the state monopoly is an inefficient producer, which harms the well-being of citizens.

Finally, the state corrupts the private sector. Under conditions of a free market, companies have only one option to continue functioning and increasing their wealth—providing people with benefits of the highest quality and at the lowest prices. Otherwise, people will simply leave for competitors. The state, however, gives some entrepreneurs an alternative option—corruption. An entrepreneur bribes officials (or promotes their relatives, friends, and acquaintances into the state apparatus) and gains legal grounds to restrict competitors from conducting a certain activity. At the very least, he can avoid the application of state regulations to himself and achieve the active imposition of these regulations on everyone else. At most, he can lobby for a law that makes him the only legal producer in a specific economic sphere.

Through its regulations and monopolistic coercive control, the state severely harms economic processes, distorts market equilibrium, and reduces the well-being of people. Capitalism, as a type of economic system in which legal equality as well as the principle of freedom of activity and agreement must be observed, is absolutely incompatible with the actions undertaken by any governments.

2) The state does not protect property rights and does not ensure the security of transactions

An important point in the program of etatists is that the state is necessary for the protection of property rights and guaranteeing the security of transactions, without which capitalism and the market cannot function at all. Minarchists—proponents of a minimal state that should engage only in this—place particular emphasis on this.

Yes, I agree that property rights and the security of transactions are necessary for the functioning of the economic system as a whole. However, the state cannot provide them in any way.

Let us remember that the state is a monopolistic and indisputable instrument of power. Being in specific hands at a specific moment, it serves only the interests of its owners. And nothing can stop them from abusing their authority and violating the norms they themselves have prescribed. Of course, it can be said that this is solved by the democratization of politics, or by creating a system in which only intelligent and kind rulers come to power. But in reality, neither will work. Ensuring the first, even in its absolute (that is, in the form of direct democracy), only means the observance of the interests of the majority to the detriment of the interests of the minority. Ensuring the second completely collapses against the phenomenon of corruption and the potential incompetence of the agents and agencies engaged in searching for and bringing to power supposedly pure and innocent angel-rulers.

Even in the case where the government is more or less reasonable, it still, unlike market and competing agents, has no incentives to act in the most efficient way. It only needs to act as efficiently as the population’s indignation does not exceed a certain critical level, above which the actions of security forces become either ineffective or cause the government significant reputational damage, thereby stimulating the rest of the population and the global community in general to also express indignation.

As Mikhail Svetov always correctly notes, the state is the One Ring of power. And regardless of whose hands this ring is in, one should not expect it to work for the good.

The observance of property rights and the security of transactions can be ensured only by the Balance of Violence Potential and Reputational Institutions. The first concept states that monopolistic power should not exist at all, and that different subjects and groups of subjects should possess approximately equal capabilities to inflict unacceptable damage on one another. In such conditions, cooperation will be far more profitable than coercion. The second concept asserts that reputational institutions and services can be used as tools for guaranteeing the security of transactions. Furthermore, they provide ostracism as an effective and powerful tool for punishing those who were not honest in their intentions.

You can read more about the concept of the Balance of Violence Potential here. You can learn how Reputational Institutions function, why Reputational Services are useful, and what ostracism is here.

3) State intervention is always violence

What do you call a subject (a person or an organization) who unilaterally imposes certain conditions on me, forces me to give them a part of my funds, and threatens to take away even more of my funds or forcibly lock me behind bars in case of non-compliance with the conditions imposed by them? Obviously, this is a rapist and an aggressor, and the actions they carry out are violence and aggression. And the institutionalization of these phenomena in no way changes their essence.

Even in the case where the state exists exclusively to protect its citizens from violence, it still first commits an act of aggression toward them, because it establishes itself as their protector regardless of the desire and choice of the people. In fact, this is common gangster protection (“kryshevanie”). If someone breaks into my house, points a gun at me, and says, “give me this much money, and I will protect you, otherwise you will be punished yourself,” then that too would be an obvious act of aggression.

A rapist and aggressor cannot be your protector, because to provide this protection, they must first apply aggression to you. Based on this, the state, politicians, bureaucrats, and all those who clearly support state activities are rapists and aggressors, because their activities assume that people must be attacked first, covering themselves with stories allegedly about how if we don’t attack you, someone else will. Naturally, the attitude toward the listed subjects should be appropriate.

We can draw the following conclusions: the state hinders the functioning of the economy and market processes, it is unable to ensure the protection of property rights and the security of transactions, and it is merely a rapist who has imposed their will on you through methods of aggression. And after all this, how can one even support the idea of state control and intervention? No sane person will do so, and whoever does—they themselves admit that they lack the slightest competence in matters of economics, public management, and in general are an open rapist and maniac!

Vitaliy Tizun

Contact Tracing: The First Step Toward Universal Real-Time Surveillance

In order to familiarize Russian-speaking libertarians with English-language libertarian discourse, we intend to occasionally post translations of articles from major libertarian websites. Today, we present for your attention an article about contact tracing apps, which have become a challenge to privacy due to the pandemic.

The pandemic provided governments with a pretext to justify the mass collection of geolocation data.

Many academics, entrepreneurs, and governments claim that new technologies are a critical part of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. They argue that by using the latest tracking methods to obtain information, people will be able to easily check whether they have come into contact with identified COVID-19 carriers.

Contact Tracing Apps

Two models for such apps are proposed. The first model involves the collection and processing of a person’s location information by governments. Such proposals were met with a barrage of criticism from privacy and consumer rights groups, as they involve unprecedented total surveillance. Given that many tech companies already provide such services to their governments—YouTube, for example, blocks any information contradicting WHO statements—these fears seem quite real.

The second model is the collection and processing of information about movements and contacts directly on users’ devices. This decentralized form of data collection has received broad academic support because, in theory, it would allow for contact tracing without giving companies and governments real-time access to data on citizens’ movements and habits.

But even this decentralized data collection scheme raises many questions. Even with the development of a legal framework for privacy protection—which currently simply does not exist—the level of public awareness regarding information protection makes these apps extremely dangerous.

In this article, we will examine how contact tracing apps are developed and why they pose a threat.

Centralization or Decentralization?

Let us first note that some contact tracing apps implemented by governments outside Europe and the US are a serious problem. The Israeli government recently passed a law giving its security services the right to access the personal data of all users, as well as allowing the centralized storage of the obtained information. South Korea and China have done the same.

The danger of involving governments in the collection of such data is noted by many personal data protection organizations in Europe and the US. Despite this, the governments of these countries believe that such apps are necessary, also because these governments themselves were unable to develop contact tracing apps on their own.

It is intended that contact tracing apps will be developed according to a decentralized model. In theory, the user’s phone will store data about contacts with COVID-19 owners itself and exchange data with other devices. Information will not be transmitted to centralized cloud storage, and even the companies developing the apps will not have access to users’ personal data or their location.

This model was proposed by companies such as Apple and Google, the PACT project from MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], and many European groups. Most proposals include Bluetooth technology, which will notify the user if there is another user nearby who has been in contact with the virus.

(Missing) Legal Framework

At first glance, apps with a decentralized data collection model are flawless in protecting users from surveillance. They are built on a policy of individual responsibility, comparable to the policy of the Swedish government, which proved its effectiveness despite non-interference in the private lives of citizens.

However, two unresolved problems remain with decentralized contact tracing apps. First, there is currently no legal framework to protect users of these apps from surveillance. Second, even if such a framework were created, any data from smartphones could be stolen by hackers or security services.

To start, let’s consider the legal aspect of the issue. In our article on the legality of such apps, we already pointed out that the lawfulness of such a form of mass surveillance is questionable at best. With the increasing instances of internet censorship, there is a possibility that governments will use such apps to create databases of users and track them.

But the questions related to contact tracing apps—centralized or not—are much deeper. It is unclear even if these apps will fulfill their original function. For these apps to be effective, people would need to be required to install and use them. Otherwise, an infected user could simply delete the app, which undermines the effectiveness of the entire system. Giving governments the right to impose the use of a specific app on citizens would be an unprecedented and extremely dangerous step.

Privacy and Security

Even with the most thoughtfully designed legal framework for such apps, even if it truly protects the user’s personal data, these apps will still pose a threat. Companies are making great efforts to increase cybersecurity, especially now that many are working remotely, and are surprised to find that their employees know very little or nothing at all about cybersecurity. This means that any data obtained through contact tracing apps—even if stored on the user’s smartphone—is very vulnerable.

And this circumstance, of course, is taken into account by existing data privacy legislation. The European GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation]—widely accepted as the gold standard when it comes to data protection—unequivocally states that data privacy cannot be achieved without information security. This is intended to be achieved through a simple rule: companies cannot collect data they do not need. In other words, the best thing that can be done for the safety of user data is not to collect it at all.

In the context of contact tracing, this means that even if user data on contacts and location is stored on the user’s smartphone—rather than in a centralized accounting system—no one guarantees its safety. This data can be stolen, or national security and surveillance services may gain access to it. Research also proves that even when users try to secure their data, their attempts may only undermine their information security.

On the other hand, a counterargument naturally arises that many apps already collect geolocation data and one more app cannot become critical for privacy. However, the most important difference of such new apps is that they collect data about the user’s contacts. This data could be used by law enforcement agencies to obtain information about citizens’ movements in real time.

The Future

There is no need to pretend that these are new problems that we have never encountered. Activists , defending privacy, have been talking about the illegitimacy of mass surveillance for over ten years. The pandemic only gave governments a pretext to justify the mass collection of geolocation data. As we have already pointed out, there are currently no technologies capable of collecting this data without violating the fundamental human right to privacy. There are no legal acts that regulate the use of contact tracing apps. Even if there were, the insecurity of data on most smartphones makes this data extremely vulnerable to theft or legal requests from law enforcement agencies.

It is important that later, after the pandemic, we remember the lessons of the present. We must, of course, rebuild our economic policy, which made the world so vulnerable to COVID-19. But we must also use this opportunity to challenge the level of surveillance that has become possible in our new digital world.

It all comes down to the fact that we must make technology serve those who use it, rather than as a tool for building a “surveillance economy” that is so rapidly enslaving our society. And resistance to tracking apps is only the beginning of this struggle.

Original text: Sia Mohajer, Contact Tracing: Laying the Foundation for Real-Time Social Tracking, June 1, 2020, FEE Foundation for Economic Education