Автор: Битарх

Where Libertarianism Will Actually Take Root? Spoiler: Probably Not Where You Think.

In the libertarian scene, the United States is considered an “earthly paradise.” How could it be any other way: the First and Second Amendments, the spirit of the Wild West, freedom of speech, the right to self-defense! Mises, Rothbard, Rand – all are connected with America. Meanwhile, old Europe and, especially, Canada and Scandinavia are often dismissively viewed as Trotskyist swamps with exorbitant taxes. But if we dig deeper and look at the very foundation of libertarianism – NAP (the principle of non-aggression) – we’ll see something interesting.

The renowned anthropologist Douglas Fry in his works raises a brilliant topic – so-called Hobbesian beliefs. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, if you remember, believed that the natural state of man is a “war of all against all.” So, Fry shows that the belief in the “naturalness” of war and violence in the United States is frighteningly widespread, much wider than in other developed countries. In one study, students at universities in Florida and Connecticut were asked whether people have a “war instinct” and whether war is an integral part of human nature. About half of the respondents answered affirmatively! Half of these young, educated people believe that killing your fellow humans – it’s frankly ingrained in our genes.

When the whole world calls America “Pinistan” or another derogatory analogy in their local language, it’s not necessarily envy. It could be a reaction to a culture in which a significant portion of the population normalizes violence and imperialist policies. As Fry notes, this is exactly what Europeans see in America. Of course, on the ground, far from all Americans are like that. But there’s enough of them to repeatedly elect hawks and applaud “precision strikes” against countries that many would not find on a map. Furthermore, if a society sincerely believes that violence is “human nature,” it will inevitably be tolerant of state violence within its own country.

And now let’s take a 180-degree turn. If to triumph the libertarianism and NAP we need an society which organically digests violence, where do we look? Contrary to popular myths, the best chances for libertarian ideas may lie precisely in Europe, Canada, and, paradoxically, Scandinavia.

Yes, there’s a bloated welfare state there now (though that’s pretty common these days). But let’s look at the social base. First, the level of violent crime (especially in Scandinavia) hovers around statistical error compared to America. Second, the overwhelming majority of people feel genuine, deep disgust for war and imperialistic ambitions, not considering it a natural phenomenon for humans. Third, the level of social trust there is colossal.

For a European or Canadian, it’s much harder to sell the idea of pre-emptive war. For them, violence is not “biological instinct,” but a catastrophic system failure, barbarism that simply has no place in the 21st century. And this is precisely the ideal psychological ground for the principle of non-aggression! NAP cannot win where many are ready to shoot first. NAP wins where people have internally agreed that initiating violence is an absolute social taboo.

So, perhaps we should stop idealizing cowboys and take a look at, say, Swedes or Norwegians. Yes, they still have a lot to explain, for example, that high taxes are also a form of hidden, systemic violence. But convincing a peaceful burgher who rejects aggression in principle may be much easier than persuading a supporter of preemptive bombing in the name of greatness.

Here you can see irony: “American” libertarianism is stuck in a country whose cultural code resists it. And where libertarians are used to seeing “socialism,” the basic premise of their philosophy – that people are not obligated to be violent – has already been accepted as common sense. Maybe we should stop banging our heads against a wall and look where the door is slightly open?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Do you want to close borders? Start with your yard!

We frequently observe an epic battle between frogs and snakes. On one side – conservatives who are horrified that their comfortable neighborhood is transforming into a small ghetto with foreign culture, loud music, and unfamiliar customs. They turn to a local criminal for bans, deportations, and a border wall. On the other side – liberals who welcome everyone in, completely ignoring the dissatisfaction of taxpayers funding lavish social events. And we, libertarians, stand in the middle, picking up rotten tomatoes from both sides. Because we advocate for freedom of movement (borders are evil), but oppose the state forcing its neighbors upon us.

Why do we all argue over migration? The “newcomer” problem only exists where there’s “public space”—that is, no man’s land. Streets, parks, and squares in ordinary cities belong to the government. Consequently, officials decide who can use them, disregarding public comfort unless it threatens their position. Ordinary people become frustrated because they cannot simply refuse entry to someone into their yard. Their only recourse is to beg Leviathan to institute visas and close the country’s borders. This is like amputating a limb to cure a blister—foolish, cruel, and ineffectual.

How do we address this issue? The answer, as always, lies in private property – specifically, gated communities (“gated communities”). Imagine: you don’t live in “City N,” but within a closed village. You have a contract. The contract outlines the rules. You and your neighbors are shareholders of the district. You hire security guards. And miraculously, you control who enters your territory yourselves! You don’t need the state to deploy machine gunners at national borders. A polite gatekeeper at your village entrance is sufficient.

This is termed discrimination—a profoundly disturbing word. However, within libertarianism, private discrimination (choosing whom to associate with and not) is a fundamental right of ownership. Let’s examine some global practices similar to this.

In the United States, it’s a classic example. Consider Florida or California. Vast territories governed by HOAs (homeowners associations). These are essentially miniature states based on contracts. In locales like The Villages (Florida), crime rates approach zero. There are no “random” individuals. Simultaneously, nobody prohibits hiring immigrant gardeners. They simply come to work; they do not impose their orders onto the playground. It’s a symbiosis: the labor market functions, and the cultural code of residents is protected by a fence rather than federal law.

Alternatively, consider Brazil. In São Paulo, there’s the Alphaville district. It’s literally a city within a city. It boasts its own schools, offices, and roads. Enveloping it are high levels of street crime, whereas inside, everything is calm and quiet. Residents of this area do not demand to close Brazilian borders; instead, they restrict access to their neighborhood. This proves remarkably effective!

And what about in Russia? Even here, a kind of impromptu Ancapistan for the rich already exists. Look at the Moscow suburbs – cottage developments like “Millennium Park,” “Agalarov Estate,” or simpler options. This is the realization of a libertarian dream in miniature (with the caveat of Russian realities, of course).

How is the “migration issue” resolved in such places? Entry is only by passes, so no “undesirable element” can just come and sit on a bench. At the same time, labor migration is welcomed. Residents happily hire migrants for construction, cleaning, and lawn care. But they are not free from responsibility. If the neighbor’s worker starts to get rowdy, the administration of the settlement fines him, and the worker is expelled by a security firm (ЧОП). Fast, without courts or investigations, purely according to the terms of the residence agreement.

And notice: residents of these settlements are completely indifferent to things like the introduction of new migration policy for 2026-2030 with biometrics and other means of tracking migrants. They have their own rules that work better. They’ve created a safe environment without the need to jail someone for not having a passport!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why human rights papers aren’t working anymore and how to make them respected again

Recently, Maxim Kats released a video about Davos and the sunset of the “long world.” And you know, there he voiced a thought that makes any normal person (and especially a libertarian) start to feel their hair stand on end. Of course, Maxim isn’t our ally by virtue of his political views, but he still knows how to effectively dissect current problems, so we’ll be considering his reasoning nonetheless. Because he rightly observes: what we call “human rights” – it’s essentially a system error, an anomaly.

His video begins with pointing out that war has long since ceased being just a slaughter between soldiers—scientific and technological progress has reached the point where it’s possible to erase entire cities from the face of the Earth. The idea that humanity could simply self-destruct as a result of another war has stopped being fantastic and has taken on the form of a real risk. Political elites who had experienced World War II realized: we won’t drag out another round. The response was the creation of so-called “international law” and the concept of “human rights,” simply to avoid dying. It was, essentially, a global non-aggression pact signed with a trembling hand at one’s temple.

Of course, international law is largely just a “fiction,” but to some extent states are still willing to play by the established rules and observe restrictions, so this fiction is quite useful. Politicians, naturally, don’t care about the lives of ordinary people and humanitarian ideals, but they are afraid for their own skins anyway, so they won’t go completely overboard. At least that’s how it worked until recently…

But what changed? To power came a generation of politicians who hadn’t personally witnessed disasters or felt the threat of war themselves. They no longer fear mutual guaranteed destruction (MAD) and other scenarios of “deterrence doctrine” so much. For them, all this is just an abstraction from historical textbooks. And therefore, their motivation to observe the “fiction” agreed upon by previous generations of politicians has decreased significantly. As a result, the world once again faces a state of war between everyone and everyone.

Однако несмотря на эти рассуждения, всё же может оставаться вопрос того, насколько реальной является угроза самоуничтожения человечества с технической точки зрения. Кто-то сразу подумает о ядерных боеголовках, но их не так уж много и находятся они в руках очень ограниченного числа лиц (хотя и они могут отбросить человечество на многие десятилетия назад). Впрочем, сейчас технологии зашли ещё дальше. Например, в ближайшем десятилетии мы вполне можем ожидать появление массовых, простых и очень дешёвых в производстве боевых дронов, которые будут иметь автономное управление на основе ИИ и смогут поражать любых «неугодных» людей, включая политиков, используя распознавание лиц, а глушение сигнала окажется неэффективным из-за отсутствия канала связи с оператором. Ещё одна угроза – создание смертоносных и очень заразных искусственных патогенов с целью применения в качестве биологического оружия массового поражения. Биотехнологии уже сейчас довольно продвинуты и дешёвы, чтобы такое было достижимым даже для небольших групп людей, преследующих насильственные политические цели.

В таких условиях в мейнстримовую повестку не просто вернётся значимость универсальных прав человека, гуманизма и идей о недопустимости насилия, а перестанут быть маргинальными и более радикальные способы предотвращения глобальной катастрофы. Идеи наподобие усиления механизма ингибирования насилия и даже морального улучшения людей с помощью биомедицинских технологий (биоусиление морали) уже не будут восприниматься как что-то невозможное или нежелательное для реальной жизни. Развитие этого направления становится необходимостью для долгосрочного искоренения насильственных угроз как в личной, так и общественной жизни. Иначе, как отмечают исследователи, нас ждёт либо глобальный тоталитаризм с круглосуточной слежкой за каждым, либо вовсе уничтожение цивилизации и даже всего человечества.


Не ИИ – пост написан людьми!

How to safely cross the border for a person with “incorrect” views from the state’s point of view

The crossing of a state’s border with a repressive regime is not just about buying tickets and collecting the necessary things for life in a suitcase. For those who might have once spoken out against its policies, retained unfavorable materials, or, even more so, engaged in active opposition activities directed at a stationary gangster – it’s primarily a conversation about digital footprints. Phones, laptops, flash drives – all of this is a source of risk. Therefore, we should consider a number of practical recommendations that will help reduce vulnerability and maintain safety for ourselves and others.

The main rule is not to take anything superfluous across the border. Especially if there are data on devices related to any activism or criticism of authorities. Ideally – don’t take your primary phone and storage media with you where this information was stored. Even “remote” files can often be recovered, especially with the resources available to the FSB (or intelligence agencies of other countries). In serious risks, it is better to pre-transfer data to a protected cloud storage, and format and discard/sell the devices where they were stored. This is particularly important for people who were in an area of heightened attention or engaged in serious activism.

Before traveling, you should seriously prepare. Collect important contacts, documents, photos, backup password copies, crypto wallet files, and other critical data. Pack them into an encrypted archive (e.g., using 7-Zip) or create a file container (e.g., via VeraCrypt) for further upload to the cloud. Use a long and unique password that, at the same time, should differ from your cloud password by at least several characters. It is critically important to come up with a good association for this password so you don’t forget it even in a stressful situation.

After creating the archive, upload it to several independent cloud storage services. When doing this, use accounts that are not linked to your activism or your real identity. Also, be sure to download and verify that the archive opens, as you certainly don’t want to lose everything due to some unforeseen technical error. Make sure you accurately remember the passwords for the container and the clouds. Some people also prefer to use paid and more private services, such as Proton (of course, with a new account created specifically for this purpose). At the same time, it is safe to upload your data only to cloud storage in hostile jurisdictions for your government authorities. For citizens of Russia this is almost all of Europe and America, you can use Google Drive, although we recommend paid protected services like Proton Drive, Filen, Sync, MEGA, Internxt, NordLocker. Pay exclusively with cryptocurrency, preferably Monero (XMR) or Bitcoin via a mixer.

The ideal strategy is to cross the border with a “clean” device, on which there are no unnecessary apps installed, no sensitive correspondence, and accounts of social networks you want to hide have never been logged into. The device should also never have had SIM cards inserted that were used in undesirable activities (the security services can easily detect this simply by knowing the IMEI of the device, which will shine together with all the phone numbers used on it in operator databases). Of course, it is desirable to have some old activity on the device so that excessive cleanliness does not also arouse suspicion. However, even with such, you can say that the old device was simply stolen, lost or broken, and therefore had to be replaced.

Intelligence agencies have the resources to carefully analyze your devices and media, so digital hygiene is simply a necessity for survival. Preparatory work before crossing the border gives you control over the situation and peace of mind, which means a lower risk of suspicion from security forces. And this, of course, will ensure the safety of you and those with whom you have business dealings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Does Faktum care about your feelings? Tell it to the conservatives!

You’ve probably heard conservatives trot out the same mantra: “We are the party of logic and reason, while liberals are snowflakes living on emotions.” It sounds so pretty, like a slogan on a t-shirt. But then came this study published in PLOS One in January 2026, and let’s just say it slightly spoils their jam. Scientists decided to check how people actually seek evidence before forming an opinion. Not how they twist facts when they’ve already made up their minds, but exactly the process of seeking truth.

What was the essence of the experiment? They took 583 people and gave them a task: assess the effectiveness of the cash bail reform. The situation is classic: there are 100 cities with reform and 200 without. The task – to understand if crime rates have decreased. Participants were given a “data bank.” You could look at dry statistics (where crime increased, where it decreased, compare groups) or read the opinions of “experts” and party bosses (from Democrats to Republicans and NRA).

And that’s when things got interesting. It turned out that liberals (and people with high cognitive reflection) behaved like tedious accountants. They dove into the statistics, gathered a complete picture: they compared cities “with reform” and “without,” looked at growth and decline. That is, they used a scientific approach: need a control group, need a sample, need all 4 pieces of the puzzle.

What were conservatives doing in the meantime? They more often relied on “intuition” and what are called “categorical proofs.” Simply put, they plucked out one fact. For example: “In City X, they implemented reform, and crime increased! Aha, you’ve been caught!” The fact that in a neighboring city without reform it grew even stronger bothered them little. Context? Control group? That’s for boffers! But worse still – conservatives were much more eager to see what “authorities” thought about it (i.e., their favorite party or organization).

Why should this bother us, libertarians? Because it’s a diagnosis. We often laugh at left-liberals for their economic illiteracy (and rightly so), but right-wing conservatives suffer from a different disease – intellectual laziness, blind faith in authorities and a penchant for the boss’s shoes. Instead of calculating figures themselves, a conservative asks: “What does Trump/The Republican Party/The Pope think about it?” This, naturally, is not individualism, but collectivism, simply colored in another shade.

Firstly, their thinking is based on intuition instead of data. “I just have a gut feeling about this being bad.” A gut feeling is a terrible advisor when it comes to complex social policy. If you make decisions based on one bright example, ignoring overall statistics, then you’re an easy target for populists. Secondly, they suffer from a lack of willingness to think. The study showed a direct correlation: the lower your ability at analytical thinking (cognitive reflection), the higher the probability that you will simply confirm your prejudices with the first convenient fact.

The result: those who shout the loudest about “reality” and “facts” are often actually relying on feelings and opinions of authorities. Liberals may be wrong in their moral conclusions or propose monstrous methods for solving problems (take and divide), but, as this study shows, at the stage of collecting data they at least try to look at the whole table.

For us libertarians, this is a good lesson. It’s not enough just to hate the state. You need to work with information better than opponents do. If your method of analysis is “to look at one scary headline and listen to your favorite blogger,” then you are definitely not a fighter for freedom—you’re just an NPC (non-player character) with a different skin, and it doesn’t matter what color it is, it won’t change anything.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why Psychopaths Are Not Needed by the Market

In popular culture (and in some business publications) for years an image of the “business shark” has been cultivated – a cold, calculating cynic in an expensive suit who steps on people’s heads, breaks rules, but brings super profits to shareholders. Sort of like Gordon Gecko or Patrick Bateman. Of course, many libertarians (and we among them) value rationality and the ability to disconnect unnecessary emotions when it comes to figures. But there is a fine line between rationality and pathology. And a new meta-study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, clearly highlights this line.

What is it about? Psychologists Lenke Roth and Ute-Kristine Klecke analyzed data from almost 50,000 people. Their results knock the Hollywood myth flat: psychopathic traits lead to terrible work performance! We’ve been used to thinking that a psychopath is such a brilliant manipulator who outsmarted everyone. In reality, statistics show something different.

Firstly, individuals with psychopathic traits simply have low productivity; they work worse than others. They also provide no help to colleagues. In a healthy private company, success is the sum of efforts. A psychopath won’t lend a shoulder, even if it depends on the fate of the project. Moreover, such people are prone to counterproductive behavior, which is the most interesting thing. Sabotage, bullying, theft, delaying deadlines – this is about them. From the perspective of a free market, an employee concludes a contract: time and skills in exchange for money. A psychopath de facto violates this contract. Instead of creating value, he engages in destroying the company’s social capital.

Individuals with so-called secondary psychopathy also “stood out” – they are impulsive, hostile, and unable to control their emotions. They are delayed-action bombs that explode the office from within.

What should employers do? Your business is your private property. You have full rights (and even an obligation before your wallet) to filter those you allow on your doorstep. Don’t be fooled by charisma and ostentatious self-confidence during interviews. HR screening, personality tests, and thorough reference checks are not bureaucracy but protection of your investments. One such “wolf from Wall Street” can scare half your productive department (high employee turnover is a typical result of psychopathic personalities among managers), and you’ll spend years clearing up the losses from a toxic atmosphere.

And now, seriously – if, reading the description of psychopathic traits (the absence of empathy and guilt for harming people, manipulative behavior, impulsivity), you suddenly recognized yourself… then there are news for you. You aren’t an “alpha-predator.” You are an inefficient economic agent. The market harshly punishes inadequacy. Your inability to fit into cooperation and work towards results makes you poorer in the long term. Being toxic is economically disadvantageous.

Libertarianism is built on the principle of non-aggression and voluntary collaboration. Psychopathy often pushes people to violate both. As long as you don’t initiate violence, no one should force you into treatment – your body, your business. But rational egoism suggests: if your “hardware” malfunctions and prevents you from earning, maybe it’s time to take some medication and fix the system? Consent to therapy is not weakness, but an investment in your human capital. Psychopathic individuals should think about this before they simply stop hiring them even as pizza delivery guys. Because the further along we go, the more widespread understanding will become that a psychopath is not a profitable employee, but a risk and source of damage.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Science is a method, not a publication in a journal, or why it’s more important to try than to publish

In the comments on our posts, a discussion periodically flares up that deserves its own post. Frankly, we can even thank the skeptic “Sperry UNIVAC,” who constantly comments on our publications, for highlighting the problem so vividly. A classic conflict between two worldviews – institutional and free (or, as you might put it, hacker –) has emerged. The core of the complaint is simple and timeless: “Where’s your notarized printout? Where’s the publication in a peer-reviewed journal? If there’s no article, then there’s no science, and you’re just nobody.”

Let’s take a deep breath and break this down without aggression, from the perspective of common sense and freedom. There’s a dangerous misconception that science only happens when serious guys in white coats gather in an office, write complicated text, send it to other guys, and they put a “APPROVED” stamp on it. However, science is a method, a way of knowing the world through proposing and testing hypotheses. If I mix two chemicals in my garage and get a new molecule, that molecule will exist objectively. It doesn’t care whether I have a diploma, whether an ethics committee approved it, or if respected professor gave it a like. Reality doesn’t require bureaucratic validation.

Appealing to authority is not an argument! Our opponent writes: “I know biologists, I can ask them.” But the history of science is a graveyard of authoritative opinions that shattered against the enthusiasm of practitioners. The Wright brothers didn’t publish preprints before their flight. They fixed bicycles. And the “serious scientists” of that time wrote treatises about the impossibility of heavier-than-air flying machines. Steve Wozniak assembled the first Apple in a garage, not at IBM’s laboratory. If they had waited for review by “equal scholars,” we’d still be riding horses and doing calculations on abacuses.

We, libertarians, believe in spontaneous order and decentralization. We believe that a monopoly on truth is the most harmful of all monopolies. Modern academic science is in deep crisis. Firstly, it’s a reproducibility crisis – countless “peer-reviewed” articles cannot be replicated. Secondly, the influence of politics and grants – scientists often research what they are paid for, not what needs to be researched. Finally, gatekeeping – the system is structured to weed out “outsiders,” even if they have breakthrough ideas.

As for our project, the search for drugs to enhance the mechanism of violence inhibition isn’t being done for a line in a resume or an impact factor (citation index), but rather to solve a problem. Although we don’t have a “body” in the form of an article in Nature (although the experiments we’ve conducted on animals essentially repeat experiments from such articles), we have data, experiments, openness to discussion about substance, not form, and a proposal for anyone to verify what we say – all instructions are available on our website.

Of course, the skeptic is right in one thing: methodology matters. You can’t just drink a smoothie and say “I beat aging.” There needs to be control, a sample, honesty – things we strive for. But demanding that enthusiasts fully comply with the bureaucratic rituals of a large academy is like demanding that an indie game developer follow Ubisoft’s corporate standards.

We live in the age of Open Source. Linus Torvalds released Linux not into a scientific journal, but into a mailing list. And this changed the world. Biocachers today are computer hackers from the 80s. They may call them freaks and marginals. But it’s often in “garages” that what will become mainstream is born. We respect academic science, but we don’t make it an idol. If you value a “game” (an article, a review, a status) – go to the university library. If you value “riding” (searching, trying, failing and finding) – welcome to the biocachers. And better argue about data, dosages, receptors, rather than measuring yourself by degrees and connections.

P.S. Our critic also mentioned Perelman, however the irony is that Grigory Jakovlevich just threw the whole academic community into hell with his rules, prizes, and rituals, publishing a proof simply on the internet. So thanks for the example, he’s playing for us!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“The Game Is Over” for Tyranny: Science Confirms the Inevitable Drift to Freedom

We often hear complaints about how the world is plunging into a chasm, the state is tightening its screws, and people are only dreaming of a strong hand. However, the current situation is not as bleak as it’s commonly perceived, and libertarians have reason to be pleased – recent research by psychologists and sociologists says otherwise. If you look at the long term, authoritarianism (both left and right) simply has no evolutionary chances. Therefore, let’s examine two fascinating scientific papers that explain why the “market of ideas” will inevitably resolve in favor of freedom.

The first Swedish study uncovered a mechanism that works as a one-way valve of history. It revealed that the language of freedom is universal. Arguments based on care (do no harm) and justice (honesty, one rule for all) work with everyone. Everyone is willing to change their mind if you can prove that prohibitions or high taxes are unfair or harmful to people. But the language of coercion is more localized. Arguments based on loyalty, authority, and sacredness (“this is what our ancestors bequeathed us,” “respect power,” “this is for the greater good”), only work with conservatives, while those with more liberal views simply brush this noise aside.

What does this mean for us? In public debates, authoritarian conservatives have a broken “transmitter.” They can only persuade their own supporters. But arguments for freedom of personality – based on not interfering with other people’s lives – are able to attract people from both camps. Over time, this creates a “progressive drift.” Society is slowly but surely moving towards reducing violence and recognizing the rights of individuals simply because these arguments are understandable to everyone, while arguments against (based on tradition or power) cease to work for new generations.

The second study from Portugal dug even deeper. Scientists didn’t just look at what values people have, but how they prioritize when making choices. It turned out that the key difference is not that conservatives are “evil” and liberals are “good.” The difference lies in compromises: the progressive part of society places the well-being of the individual above the interests of the group, while the conservative part is willing to sacrifice the individual for preserving the group, hierarchy, and traditions.

But the most encouraging thing researchers found within the right-wing camp. It turns out that the right are far from monolithic. There are both “high moralists” – those very religious fanatics and shoe-lovers with skyrocketing loyalty and obedience to authority, but also “low moralists” – people who vote for the right (usually for economic reasons) but don’t give a damn about “creeps,” authority, and traditions. And this is precisely the split that we, libertarians, should be exploiting. “Secular conservatives,” who don’t need a Tsar but just want them to butt out, are good allies. And the old conservative model, which held up on authority, religion, and obedience, is only losing its base.

In a Portuguese study there’s another amusing detail – scientists frankly admitted: “We forgot to include the freedom scale in the study.” They measured care, justice, loyalty, purity… but forgot about Liberty. That’s where the treasure is buried! Libertarianism is unique because we take a universal basis (the principle of non-aggression (NAP) = care/justice), which is understandable to everyone, and discard all the rubbish about “duty to one’s homeland” and “sacrosanctness of power.”

Why is the future for libertarians?! If you put these two pieces together, the picture becomes clear. The old world, built on arguments like “you must, because I’m the boss” or “that’s how it’s done,” is slowly dying. This language simply stops being perceived by people. Conversely, the language of personal rights, honesty, and minimizing harm – this is the language of the future.

Voluntary, Bitarch

How to Search and Check Drugs for Increasing Inhibitor of Violence?

Кто-то может задаваться вопросом, как находить препараты, эффективные для усиления ингибитора насилия, наподобие продвигаемых на наших ресурсах? Да и как уже известные препараты можно было бы легко перепроверить? Если коротко – всё делается простым перебором «кандидатов», обнаруженных в различных исследованиях и статьях, каждый из которых проверяется на животных. И организовать опыты может практически любой, у кого есть достаточно свободного места в доме/квартире/даче. Простейший вариант парадигмы резидента-нарушителя (стандартного опыта на агрессию) является лёгким в проведении, а если всё делать самостоятельно, финансовые расходы будут минимальными.

Для начала необходимо приобрести в зоомагазине или взять у кого-то чётное количество мелких грызунов (крыс или хомяков, обязательно всех самцов). Все особи разделяются на две группы: «резидентов» и «гостей» («нарушителей»). «Резиденты» всегда рассаживаются по отдельным клеткам, «гости» – хомяки тоже по отдельным клеткам, а вот крыс стоит держать по несколько особей. Клетки размещаются подальше друг от друга, желательно в разных комнатах.

«Резиденты» должны побыть в изоляции минимум неделю, а лучше две. После проверяем «резидентов», помещая в клетку с ними «гостя» на 5 минут, записываем всё на видео и пересматриваем. Если нападения занимают не менее 10% длительности опыта или настолько интенсивны, что опыт пришлось прервать, значит «резидент» пригоден. Иногда необходимо провести несколько таких опытов с разницей не менее 3 дня (при этом хомяков разделяем по конкретным парам, а в случае крыс проводим ротацию «гостей»), но если какие-то «резиденты» так и не становятся агрессивными, они исключаются из опытов и отпускаются.

В совсем упрощённом варианте можно начать с дозировок препаратов как человеческая, делённая на 200 для крыс и на 1000 для хомяков. Впрочем, лучше будет для конкретного препарата поискать в сети любые опыты (даже не связанные с агрессией) и отталкиваться от дозировки, предлагаемой там. Препарат можно, например, размешать в воде и, держа особь одной рукой, ввести в пасть шприцом без иглы другой рукой. Также можно попробовать подмешать препарат в пищу, но тогда придётся проконтролировать, чтобы вся дозировка была принята.

В случае крыс пригодным «резидентам» за час до опыта даём принять препарат. Что касается хомяков – даём препарат и «резиденту», и «гостю», поскольку в их случае «гость» тоже может быть агрессивным. Также при необходимости можно проводить ежедневный приём препарата в течение какого-то периода, сделав последний приём тоже за час до опыта. После проведения опыта просматриваем запись. Если уровень нападений сильно снизился или они вообще прекратились, значит препарат работает! При отсутствии результата можно пробовать повышать дозировки, при этом контролируя, чтобы не снижалась активность особей в целом (так мы подтвердим, что эффект именно антиагрессивный, а не седативный).

After each experience with medications, it is advisable to isolate subjects for at least one week and conduct a control experiment to determine the baseline aggression, as some medications can have a very long-lasting effect. It is recommended to store medications separately from the room with “residents” in airtight containers, since the evaporation of some medications can reduce the aggressiveness of animals.

If testing an inhaled medication (e.g., essential oils), transfer the cage with the “resident” to an isolated room without ventilation, spray or vaporize a larger amount of the drug there to allow them to strongly smell its strong scent (e.g., using an aroma lamp for essential oils), let the “resident” inhale the vapors for an hour and conduct the experiment. Make sure that the vapors do not get into the room where other “residents” are kept.

Therefore, it is desirable to test any medications so that before using them on aggressive representatives of our species, you suddenly don’t find out that you were sold some kind of fake, and you can personally verify that enhancing a violence inhibitor is a real thing!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Salvador: From Prison of Gangs to Prison of the State

Perhaps you have heard about a man such as Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador. He looks cool: he rolled Bitcoin into the country, reduced crime almost to zero, destroyed the gangs. Sounds like success, right? But there is one major problem: in the process, he essentially transformed the entire country into one enormous prison.

Briefly: since March 2022, a “state of emergency” has been in effect in El Salvador. Sounds formal? Well, imagine that the police can arrest you right on the street simply for appearing suspicious. And this is not an exaggeration. Over two years of such a regime, more than 85 thousand people have been arrested. That’s 1% of the entire population. Imagine, one in every hundred families has lost someone close to them behind bars. Justice? Let’s forget about it! Courts take place in groups of 500 people, where you are given a sentence of 15-20 years in just 5 minutes. Guilty or not, nobody really figures it out. Orwell is smoking on the sidelines.

Incidentally, you can also end up in this “wonderful” statistics for criticizing the regime. Journalists and human rights activists regularly face threats, phone hacking through the Pegasus spy program (a greeting to Israeli intelligence services) and even have to flee the country because they don’t want to spend 15 years in jail for a report about a gang.

Instead of fighting violence like in developed countries (strengthening courts, working on education, creating jobs) or taking an innovative technological path (in the direction of treating violent criminals with means to strengthen the mechanism of inhibiting violence), Bukele chose the shortest way – mass repression and force suppressing all who impede him. Crime has decreased, yes. But now all of El Salvador is one huge zone of fear, where criminals have been replaced by the military and police.

Incidentally, let’s remember old Benjamin Franklin: “Those who sacrifice liberty for temporary security do not deserve either one.” In El Salvador, they sacrificed literally everything for an illusory stability. What comes next? Today the troops come for gangs, tomorrow they will come for the opposition, and after tomorrow – for you if you happen to become inconvenient.

History has already shown us time and again: a state, once it feels limitless power, never voluntarily relinquishes it. Of course, we all want security and order. But the price shouldn’t be equal to destroying civil liberties and turning society into a herd of frightened sheep. And you know what’s the worst thing? Bukele destroyed practically all independent institutions under the guise of fighting the Bukele gangs. Courts? Now completely controlled by the president. Parliament? It stamps out any laws, even the most absurd ones. Freedom of speech? Forget about it. Any mention of gangs or criticism of the government now can end with charges of “supporting terrorism.” And don’t forget about the “foreign agent” law, which El Salvador copied from Russia and Nicaragua. NGOs and independent media are required to pay huge taxes if they receive money from abroad. All in order to drown out uncomfortable voices and destroy any dissent.

Speaking of such “freedom” of business: under Bukele, police can easily confiscate your phone, money or car if you don’t please them. And there are no courts – because the judicial system simply stamps out decisions that suit the president. But Bitcoin is legal! True, who will buy it if your money can vanish without a trace? And this will certainly happen if you buy crypto on legitimate exchanges with KYC, revealing your identity and thus becoming vulnerable to raids by security forces who already know where to come.

Bukele assures us that he’s protecting people from bandits, but instead he simply replaced criminal lawlessness with the state. Suppressing rights and freedoms, power only sows new seeds of violence and resentment, which inevitably will give their poisonous fruits in the future. Therefore, remember that a state machine, once it tastes absolute power, usually turns into a monster that devours its own citizens, even the most loyal ones. And El Salvador is a striking example of this.

Voluntarist, Bitarch