There is one very effective method for eradicating violence that few people usually think about. It is quite obvious — violence can be eliminated by preventing people with violent tendencies from procreating. The violent tendencies of some people may be genetically determined, so it is obvious that their children are also most likely to inherit this violence. Furthermore, abusers provide very poor upbringing for their children and raise them in an unstable environment, which pushes them to become abusers themselves in the future.
But how can this be achieved? We cannot use force to compel such people not to reproduce, as we would then be no better than them, and by applying violence, we would be introducing negative externalities of our own. However, this can be done by resorting to a series of non-violent measures.
First and foremost, reputational institutions must be used. People who have committed acts of violence should be exposed and ostracized, thereby lowering their well-being. It is also very important to discredit them among their close circle, such as relatives, friends, and neighbors. It is entirely acceptable to exert pressure on people in this circle, for example, by threatening to ostracize those who cooperate with the abuser. In principle, this is logical, as ostracism is not an effective tool if the people cooperating with the criminal are not also declared criminals to whom corresponding sanctions can be applied, because otherwise these people will have fewer incentives not to cooperate with him, meaning ostracism will not be applied sufficiently.
Thus, the abuser’s environment can quite well renounce him or, at the very least, begin to exert pressure on him from their side. And a person with a ruined reputation, a low level of well-being, who poses risks in any relationship, and who is additionally under pressure from those subjects who still cannot give up cooperation with him, has very low chances of finding a partner and starting a family.
In addition to reputational methods, other tools can be used, one of which we will consider now. There are agencies that, for a certain fee, are capable of arranging a series of events that are highly likely to lead to the deterioration of relationships between people, for example, to the divorce of a married couple. In our case, this can be applied against people with violent tendencies who are in relationships or marriages. Funds to pay for the services of such agencies can be collected through donations from concerned people, for example, by announcing a crowdfunding initiative to eradicate violence.
It is especially important to prevent those people from procreating who work for a stationary gangster and carry out his instructions to use force, that is, the security forces. They are most often people with violent tendencies, for who else would go to protect a violent power and, on its instructions, commit acts of violence against innocent people—for example, beating them at rallies or breaking into their homes for a “wrong” post on social networks.
And, which is very important for us, they receive a giant bonus to reproduction. Security forces have many benefits; they can count on free housing, discounted public transport, recreation and treatment in health resorts, they have education benefits, an early retirement age, and large pension payments. Thus, security forces receive very favorable conditions for reproduction, at least more favorable than ordinary people. Unfortunately, I have not found statistics on the number of children among security forces, but I venture to suggest that, on average, the fertility level in their families is much higher than in ordinary families. This only increases the number of people prone to violence. This state of affairs must be destroyed as soon as possible; then the problem of violence will begin to be solved even without the physical removal of aggressors from the population.
In many cases, when discussing the problem of violence, only the use of force by ordinary citizens on their own initiative is taken as an example of this phenomenon. In the same case, if a forceful measure was applied under orders from above and within the framework of state law, it is as if it is not considered violence at all; this measure is already called a form of law enforcement. From such an absurd formulation usually comes the assumption that the problem of violence can be solved simply by pursuing some “correct” state policy. This point of view is actively promoted by supporters of Steven Pinker’s ideas; in the Russian-speaking space, the most active evangelist of these views is Ekaterina Schulmann. But let us look at why this will never work.
Firstly, the very attempt to divide coercive forceful measures into those that can be considered violence and those that cannot encounters a logical contradiction. The difference in when, to whom, and for what reason a coercive forceful measure was applied does not cancel the fact of its application, the involuntary nature of its character, and the intentional physical restriction of a person’s freedom. All of these are constituent factors of such a phenomenon as violence. It cannot be said that the exact same action at one time, for one reason, and toward one person is violence, while at another time, for another reason, and toward another person, it is no longer so. This is merely a subjective assessment of a specific person.
Precisely because of this, all coercive forceful measures entail the same problems and risks, no matter how they are justified. Looking from the point of view of practical results, there is no difference whether violence was applied by a police officer or an ordinary citizen, whether it was applied to a simple passerby or a gangster who has committed many crimes in the past; one can always encounter resistance, especially if the victim of the forceful measure is placed in a hopeless position. And in today’s world with rapidly developing technologies, this threatens the use of very dangerous and destructive means as tools of defense or weapons of revenge, up to weapons of mass destruction, the most accessible of which are viruses. Therefore, from a practical point of view, the use of forceful measures can be justified only in the case of immediate self-defense, since in such a case an act of violence is already being committed and it must be stopped to avoid the subsequent negative externalities. In all other cases, the only optimal strategy of behavior will be the application of methods of influence to the violator that differ from physical violence, such as reputation lowering and ostracism.
Secondly, and this is the most important point—the attempt to get rid of private violence with the help of state violence actually only deters it, but does not eradicate it. A vivid example of this can be the USSR. The intentions regarding private violence among the ideologues of authoritarian communism were very noble; by the method of the “iron fist,” they intended to eradicate interethnic and domestic conflicts. Obviously, parents will not beat a child, and an Azerbaijani will not attack an Armenian, if someone stands over all of them with a club. But no power is eternal. As soon as changes occur within it, all problems come to the surface. The conflict is reborn, and with new strength, given the stressful condition people are in due to years of forceful control over them. We were lucky that after the collapse of the USSR, those same Armenians and Azerbaijanis ended up with only assault rifles and tanks in their hands, rather than nuclear missiles and viruses. However, over time, they, and others as well, may acquire very dangerous means. Then we will face a catastrophic threat endangering the existence of all humanity, due to the problem of violence left unresolved by the “iron fist” method.
People who consider Konrad Lorenz’s conclusions regarding the nature of violence and his concerns about the risks it entails to be unfounded often refer to or use arguments from a piece titled “The Lorenzian Theory of Aggression and Peace Research: A Critique“. To avoid any misconceptions about the phenomenon of violence, let us examine what is wrong with this critique.
At the very beginning, an argument is made that Lorenz defines aggression as a combat instinct implemented toward members of one’s own species and is genetically innate, inherited from biological ancestors. However, according to the critics, this definition strips the term aggression of its meaning. In general, when discussing aggression and violence, the question of what we actually mean by “aggression” and “violence” almost always arises. In this context, it is reasonable to reduce these terms specifically to innate tendencies toward intraspecific violence in the form of inflicting physical harm (or the threat of inflicting it), as this is the object of study. Everything else, for example, the fact that aggression is subjectively defined differently by different people (for some, even an impolite greeting would be aggression), we do not take into account.
Based on the critique, such an understanding of aggression does not correlate with activities manifested not directly, but through social institutions developed by humans. Firstly, all institutions that apply coercive measures always work through coercive agents. You might say that if a person becomes a politician, they can sit in an office and issue inhumane orders, thereby committing acts of violence without actually performing any corresponding physical activity. However, these orders are worthless without the coercive agents who execute them directly; therefore, one must look specifically at them and their propensity for violence. Secondly, other social aspects, such as wealth, status, and skills (which were mentioned in the critique), do not provide such an opportunity on their own without methods of directly inflicting physical harm on a person, for example, using the same security forces. We cannot speak of violence where there has been no such direct impact. Of course, a person may attempt to harm another person through indirect influence via a chain of many instances; however, this chain will sooner or later encounter the need to apply a coercive measure. For example, some might say that a monopolist in the market can turn people into slaves using purely economic methods and even drive them to starve to death by unilaterally setting the cost of labor and products. However, to be a monopolist, one must have coercive agents (one’s own, or an agreement with the agents of an existing monopoly, such as the state) ready to destroy all competitors in the market through direct violence, especially those who refuse to make concessions and negotiate peacefully.
After this, Lorenz is criticized for mixing the behavioral models of quite different animal species and humans, arguing that the justification of a common origin of species is insufficient for this. However, it should not be forgotten that the unbreakable basis of the behavioral model of any living creature is always the biological processes occurring in its organism. It would be foolish to believe, for example, that by mere desire, due to some social factors or with the help of some supernatural forces, a highly developed primate, including a human, could ignore the action of hormones and receptors of the nervous system. And biological processes, in turn, are determined by genetics. Of course, one should not forget the gene-environment link—certain genes are activated in a certain environment. But this fact only confirms our correctness, if we consider two factors: humans share a large part of the genome with animals due to the same common origin, and Lorenz observed the same behavioral mechanisms regarding the manifestation of violent behavior in very different animal species. According to the critique, it is wrong to extrapolate observations of animals to humans, even if these observations coincide for a very wide range of species. Of course, I agree that Lorenz’s works may lack observations of specifically human behavior; however, based on the two factors described above (common genetic heritage and the observation of identical behavioral patterns in different species), it can be boldly presumed that his conclusions regarding the nature of violence are very likely true for humans as well. And referring to the social sciences, psychology, etc., which was also mentioned in the critique, makes no sense, as we are considering the biological and genetic component, which is more fundamental—these sciences cannot contradict biology or make changes to it. In the end, if someone still continues to deny these conclusions, it would be better to criticize them with observations of human behavior, corresponding systematization, and comparison with Lorenz’s conclusions, rather than simply pointing to the incorrectness of the fact of extrapolation.
The critique also addresses Lorenz’s instinctive-hydraulic model. It explains the phenomenon of instinctive reactions triggering in the absence of a specific stimulus by the accumulation over time of a certain specific potential, which lowers the threshold necessary to trigger the reaction; this also explains spontaneous acts of aggression. This model is criticized due to the lack of neurophysiological evidence for its correctness. However, firstly, it has not been refuted, and secondly, Lorenz himself acknowledged the limitations of this model and the fact that it possesses a number of flaws; that is, in fact, he did not propose it as an absolutely correct and final solution.
Next, the influence of intraspecific aggression on the survival of species is criticized, especially in the case of humans. Statistics are provided as an example, showing that wars between different groups of people (including modern wars starting from the 19th century) have had a very insignificant effect on the survival of humanity. I will not argue that this conclusion is correct at the moment. However, here, Lorenz’s fears regarding the threat of violence to the survival of humanity should be linked to scientific and technical progress. After all, humans have become the most heavily armed species on the planet; they have already faced nuclear threats more than once, and every day the threats become more serious, as dangerous means become increasingly accessible for acquisition and reproduction by small groups of people and even individual individuals. In fact, the destructive potential of small groups and individual individuals is increasing every day. For example, viruses are a very accessible means of mass destruction, although other things could be devised. It is hard to argue with Lorenz’s fears here!
Another point in the critique caught my attention because it only confirms Lorenz’s theory rather than refuting it. But first, we need to remember something. As we know, Lorenz’s observations show that species with strong innate weaponry do not use it in intraspecific clashes. This primarily concerns hedgehogs, porcupines, venomous snakes, and insects; Lorenz also mentioned wolves, which do not bite their fellows in vulnerable places such as the belly or neck, and ravens, which in fights do not even try to peck out each other’s eyes with their very sharp beaks. The emergence of such mechanisms during evolution is quite logical; otherwise, representatives of these species would simply exterminate each other. As for poorly armed species, this mechanism manifests to a lesser extent, since either their representatives are unable to inflict serious harm on their fellows, or the latter can escape from the attack—meaning violence does not threaten them as much. For example, when Lorenz put two turtle doves—seemingly peaceful birds of the pigeon family—in one cage, the dislike of one bird for the other led to it severely maiming and almost killing the other during Lorenz’s absence. All because there was nowhere to run in this case.
In the case of humans, this mechanism also does not manifest very strongly, as their natural weaponry is quite weak. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that humans have inherited this mechanism to a certain extent; moreover, we can confirm this with observations regarding war, which the critique itself refers to, again, to prove the insignificance of the influence of violence on the survival of humanity. In many armies, more than half of the soldiers who were supposed to shoot simply could not pull the trigger. There is also mention of a refusal by one of the US army brigades to obey orders during the Vietnam War. Cases such as the mass killing in My Lai are a great exception and an abnormality for modern wars. In general, most soldiers considered the Vietnam War meaningless, and throughout its duration, a typical soldier spent only a few hours in combat. Also, a social study conducted by the information and education department of the US Department of Defense shows that during World War II, most soldiers actually tried to pretend they were busy with something rather than actually engaging in military affairs.
Based on this, it can be concluded that humans possess Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism. Although it is expressed in a weaker form than in heavily armed species, it nonetheless provides the prerequisites for solving the problem of violence, which concerned Lorenz so deeply and, in principle, is a cause for concern for any sane person. And, by the way, in the material we are considering, an attempt to criticize this specific theory is not even undertaken.
The main problem for any socio-political movement opposing state power is the threat of repression against its participants. This applies first and foremost to libertarians, as from the authorities’ point of view, we are nothing other than the most “non-systemic” opposition (i.e., those who refuse to adjust their positions according to the state’s directives). The risk of repression severely limits movement participants in conducting effective actions, and this is quite explainable: if one can receive a heavy fine just for distributing leaflets, then engaging in more serious activism is fraught with the risk of “sitting on a bottle.” There are very few passionate libertarians ready to create new ideas and promote them to the masses; therefore, the arrest of even one of them can significantly weaken the entire movement. Understanding the situation, they are forced to severely restrain themselves in their words, avoid participating in actions, and generally live in constant fear.
It is entirely realistic to get rid of this problem — all real-world activity must be outsourced, while remaining 100% online, beyond the reach of the stationary bandit (“the state”). Libertarian activists should ideally not show their faces in the real world at all and perhaps not even disclose their views, but upon opening a virtual machine with a VPN, they should not hesitate in anything, for the FSB is absolutely powerless in the fight against the virtual! You can boldly post any calls on social networks, publish the personal data of convinced etatists, and organize the most radical actions — from distributing leaflets and hanging banners on houses and bridges, to the open harassment of active etatists (for example, writing “A maniac lives here” on an etatist’s front door and posting flyers in their residential area with a photo and information about their tendency toward aggressive violence).
All real-world actions must be carried out by people who are in no way connected to libertarianism. We receive donations from anonymous sponsors in cryptocurrency and pay “Vasya-types” from the darknet in bitcoins—people who normally place drug stashes and paint asphalt and house walls with advertisements for “pharmacies.” They are skilled at hiding from the police and know what to do in case of arrest. That is why they take their money for this risk, which, to be honest, isn’t even that much. Even if one of the executors is caught by the cops, he will only give up an anonymous online contact, where the FSB will be met with a VPN service’s refusal to provide a real IP address (or TOR, if you are a complete paranoid). Thus, the true passionaries, whose arrest could weaken the movement, become absolutely invulnerable to repression, while the arrest of depoliticized executors in the real world does no harm to the movement — in place of one arrested graffiti artist, ten new ones wishing to make some extra money will appear.
Skeptics will probably say now that online anonymity is a myth and the FSB will deanonymize you in a minute. I have already written why this is not the case and will never be: since the very emergence of states, according to the theory of the stationary bandit, every state is in constant confrontation with others. Of course, there are temporary alliances, but in the long run, one state is always a competitor and enemy to another! The authorities of any given state are usually always interested in helping the opposition weaken their competitor; therefore, they will not only refrain from disclosing the personal data of oppositionists but will even help in the development of anonymization tools (for example, the TOR network was created with the support of the US federal government). Do you think it is accidental that the laws of most countries in the world contain clauses prohibiting the disclosure of personal data and the extradition of people accused in their homeland for political reasons?! It is not accidental at all, and this must be utilized; as Mikhail Svetov says — maneuver between different states to carve out your own freedom. Given the current geopolitical layout, by living in Russia and using a VPN in Switzerland, the USA, Great Britain, Sweden, and Norway, you are completely safe. Provided, of course, that you do not personally carry out any actions in the real world.
Everyone has already heard of such a thing as cryptocurrencies, and specifically about Bitcoin. However, many wonder why cryptocurrencies are so expensive and what their purpose is in general. Often, cryptocurrencies are mistaken for assets created and owned by some group of scammers who decided to profit from another racket and financial pyramid, while the high cost is explained by market manipulations and the inflating of a bubble that is about to burst. Consequently, for the average person, crypto can theoretically offer no benefit at all.
Let us debunk such misconceptions and convince ourselves that cryptocurrencies are not a fraudulent scheme and are even extremely necessary for us. If you already know how cryptocurrencies work, or if at some point you tire of reading the technical part but manage to understand why crypto is a reliable medium, you can skip directly to the section of the article titled “What is the Benefit of Cryptocurrencies.”
Decentralization of Management
Let’s start by explaining why cryptocurrencies are not a financial pyramid. To do this, although in a rather crude form, we will describe their structure to demonstrate the general concept. The essence is that a significant portion of cryptocurrencies has no central governing body. Their network is completely decentralized; every person, including you, can run a Bitcoin node on their own computer.
You might say that Bitcoin has specific developers who implement their updates, which indicates that they have power over the crypto network. Yes, there are developers, but they are not the owners of the network. Any changes and updates they propose are implemented only with the permission of the number of miners working on the network who possess more than 50% of the network’s computing power. In effect, we have democratic management (but it should not be compared with state democracy, which is nonetheless imposed by force; in this democracy, no one forces you to participate), and this democracy is quite direct, since although it has representatives in the form of developers, no decision can pass without the explicit consent of more than half of the network.
A question may arise: why create and maintain cryptocurrencies at all, if one cannot earn from them without having power over them? However, this is not the case; crypto developers usually perform a so-called “pre-mine,” meaning that before the public release, they create a certain number of coins for themselves, calculating that in the future their crypto will become popular and these coins will increase significantly in value. Additionally, crypto developers can earn money through donations from wealthy users who find further development beneficial.
New cryptocurrencies, which currently have a small network, are often subject to the risk of concentration of more than half of the power in one set of hands, which allows for network manipulation. However, the larger the network becomes, the more rapidly this possibility diminishes. Bitcoin, for instance, has involved such gigantic computing power worldwide that perhaps even large corporations and governments would not find the means (at least without causing significant harm to their own economy) to unilaterally subordinate it and disrupt the network’s operation.
Furthermore, the largest crypto miners are usually mining pools, which are also decentralized organizations. Mining pools are created so that people and organizations with insignificant computing power individually can unite and thus mine coins collectively. The mined coins are then typically divided among participants depending on their contribution to the total computing power. There have been times (for example, in the case of Bitcoin) when some mining pools approached the 50% threshold in power at different periods. However, thousands and millions of pool participants, naturally, cannot agree among themselves simply because of their number; in such a situation, they preferred to leave that pool and join others to prevent the centralization of the network and the loss of value of the coins they had already mined and could mine in the future.
Strict System Operation and Stable Emission
The algorithms by which the networks of many cryptocurrencies operate are fixed and based on unsolvable mathematical problems. The mining process—the creation of new coins—is usually based on finding a hash of appropriate complexity to add a new block of transactions to the network. Hashing, especially in the case of the SHA-256 algorithm used in Bitcoin, is an irreversible function; the only way to obtain a hash that fits a certain condition is to sequentially iterate through a special block parameter. The condition itself, i.e., the mining difficulty, becomes stricter over time; additionally, the mining reward regularly decreases. All of this is also strictly programmed with the calculation that more computing power will connect to the network as needed to maintain a stable currency emission.
Regarding the emission itself, the number of Bitcoins is limited to 21 million coins (currently about 18.5 million coins have been mined). It is simply impossible to just print new Bitcoins; inflation based on the standard paper currency model is simply impossible in the case of cryptocurrencies.
It is also impossible to interfere with the operation of cryptocurrencies via hacking (although there were hacks of Bitcoin, these occurred in the early stages of its development when its software code was not sufficiently perfect). Suppose a hacker wants to submit a false transaction with fake coins into the Bitcoin network. However, every block of transactions in the network contains the hash of the previous block. Other nodes will simply not accept a node that attempts to introduce an invalid chain of blocks into the network. It is also impossible to pick the right block parameters to produce the exact same hash as the original block. Hashing, again, is an irreversible function; it can only be broken by brute force. The SHA-256 hashing algorithm can produce 2^256 unique hash variants—finding a parameter that gives a specific hash would take more than the lifetime of the Universe, even with all the computing power on the planet. Mathematics of large numbers stands guard over the stability and inviolability of cryptocurrency operations!
What is the Benefit of Cryptocurrencies
Fine, cryptocurrencies truly lack centralized management and are absolutely reliable. But why do we need them in practice? After all, ordinary currencies are more popular and easier to use. What is the benefit of your Bitcoin, especially considering that supporting its network and mining new coins consumes an unbelievable amount of computing power and electricity?
The entire benefit of cryptocurrencies lies in the fact that they prevent anyone, including governments, from artificially devaluing your savings through inflation, unhindered taking of your cash funds, and restricting your economic freedom. Let’s start with a simple example. In a survey about Bitcoin usage in Nigeria, about a third of respondents stated that they use it or once used it. This is because the Nigerian government set a tax that is too high on transferring funds across borders. Cryptocurrency became the only option for Nigerians working abroad to send money to their families with minimal losses, bypassing idiotic government laws.
Many such examples can be thought of, as the stationary bandit (the state) tries to rob its citizens in every way. And cryptocurrency comes to people’s aid. You don’t want the stationary bandit to levy giant taxes on your transactions and demand an explanation regarding the origin of funds every time? Pay with cryptocurrency! You don’t want the state to be able to sue you at any moment for non-payment of alimony or take half of your assets in favor of a cheating ex-spouse? Keep them in cryptocurrency! Authorities have limited or banned some type of economic activity and control your income? Accept payment in cryptocurrency!
Cryptocurrency will save your savings, income, and economic freedom in these and many other situations. Cryptocurrency coins cannot simply be taken from you (unless you yourself give away the password to your wallet or your device, where the password is stored in unencrypted form, is taken—always keep this point in mind). Your savings in cryptocurrency will not lose their value over time because someone is regularly printing billions of new banknotes. You can use cryptocurrencies completely anonymously. Although, of course, Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, as all transactions in the network are visible to everyone; however, this problem is solved by using Bitcoin mixers (intermediary services that mix coins with the coins of other mixer users before sending them to the recipient, thereby making the transaction untraceable), including wallet clients with a built-in mixer (for example, Wasabi Wallet). There are also cryptocurrencies where coins are mixed automatically within their own network (for example, Monero, Dash, ZCash). Additionally, try as much as possible not to link your wallet to your real identity. If it is necessary, use a separate Bitcoin address for each transaction; this will make systematic tracking of your transactions impossible.
We can now confidently conclude that cryptocurrency is an excellent economic tool for avoiding regulations, bans, and the theft of funds by the stationary bandit. Cryptocurrency provides maximum economic freedom. This is precisely what forms its value.
So what, governments will just go ahead and ban cryptocurrencies
The thing is, it is impossible to ban the use of cryptocurrencies. As we remember, they are decentralized; there is no single server that manages everything. Millions of servers worldwide are involved in cryptocurrency networks; any person can run a cryptocurrency node even on their home computer. You cannot simply block a specific IP address, as is usually done with online services, and thereby achieve a ban on using the service. Cryptocurrency can only be blocked through a total shutdown of the internet, which certainly will not happen, as everything now works via the internet; such a step would result in gigantic losses for the governments themselves.
It will also be impossible to ban specific types of transactions using cryptocurrency, such as buying goods with cryptocurrency on gray and black markets, or exchanging cryptocurrency for fiat currency. In the case of exchange, the P2P exchange model comes to our aid. For example, you want to exchange Bitcoins for rubles, but services engaged in such exchanges have been shut down by the force of the stationary bandit. You simply use a P2P exchange to find another person like yourself who wants to exchange rubles for Bitcoins and carry out the exchange. The state will not find out that your deal was related to cryptocurrency, because if anonymity measures are observed, it cannot track cryptocurrency transactions. A ban on cryptocurrency is simply a useless and unrealizable measure.
Cryptocurrency is still useless because it is not popular as a means of payment
Now this is an outdated claim. Current trends regarding the adoption of cryptocurrency say the exact opposite. For example, Tesla recently announced its plans to start accepting payment in cryptocurrency. The Apple Pay payment service has already added the ability to link cryptocurrency accounts to wallets and use them within the USA. Google Pay and Samsung Pay have announced similar plans. At this rate, considering that these services are actively used for making payments for purchases worldwide, including in the CIS (admit that you have seen the icons of these services on store signs regarding the possibility of cashless payment, or even used them yourself), cryptocurrencies could become a popular means of payment. Of course, since these services operate by government permission, using cryptocurrency in this case may only add anonymity to the origin of the funds, but it is not a way to evade tracking of their expenditure and taxation by the stationary bandit. However, this should be enough for the general public to accept cryptocurrencies as a means of payment and begin treating them more tolerantly. People for whom cryptocurrencies are commonplace will gradually begin to actively conduct transactions using them directly, without intermediary services. This will allow all of us to achieve significant economic freedom, regardless of the orders imposed by the stationary bandit.
Cryptocurrency will not become a popular means of payment due to slow transactions and high commissions
This is also an outdated claim at the moment. Of course, pure Bitcoin itself is indeed quite slow (on average, transaction confirmation takes 10 minutes, and sometimes it can stretch to several hours) and expensive (the average Bitcoin network commission per transaction at the time of writing this material is about 24 dollars), so it is only profitable to make large transactions that do not require instant execution. However, solutions already exist for small transactions, such as buying a cup of coffee. One of these is the Lightning Network—a payment protocol that allows instant transactions between participating nodes and is proposed as a solution to Bitcoin’s scalability problem. This problem has also been solved in many alternative cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin.
Not long ago, the libertarian community began actively discussing the “Prospera” project – a charter city in Honduras. The idea of charter cities in general is quite popular among libertarians, many of whom view the option of autonomous jurisdictions and free economic zones, carved out from the jurisdiction of a state, as a real possibility for achieving a free society.
Regardless of the dreams associated with ideas of this kind, they shatter in the same way that the idea of seasteading and the creation of jurisdictions outside state territories in general shatters (you can find more details on this in the material “Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space”). If violence is still a current tool for achieving goals and the newly minted jurisdiction has no means of deterring an external attack (let’s be honest: for a small charter city against a giant stationary bandit, the only deterrent weapon could be WMDs like viruses), then its autonomy is merely an unsupported handout from the master. Seriously, how can one even expect to create a free jurisdiction by the grace of a stationary bandit (the “state”)?
Of course, I do not dispute that at a certain point in time, there may be people in the government of a specific state who are absolutely not opposed to such initiatives and are willing to allocate territory for them on terms of maximum autonomy and the ability to independently manage internal affairs, even up to the creation of their own laws and law enforcement mechanisms. But such power, like any other power, cannot be eternal. In any case, sooner or later, changes will occur in the government, and where are the guarantees that the new power will not want to liquidate such autonomy, or at least begin to reduce it in small steps so as not to cause excessive discontent with abrupt decisions? For example, as the Chinese government did with Hong Kong? Agreements themselves, in this case, will not help; the government may simply not care about them. History already has hundreds and thousands of examples of free cities and broad autonomies of various kinds, and where are they all now—did agreements with the central government help them?
Of course, representatives of such an autonomy could create their own political force and use it to lobby their interests in the central government. However, in doing so, they only involve themselves in another struggle for power over the tool of state violence. And this is a movement in a direction completely opposite to achieving a free, non-violent society. Factually, this is the same as simply changing the power in order to forcibly impose one’s own norms on society—this cannot be linked to libertarianism in any way.
Hoping for the mercy of the master is a foolish venture. Without the elimination of violence as a phenomenon in general, or at least without the presence of deterrent weapons, an autonomy carved out by a stationary bandit is worth nothing and is backed by nothing. And if such means are available, then perhaps it makes more sense to exit the jurisdiction of the stationary bandit in some developed place, for example, within a large city, rather than on bare land where one would still have to spend billions of dollars creating infrastructure and attracting people?
Without this mindset, we will never become a developed country, and this time the problem does not lie with the state at all. It is much broader. This also applies to some libertarians, as without adopting the philosophy described below, we will never overcome the stationary bandit!
“A very important point is the tolerance for failure. That is, failing in the Valley is not a disgrace. If I am reviewing resumes and a person comes to an interview and says, ‘I failed a startup and now I’m looking for a job,’ or, say, ‘I’ve had two serious failures,’ I don’t look at it as, ‘Oh damn, I don’t want that,’ but rather as the fact that they have the experience of failure, and therefore they are more valuable than someone who has never failed. He’s a guy with experience. And moreover, a guy who has proven that after a failure, he can get up and move forward. This is super important because in what you do here, failure is practically a mandatory part of the game. You fail constantly because you are constantly trying new crazy ideas. If you aren’t failing, it means you are being too risk-averse. This is very important.”
And the last thing that, in my opinion, probably strongly affects not only business but society itself is, in principle, acceptance, tolerance for the crazy, the unfamiliar, the unusual, all sorts of crazy stuff. Because in reality, all cool ideas are crazy at first. If you cannot accept people who dress differently than you like, or behave differently than you like, or something like that, then most likely such a society will not support some new crazy idea, like: ‘Let’s make a social network where everyone has real names and they share photos there.’ This idea, when Facebook was starting, seemed crazy. Nobody used their real names on the internet. But venture capitalists believe and give money precisely because they are accustomed to the idea that crazy ideas are good. And they know that they can fail.”
When viruses are considered weapons of mass destruction, many say that this is merely a hypothetical threat, impossible to implement in practice at the moment, unlikely to be implementable in the near future, and certainly never available for recreation by small organizations and ordinary people in home conditions. And since other possible weapons of mass destruction are even more inaccessible for recreation, there is no need to fear such a phenomenon as violence and try to eradicate it completely.
First of all, we need to look at the trends in the development of biotechnology. A great example is provided by an operation such as sequencing (in simpler terms, decoding) the genome. Just 20 years ago, sequencing one full human genome cost 100 million dollars, about 10 years ago – 1 million dollars, and now – 1 thousand dollars. Also, there are already quite cheap DNA/RNA synthesizers; some models can be bought for several tens of thousands of dollars, and it is quite expected that over time and with the development of technology, they will only become cheaper and more accessible. Furthermore, research has recently appeared regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in solving quantum chemistry equations [1][2]. In the future, this will make it possible to determine the chemical and physical properties of molecules without conducting real tests, but only by virtually modeling their structure. I think it is obvious that this will greatly simplify the design of artificial viruses. And finally, let us not forget that modern vaccination and targeted treatment are based precisely on the introduction of artificial viral agents into humans, which deliver specific genetic material to the required cells and embed it into them. Factually, this is gene therapy, the reality of the technological implementation of which many for some reason also view skeptically and do not see prospects for its development and application in the near future. But do you still believe that the creation of dangerous artificial viruses is merely a hypothetical threat? Well, let’s look at real cases of this.
In 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity [3]. Naturally, his work began to be criticized, as humanity would have been powerless if this virus had left the laboratory walls. Additionally, the US government imposed a ban on the continuation of this research in 2014 (however, it was lifted in 2019). Moreover, Yoshihiro Kawaoka had previously managed to create a laboratory analog of the well-known Spanish flu, which killed up to 100 million people according to various estimates.
Also in 2018, a group of Canadian researchers published a scientific paper on recreating the causative agent of the horsepox virus – a close relative of smallpox (variola), one of the deadliest diseases in human history [4]. The cost of this project is estimated at approximately 100 thousand dollars. In doing so, the researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant portion of the scientific community viewed this research critically and began to express indignation as to why the scientific journal PLOS One allowed the publication of such work at all, as this could help terrorists in creating biological weapons.
Along with all this, we should consider cases where viruses accidentally left laboratory walls and what consequences this led to, in order to understand what we will face if someone wants to release a dangerous virus into the wild intentionally. Moreover, this could already be done by some laboratory assistant at any research center that stores and studies samples of such viruses. We have simply been very lucky that none of these lab assistants had violent tendencies, or if they did, something held them back or they did not realize what dangerous weapon was in their hands. We will list 5 such cases [5]:
– In 1977, the H1N1 flu strain managed to escape from a Chinese institution and spread across the world. Fortunately, it caused only a mild illness and led to only a few fatal cases.
– From 1963 to 1978, three escapes of the smallpox virus occurred in the UK from two different laboratories. They were linked to low standards and poorly conducted laboratory practice. The smallpox outbreaks led to at least 80 fatal cases.
– In 1995, 10,000 people in Venezuela and 75,000 people in Colombia fell ill with a VEE strain that escaped from a laboratory. As a result of the outbreak, 311 people died, and neurological complications were found in 3,000 people.
– Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 led to a global epidemic that infected 8,000 people and caused 774 deaths in 29 countries. Since the original epidemic, six escapes of the virus from laboratories have occurred – four in Beijing and one each in Singapore and Taiwan.
– In 2007, 278 animals in the UK were infected with foot-and-mouth disease after the virus escaped from a high-biosafety laboratory. Due to the outbreak, 1,578 animals had to be destroyed. This outbreak undermined agricultural production and exports in the UK and cost approximately 200 million pounds sterling.
Let’s also look at the current viral situation. In 2020-21, we had to deal with the coronavirus (by the way, this is one of the strains of the same SARS that left laboratory walls in 2003). Compared to other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is not excessively contagious or deadly; to date, about 103 million people have had it, which is 1.3% of the planet’s population; about 2.2 million people died – 2.1% of all infected. Nevertheless, the pandemic led to a large number of social and economic problems.
We should also look at other modern viral threats besides the coronavirus. One such example could be the “Nipah” virus. The disease can be asymptomatic (in which case the person simply becomes a spreader of the infection) or cause serious respiratory problems, encephalitis, cerebral edema, and mortality ranging from 40% to 75%. Furthermore, Dutch researchers claim that a Nipah outbreak could happen at any moment [6]. And what could happen if a sample of such a virus fell into the hands of a person with violent inclinations?
Besides all this, the topic of the viral threat is already being raised by some well-known and authoritative figures, for example, entrepreneur and billionaire Bill Gates [7]. Back in 2015, he predicted a pandemic and warned that the world was not ready for it. He explains this lack of readiness by the fact that large pandemics occur quite rarely, people forget about them and prefer to concentrate their attention on fighting more frequent disasters. A pandemic generally always seems like something that definitely will not happen in the next few years, therefore its threat is ignored. Bill Gates also expressed concern that viruses could be used for violent purposes and estimated the probability of an artificial pandemic to be higher than that of a natural one. Now let’s imagine such a scenario – someone intentionally releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, and humanity is not ready for it at all?
I think there should be no more doubts that the creation of artificial viruses is a real task, which over time is becoming less expensive and more accessible for implementation. It may even not be necessary to create new viruses – it is enough to seize and use samples of already existing ones. Therefore, it is critically important for us to get rid of violence before the moment when someone, in an attempt to protect themselves from attacks, or some terrorist in pursuit of their violent goals, releases a very contagious and deadly virus into the wild, thereby bringing humanity to catastrophe.
Very foolish is the conservative who implements their dreams of ethnic purity and a traditional order of life through state violence in a mandatory manner toward the entire society. But a progressivist who uses this same method to promote a multicultural and LGBT agenda will be equally foolish. This is because, regardless of which ideas are promoted by this method, one must constantly use and maintain the instruments of violence in a state of “combat readiness.”
But power is never eternal. There is no method to leave power in the hands of one interest group forever, simply because different groups always exist within society. And when one of these groups gains enough strength and popularity to remove the previous group from power, the previous interests are removed along with them.
To make this clearer, let’s ask a question as an example, considering the current state of affairs in the Western world. European and American conservatives are extremely dissatisfied that their children are forced to study multiculturalism in schools and are taught tolerance toward LGBT. Sometimes it even goes as far as conservative parents having their children taken away by social services if they decide to shield them from such education. They are also dissatisfied that their funds are taken through taxation to provide aid and additional privileges to minorities and immigrants.
But who is to blame for this? The progressivists? Perhaps, as they are using the tools of force. But the conservatives themselves are also to blame. This is because they supported and nurtured the instrument of violence. And why be surprised that this instrument simply passed into the hands of other interest groups over time? What should conservatives be surprised about after they had previously killed, imprisoned, or forcibly treated those very same LGBT representatives, and then their children began to be mandatorily taught tolerance toward values of this kind? If conservatives had gotten rid of the instrument of violence, not used it to pursue their goals, then no one would have been able to to impose their orders upon them. Yes, the proponents of multiculturalism and LGBT representatives, whom they hate so strongly, would still exist. But they would not be able to force them how to live.
The moral of this story can be expressed by a single parable: you reap what you sow! If you sow violence, you yourself will become its victim; it is inevitable. Never count on the instrument of violence being yours and only yours. It is better not to facilitate the development of such an instrument—then no one will be able to use it against you.
I constantly hear criticism regarding the idea of eliminating aggressive violence from society using biotechnologies (the development of gene therapy). Skeptics argue that the propensity for violence is very complex, determined by many genes, and that identifying them is impossible. In reality, this is true, but only if one looks specifically for “violence propensity” genes, although this is absolutely unnecessary to solve the task at hand. Lorenz’s research describes the evolutionary path through which many animal species developed an “innate morality” of non-aggression toward members of their own species (in fact, this is not morality in the usual philosophical sense, but a behavioral instinct). For some reason, many have overlooked this, but Konrad Lorenz clearly indicates in his works that species with innate morality experience a strong feeling of aversion (i.e., a certain aggression-inhibiting mechanism is triggered) when they intend to cause harm to the body of a conspecific (for simplicity, we will henceforth call this the “Lorenz mechanism” after the discoverer). This contrasts sharply with the layman’s understanding of “propensity for violence.” For example, hedgehogs are quite aggressive in the conventional sense (since they are predators), but are incapable of causing physical harm to their own kind.
Although Lorenz himself wrote that in humans “innate morality” is very weak, nevertheless, its presence can be noticed in a significant part of society, perhaps even in the majority. You have probably noticed scenes in movies where someone wanted to take revenge for some offense, picked up a weapon, approached the unarmed offender, pointed the gun at them, but suddenly the attacker’s hands began to shake, they felt ill, and they could not fire. This is the behavioral pattern of species with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism, but in humans, it is quite variable (unlike, for example, hedgehogs and snakes, where all individuals in the population have a strong version of this mechanism due to the pressure of natural selection). Accordingly, this trait is determined by alleles of one or several genes (different forms of the same gene located in the same sections of chromosomes). Given the high degree of variability of the strong/weak version of the Lorenz mechanism in different people, identifying the specific genes and the correct (desired) alleles is quite simple, even at the current technological level.
A rough research plan can be outlined. Activists openly demonstrate provocative behavior, for example, by showing their commitment to LGBT in places where homophobes are usually present, insulting them, but, importantly, not using any physical violence against them. If it is evident that a person is deeply offended by the insult, but nevertheless simply walks away (the ideal version is that they intended to strike but ultimately could not), we inform them that it was a scientific experiment, tell them they did well to restrain themselves, and take a DNA sample from them, marking it as “peaceful.” If, however, they attempt to hit the activist, we immediately stop the attack using pepper spray and take a DNA sample, marking it as “aggressor.” We repeat this numerous times to create samples of sufficient size.
Next, we send the collected materials to a laboratory for DNA decoding (sequencing). It could be to Silicon Valley — some of the numerous biotech startups there will surely be happy to receive the samples we have collected, as they cannot collect DNA samples in such an “aggressive” manner within California itself. Based on the comparison of the two samples, the specific genes responsible for the strength of the Lorenz mechanism and the required alleles (encoding the strong version) are identified. Once identified, it would be possible, for example, to create gene therapy for adults and a genetic test for pregnant women (which would make the woman seriously consider whether it is worth continuing the pregnancy).
'/%3E%3C/svg%3E){kind=small}
