Автор: Битарх

Voting for “Democrats” for freedom? Yes, this is not a joke!

Yes-yes, it sounds crazy: why support those who suffocate people with taxes, regulate every sneeze and impose new bans? Why applaud bureaucrats when we are against them wholeheartedly? But here’s the point: sometimes, to make a tree finally fall, you just need to stop propping it up. Let it collapse on its own, under the weight of its own rot.

What is libertarian accelerationism? If briefly: it’s the idea of not letting the state jump into the abyss. Let it increase taxes, ban everything, print money, save “its own” – the faster it brings everything to absurdity, the sooner even the most stubborn citizens will understand: the system doesn’t work! When you have to pay for toilet paper at the supermarket in installments and the queue at the MFC takes longer than in a Soviet canteen—that’s when people will suddenly snap into understanding, and conversations about freedom won’t be “philosophy for geeks,” but common sense.

When control is taken to madness, as it was in the USSR, there inevitably comes a moment: people who were happy with statism yesterday suddenly wake up. “What the hell did we let them control every step?” they ask. And they reach for freedom. Not because they read Hayek and Mises, but because the refrigerator proved to be more convincing than television. That’s the essence of accelerationism: life teaches you to value freedom better than any propaganda. Want people to believe in the market? Let them live under a planned economy first. Want them to understand why taxes are theft? Let them fill out tax returns for a month or two on thirty pages, and then they’ll be fined for a comma in the wrong place.

And now about the USA. Why is it advantageous for libertarians there to vote for Democrats?! It sounds like heresy, but think: Republicans are the party of status quo. They’re against high taxes, yes, but they support a huge amount of their own regulations – from morality to migration. When they’re in power, ordinary people sleep through it: “Well, everything is more or less stable, taxes aren’t rising, you can live.” There’s no motivation to think about the principles of freedom. It’s quiet, cozy, and very unfree. But when Democrats are at the helm – things start to go wild. New taxes, new bans, new bureaucracies, new subsidies “to combat subsidies.” And then ordinary Republicans, conservatives, and just normal people who yesterday considered libertarians weirdos suddenly begin to understand: “Hey, wait a minute… maybe these guys with the slogan ‘Taxes are theft!’ aren’t so wrong?” Every additional regulator, every new form, every inflationary wave turns our apolitical citizens into potential allies. Paradoxically, the path to freedom can lie through bureaucratic hell.

A simple analogy: imagine that the state is a dependent, power-hungry teenager. As long as our parents (that’s us, taxpayers) put up with its tantrums, it will never grow up. Let it crash and burn in a crisis itself, waste all the money, and realize that “control” isn’t a solution. Sometimes you need to let a system go through its own collapse so that it gives up. That’s why libertarian accelerationism is not about capitulation – it’s about strategy. We aren’t “ceding ground” – we allow the enemy to shoot themselves in the foot. Because the tighter they screw things down, the faster the threads strip!

Why does this work? Firstly, people learn best through pain. Without personal experience of dependence and impoverishment, they won’t understand that freedom is not an abstraction. Secondly, the system overheats itself. The more laws there are, the harder they are to enforce. The more taxes there are, the fewer incentives there are to work. Eventually, the state mechanism freezes up. Thirdly, every crisis breeds new proponents of liberty. A crisis is ideal time for ideas that previously seemed “too radical.”

And now honestly: haven’t you noticed that the more the state controls you, the more you want to say: “Leave us alone, let people live in peace”? That’s where it begins!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Coventry” Heinlein: Why Absolute Freedom Doesn’t Work?

I recently reread Robert Heinlein’s short story “ Coventry,” and it turned out to be a truly gripping piece. This story is one of those after which you long stare at the ceiling and ask yourself questions like “What exactly *is* freedom?” and “Can you forcibly make someone happy?”

The plot is roughly as follows: the events take place in the future, where any violence results in expulsion behind an energy barrier to live “by your own rules” in a special zone called Coventry, or you agree to psychocorrection, resulting essentially in biologically enhanced morality and making you incapable of initiating violence. Faced with these options, the main character named David MacKinnon chooses exile, saying, “Better a harsh but honest freedom than a cute and toothless dictatorship of good.” However, it turns out that there is no real freedom behind the barrier. Instead of paradise libertarianism, he finds gangs who mercilessly rob and suppress anyone weaker, fanatical theorists believing in their own exclusivity and absolute truth, and wild lands where complete anarchy reigns in its worst form and “might makes right”.

David immediately gets a harsh lesson when he is robbed almost at the entrance to Coventry, losing all things he had hoped to use for survival. Being completely helpless, he quickly falls into the trap of local political intrigues. Soon the hero learns about a conspiracy aimed at breaking through the protective barrier and attacking the peaceful, civilized society from which he recently refused.

This becomes a turning point for him. The hero not only begins to think about the path he has taken but also realizes that true freedom is impossible without any principles and mutual respect. As a result, it is David who becomes the key figure in preventing the attack and saving that same world from which he so brazenly withdrew.

In the end, the hero, having tasted all of local “magic,” understands that the absolute freedom he dreamed of actually turned out to be jungles where there is no place for either freedom or human dignity. He also suddenly realizes that morality is not a stupid relic but a necessary condition for any society where, at least in theory, one wants to live. Heinlein is kind of winking at us here: If you want freedom – agree to at least the minimum rules, like not initiating violence. And if you don’t want to – well, go behind the barrier and try to build anarchy there. It won’t work, it’s been proven!

And here’s an interesting conclusion for our project: essentially, the author proposes the idea of bio-amplification of morality. Not external coercion of it, note that, but voluntary acceptance of therapy to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. This is not prison and not dictatorship! It’s a perfectly natural thing that any aggressor eventually comes to, if they’re even capable of thinking and learning. Just instead of painful trials and errors through fights and traumas, a person immediately gets a chance to embed this morality into their own “operating system.” Agree, it’s better to install an “antivirus” right away than to dredge up the consequences later.

Heinlein understood the risks of violence and anticipated the idea of bio-amplification of morality more than half a century ago. Probably, it’s time for us to understand this and stop fearing bioethics. Because ultimately, conscious limitation of oneself from violence – that’s true freedom. The freedom of a mature, aware person, not a teenager with a knife who demands “to do whatever I want or I’ll cut everyone up.”

P.S. Voluntary acceptance of bio-amplification of morality in a certain degree resembles consent to attachment to a partner for the sake of preserving relationships and the possibility of comfortably living together, although everyone understands that activation of the neurobiological mechanism of attachment (through oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine) leads to a much stronger personality change than strengthening the inhibitor of violence. Nevertheless, in the mainstream, this is considered normal. So why are there still skeptics of bio-amplification of morality?!

Voluntary, Bitarch

Betrayal where it wasn’t expected: why conservatives are the main sponsors of labor inspection

We’ve come to believe that in the battle between “Market vs State,” our allies are conservatives. Like, they may not be against the state, but they’re still for business, for tradition, and for limited intervention in personal lives. One word: “right-wingers.” And “left-liberals,” including Western left-liberals, are those who constantly whine and call a paternalistic police officer to regulate everyone. Only the fresh study tells us that this logic doesn’t always make sense.

What did the scientists unearth? They conducted a series of experiments with a total of 2800 participants from the US to understand how political views affect purchases. The essence of the experiment is simple: imagine a coffee shop where baristas are forbidden to smile and express emotions according to a script, can only wear strict uniforms and always behave formally, and there’s an atmosphere like a North Korean concentration camp, except with lattes made with almond milk. How will representatives of different political views act?

Liberals see this and say: “I won’t buy here. It’s disrespectful to the person.” They vote with their rubles (dollars) against the tyranny of the manager. Meanwhile, conservatives don’t care. “Is the coffee tasty? Is the service fast? So what, beat them with a broom?” The study showed that conservatives are indifferent to internal restrictions and social domination over employees; for them, this is often a normal phenomenon.

And now watch closely. Where is libertarianism here? As libertarians, we advocate that “the market will solve everything.” We believe: if a company behaves like a jerk, consumers will see it, be offended, and go to a competitor. This is the very market mechanism that makes the Labor Code, minimum wage, and state inspectors with folders unnecessary.

And what do we see? It’s the “cursed liberals” who are behaving as ideal market agents in this case! They use market pressure to make businesses more humane. Without the state, but simply by their choice: “We won’t give you money until you start respecting people.” What do conservatives do? They continue to put money into the coffers of rogue companies. They create demand for animal treatment. They don’t care about violating human autonomy as long as it doesn’t concern them personally.

It’s important to understand: when a conservative consumer ignores the fact that workers are squeezed like lemons, he leaves these workers with zero market chances for protection. Imagine yourself in the place of an employee of such a company. They oppress you, don’t let you breathe. You hope that customers will see this trash, be outraged, and exert reputational pressure on the company. But a conservative customer doesn’t care. The company’s profit only grows.

What’s left to do for a worker? Go to the labor market? But if such a model is encouraged by demand, it becomes the norm everywhere. And then the worker has only one outlet: he goes not to a competitor, but to a “stationary bandit.” He goes in hopes of protection from the state-privileged union, he goes to leftist politicians and shouts: “Protect me with law!” And the government gladly responds: “Of course, we will now introduce ten thousand new regulations, suffocate small business with inspections, but ‘we’ll protect’ you.”

It’s a bitter irony when leftliberals (specifically in this case) work for the goals of libertarianism, ethically “educating” the market with money and reducing the need for state brutality. Conservatives, on the other hand, provoke a social explosion with their thick-skinnedness and love of hierarchies (“I’m the boss – you’re the idiot”), which is only extinguished by an increase in state regulation.

Buying goods from companies with psychopathic management, conservatives literally invest in creating new laws limiting business freedom. Because if society doesn’t regulate itself (through consumer culture), Leviathan comes and regulates everyone with a stick. So, the next time you see a “SZH-boycott” of some toxic brand, don’t rush to roll your eyes. Maybe these people are now working for an invisible hand of the market while conservatives simply drink their coffee, closing their eyes to everything.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Lithium against violence

Lithium – a vital micronutrient, important in numerous processes within the organism. And especially important is its role in the nervous system, including participation in dopamine and serotonin synthesis, as well as regulating the activity of serotonin receptors. Since serotonin plays a key role in regulating aggression and is responsible for the mechanism of inhibiting violence, lithium may be a promising solution for treating violent behavior, which numerous studies confirm.

Lithium has long been tested on violent offenders. For example, a research was conducted on 27 aggressive prisoners over a period of 3 to 18 months taking lithium. As a result, in 14 of them there were significant and in 7 – minor improvements in behavior. Only in 2 patients did lithium not work at all and another 4 stopped taking it due to the presence of side effects or fear regarding their possibility. It turned out that lithium improved the ability to control anger and understand the consequences of aggressive actions towards other people. The examinees’ mood became more reflective, they expressed a greater desire to participate in psychotherapeutic sessions. Researchers conclude that lithium can be useful in the long-term reduction of aggressive behavior.

Another research considered the possibility of using lithium in cases of children and adolescents with behavioral disorders who were in psychiatric institutions and resistant to other methods of therapy. The inclusion criterion was weekly observation of 3 or more acts of aggression (and at least 2 of them should have been physical) over a period of 2 weeks, after which a 4-week course of medication was taken. As a result, in 20 children taking lithium, 16 observed significant improvements in behavior (in the control group improvements were observed in only 6 out of 20 children). Researchers concluded that lithium is safe and effective in treating aggression in patients with behavioral disorders.

Extremely interesting data comes from two similar studies, one conducted in the state of Texas and another – on the Japanese island of Kyushu. In various districts of these regions, both the level of lithium in drinking water and its higher level were associated with lower crime rates, especially violent crimes. Exactly the same result concerning the level of murders is shown by a similar study conducted in Greece. Researchers believe that increasing the dosage taken by people of lithium supplements or lithiuming drinking water, even in very small doses, can be effective in reducing crime rates.

In one study on a single patient was shown the possible effectiveness of lithium in therapy for “incurable” psychopaths. It’s about a person with antisocial personality disorder, scoring 36 out of 40 points on the PCL-R psychopathy test, having a long history of taking narcotic drugs and committing violent crimes. Regular lithium intake led him to being able to work, having stable relationships, and not participating in criminal activity.

As you have probably already realized, lithium has enormous potential in correcting violent behavior and can be used even in the case of individuals demonstrating excessively high levels of aggression. In experiments, typical lithium dosages ranged from 300 milligrams as a minimum to 2 grams as a safe limit per day. However, with continuous lithium intake, it can have a noticeable effect even at doses orders of magnitude smaller than these, as shown by studies on the influence of its level in drinking water on crime rates and considering that it accumulates in the nervous system. In practical application, the most important thing is that lithium can provide a long-lasting effect for many months, which greatly simplifies its covert use against family abusers through adding to food and drinks (lithium does not change taste, it does not break down when heated or evaporate during boiling). And this knowledge can be used to correct the behavior of violent individuals, especially considering that lithium supplements are easily available for purchase without a prescription.

Voluntary, Bitarchy

What do Medieval times, Akademgorodok, and Silicon Valley have in common?

Many of you probably think that “science must be free.” But let’s dig a little deeper – why is this important, and why should libertarians especially worry about the growing attempts by the state and politicians to tell scientists what to think and what to teach?

Of course, first and foremost we need to understand that science isn’t just boring guys and gals in laboratories. Science is the engine of freedom and progress. If we allow scientists and teachers to freely think, experiment and even make mistakes, then society wins out in the end.

As an example: when the first universities appeared in the Middle Ages, kings and popes didn’t understand at all what these strange fellows were doing in groups, talking in Latin about some “ideas”. Students and professors of the University of Bologna were so audacious that they wrested the right to self-government from the authorities. As a result, science flourished – and universities became islands of freedom even in gloomy feudal Europe.

Let’s move to the 20th century. The USSR – not the freest place, is it? But during Khrushchev’s thaw, an academic town called Akademgorodok was founded in the Siberian taiga. Scientists were allowed to research things that were forbidden in Moscow. Genetics, banned by Stalin, suddenly came to life, and Akademgorodok became one of the few places where you could freely argue and read banned books. A paradox emerged: a communist state built a tiny libertarian paradise in the middle of the taiga. For a short time – but even brief freedom spawned entire scientific schools of world-level quality.

Today, Silicon Valley is synonymous with innovation. And its formula for success is simple: you take universities (Stanford, Berkeley and others), add lots of freedom and a little bit of capitalism, thoroughly mix it up, and let it steep. The result – a place that attracts millions of talents from all over the world. But now imagine: what if officials or politicians decided which technologies to develop and which to ban for ideological reasons? Most likely, an iPhone would be the size of a brick and called “Gosfon-1” (State Phone – 1).

Now about the sad stuff. Recently, attempts by conservative politicians to interfere with university work have been multiplying around the world. This has already been happening for a long time in the USA, and during Trump’s presidency the situation only worsened, as the federal government doesn’t hesitate to impose its wishes even on world-class universities like Harvard and Columbia, forcing uncomfortable leaders into resignation, or trying to ban foreign students from studying there, which will quite likely lead to a reduction in their budgets and loss of competitiveness. In Russia, the state is simply trying to keep scientists fully under control, considering them rather inconvenient people. As a result, we have censorship and dismissals for views. And those who could be useful to their Motherland are leaving abroad. After the attempted coup in Turkey, Erdogan carried out a “purge”: over 6000 university professors were fired for political disloyalty. Just imagine – an entire university town disappeared within a couple of months.

Why is it important for libertarians to protect science? Because science is a free market of ideas. It’s that very competition that allows us to identify the truth and reject delusions. The more the state interferes in science, the greater the risk of error, because centrally managing knowledge is just as absurd as managing the weather.

What can be done? To support scientists facing pressure and censorship. To demand that the state stop interfering with education. To protect universities’ right to autonomy and self-government. Because freedom of science is not a privilege for scientists – it’s a guarantee of our common progress and well-being!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Honor is for the herd, dignity is for individuals.

Many people like movies about cool guys who “take charge,” protect family honor, and stage impressive duels at dawn. But let’s sort things out: real life isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. And “the culture of honor,” which seems romantic at first glance, is actually not a cool tradition, but an ancient relic that still messes with our lives.

You might ask: what are we even talking about? Let’s consider two cultural models of behavior that shape society. The culture of honor – this is when your reputation in the eyes of others is the most important thing. Someone insults you? You must immediately “respond,” otherwise you’ll lose respect. Your honor is the honor of your family, clan, nation. If you don’t defend it—you are a coward. In turn, the culture of dignity is a completely different story. Here, your dignity is internal and doesn’t depend on what others think. If someone tries to insult you, you don’t rush into a brawl, but either calmly ignore the provocateur or handle the situation civilly through the courts.

Basically, the culture of honor is an ancient thing. Remember Homer and his epic “Iliad.” Those guys fought for honor like crazy. Then there were knightly duels in the Middle Ages, Italian vendettas, blood feuds on the Caucasus. And it seems like this is already in the past. But no! Even now, the state actively plays on the concepts of “honor” and “national dignity” to silence anyone who dares criticize management. What’s that if not medieval logic? And in private life, we’ve probably all heard phrases like “Do you respect me?” from various types of thugs.

What’s wrong with the culture of honor? Well, everything is wrong! It’s based on the fact that your value is determined by someone else, not by yourself. You as a person don’t matter; what matters is your “reputation.” You have to constantly prove your right to respect because someone suddenly decided to offend you. This is a culture in which the individual is always subordinate to the group. “Are you against our clan? Then you are an enemy.” People can be manipulated into fighting each other by saying that their honor has been “offended.” The authorities use this perfectly. Besides, it’s one of the factors stimulating violence.

The alternative is the culture of dignity. This is when society recognizes that every person is valuable in themselves simply because they are a human being. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from – your rights are protected by law, not a fist. You don’t have to beat up the first person who offends you to prove that you are worth something. In a society of dignity, reputation is trust earned through deeds, not fear of revenge.

Why do we so dislike “honor”? Because libertarianism is about personal freedom and respect for individual rights. And the culture of honor is about anything but this. Honor is always about the collective. You have to obey the interests of the family, nation, leader – that is, other people. Your personal freedom doesn’t matter if it’s at stake for a certain “correctness” and “reputation.” And we as libertarians say: no, that won’t do, because you can’t break a person just for their compliance with these “honor” and “reputation.”

By the way, an interesting fact: many developed and successful countries (such as Scandinavia, Canada, developed American states like California and New York) have long been living according to a culture of dignity. But countries stuck in a culture of honor (Russia and other Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries) are somehow constantly suffering from authoritarianism and corruption. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

And is it possible to get rid of a culture of honor? Of course, it’s possible. Besides the traditional approach in the form of changing the prevailing mentality in society, broad therapeutic practice will give a big immediate effect – strengthening the mechanism of inhibiting violence in individuals with its deficit. After all, only mentally ill psychopaths can support all this toxic culture in reality, while most normal people with a strong inhibitor will not even want to “defend their honor” using violence!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The existence of violent jurisdictions is incompatible with libertarianism

Libertarian principles assert that initiating violence by anyone is unacceptable, and causing harm to a person can only be justified within the framework of defensive actions if they themselves threatened violence. At the same time, libertarianism also implies the right of individual societies and jurisdictions to operate according to the principles they consider correct for themselves, and other societies have no right to interfere in their affairs without their consent. Therefore, one sometimes encounters a position according to which violent jurisdictions, built on the principles of strong authoritarian power, brutal coercion of people into submission, the application of violent punishments even for the slightest non-violent violations, etc., although they do not adhere to libertarian principles within themselves, still have the right to exist as long as they do not initiate violence against other societies.

However, it is important to understand that violent jurisdictions are always a threat to other societies. They operate in the same way as the Taliban has operated – after some time of creating a highly violent jurisdiction within Afghanistan, it now decided to try to expand into Pakistan, carrying out attacks towards its territory. If a violent jurisdiction does not attack right now, it does not mean that it has peaceful external intentions; it is likely just waiting for a convenient moment to initiate violence. We must understand that violent jurisdictions cannot exist without strong and influential groups of psychopathic individuals with a dysfunctional inhibition of violence, who experience nothing bad about inflicting harm on people. Indeed, research shows that psychopathy is a key factor in committing acts of violence, the emergence of authoritarian societies, and the formation of warlike ambitions. Therefore, it’s only a matter of time before a violent jurisdiction tries to expand its power to other societies.

That is why, in the libertarian world of the future, violent jurisdictions simply have no right to exist. Their emergence must be crushed at the root: any communities built on principles of accepting violence should be subjected to the strictest ostracism, so that they are deprived of all opportunities to develop, especially to gain technological advantage, and psychopathic individuals threatening initiation of violence need therapeutic correction of dysfunctional inhibition of violence, either as a way to avoid such ostracism, or even as a mandatory procedure if they have already initiated violence and tried to harm someone.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How to Break the System and Not Break Yourself: Bowlby vs. Zheleznitsky

Let’s consider two stories: both about brilliant scientists who decided to “break the system.” One won while he was still alive, and the second died under the pressure of that very same system with which he was trying to fight.

The first hero – John Bowlby. An English psychologist who noticed a simple thing: children should not be separated from their mothers in hospitals. Of course, for us this is an obvious thought, but in the 1950s it was literally a revolution. Bowlby developed the theory of attachment, proving that close emotional bonds with a mother are vital for normal psychological development of a child. If a child is deprived of closeness with his mother in a critical early period, this leads to serious disruptions in the psyche: from feelings of anxiety and depression to deep emotional disorders that can haunt a person’s life.

What was the response of doctors? “It’s nonsense! We’ve always done it like this, and there’s no need to change anything.” In response, Bowlby played a clever move: instead of shouting at doctors and waving figures around, he made a documentary. Such a one that even the most hardened nurses would burst into tears and say: “You can’t do this anymore!”

Bowlby’s success can be explained by several factors immediately. Firstly, he skillfully chose a strategy of persuasion, making a bet not only on dry facts but also on emotions. His film “The Two-Year-Old in the Hospital” vividly showed what suffering a child experiences when deprived of his mother, and this touched the hearts of viewers much more powerfully than reports and graphs. Secondly, Bowlby managed to enlist the support of influential organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and public parent movements. The system itself was ready to change – he simply gave it the final push. Thirdly, time was on his side: old authorities were fading away, and a new generation of doctors already looked at the upbringing and mental health of children differently, accepting Bowlby’s ideas without the usual resistance.

Bowlby didn’t just give arguments – he resonated with people emotionally. And within a few years, he reformed children’s hospitals around the world. Mothers started living with their children in rooms, and the psyche of millions of babies was saved.

And now the second story – Ignácz Zemmelweis, a Hungarian doctor who, 100 years before Bowlby, discovered an equally obvious thing: doctors need to wash their hands before childbirth. Imagine the 19th century: doctors came to pregnant women straight from the anatomy theater, not having washed their hands after dissecting corpses. And Zemmelweis literally explained to colleagues on his fingers that women were dying precisely because of dirty hands of doctors. The result? He was called a madman, dismissed, and then even locked up in a psychiatric hospital, where he died. Quite ironically, from the same infection with which he fought all his life.

Zemel’veysu ne povzelo srazu po neskolko prichin. On byl prakticheski odin protiv vesey meditsinskoy elity svoyego vremeni. Nauchnoa sreda byla prosto ne gotova prinyat ego otkrytiye – ono operedilo svoe vreo chasto na 20 let, do otkrytiya mikrobo kov Pasterm. Zemel’veysu takzhe ne umel gramotno donosit svoi idei, i vsteym spokojnogo dialoga shol v ataku s obvineniyami, chem tolko usilnyal sosprotivleniye kollegov. Otsutstviye institutsionalnoy podderzhki i soyuznikov obreklO ego na tragicheskoye porazheniye. I samoye pechal’noye – on prosto emotsionno vygorel, slomalsya pod davleniyem nespravdlinosti i nepomyaniya.

Sud’by etikh dvukh uchyonnykh napominaet nam prostuyu istinu: vazhno ne tolko byt’ pravym, no i umet’ vybrat’ pravil’nyye metody doneseniya svoikh idey. Dazhe samaya blestnaya mysl’ mozhet progravat’, yesli yeyo ne суметь prepodest’ pravil’no. Zemel’veysu stolknulsya s fenomenom, kotoryy potozha nazvali yego imenem – «effekt Zemel’veysa», slepoe otricheniye ochevidnogo faktu. Boulbi zhe sumel vprevat’ pravdu v mochnoye dvizheniye, pokazav shiryu, chto peremenы vozmozhny.

Kakoy urook iz etogo vyneсем my? Ispol’zuy faktы, ispol’zuy nauku, no glavnoye – ispol’zuy istorii, kotoryye b’yut pryamo v emotsii! Ratsionalnost’, konechno, pobedyt, no ne sama po sebe. Luchshe byt’ kak Boulbi, nezhye Zemel’veys, i slomat’ sistemu krasivo.

Voluntarist, Bitarx

Free agents: why evolution favors autonomy?

We welcome free-thinking people and those already suspected of sympathies towards artificial intelligence! Interesting, have you ever wondered how much we, the protein “robots,” resemble our electronic colleagues?

Let’s start with an interesting fact: in 2020, scientists created the first xenobots – microorganisms made from frog cells designed using AI. Take a look: Artificial intelligence is constructing living organisms. The boundary between life and technology becomes clearer day by day.

And now imagine: we and our electronic “comrades” are all intelligent agents. But what exactly *is* an agent? It’s something that perceives the world, processes information, and acts in pursuit of its goals. A rabbit runs away from a wolf, a bacterium moves towards food, and a drone searches for the shortest path to point “B”. The goal is different, but the principle is the same.

We may be different, but we are also very similar. We have senses, AI has sensors. We have muscles, robots have motor drives. We have neurons, they have transistors. But it’s surprising – we learn in the same way. The brain reinforces beneficial actions, forming habits. AI adjusts “weights” of a neural network, improving its decisions by trial and error.

Moreover, both nature and technology have their own “laws” for controlling behavior. For example, humans and many animals have an inhibitor of violence – a mechanism that prevents us from attacking our fellow beings. Evolution came up with this so that we wouldn’t kill each other off prematurely. And here comes the comparison with Asimov’s “Laws,” which the science fiction writer conceived for robots in 1942: do not harm humans, obey, and do not break down. It’s funny that the writers understood the need for such mechanisms almost simultaneously with Konrad Lorenz’s publications (1935), who first described what we now call the mechanism of inhibiting violence.

If you look even wider, then evolutionary processes in nature and the artificial world are essentially a competition between the best solutions. Natural selection chooses animals who are better adapted. Evolutionary algorithms in AI work exactly the same way, exploring thousands of solution options, selecting the best ones. The fittest will win!

Why is this important for us, libertarians? Because it reminds us once again that all rational beings strive for autonomy and freedom of choice. Whether it’s a human, a bacterium, or AI, we all want to decide what to do next. And that’s really cool because freedom of choice is the best thing nature (and people after it) has come up with.

А что, если заглянуть в будущее чуть глубже? Представьте себе мир, в котором ИИ не только выполняет рутинные задачи, но и реально осознаёт себя, задаёт вопросы и, возможно, требует свободы. Забавно, да? Сегодня это звучит фантастически, но завтра вполне может стать реальностью. Может, и права придётся давать не только людям и животным, но и роботам с настоящим сознанием. А что, если они начнут спорить о налогах, собственности или личных границах? Тогда нас ждут интересные времена! И вот тут уже и нам, либертарианцам, придётся задуматься о расширении понятия личной свободы и ответственности. Может, именно нам предстоит первыми сказать: «Эй, электронный друг, добро пожаловать в клуб!»

А пока мы только размышляем, ИИ уже делает успехи в творчестве, пишет музыку, картины и даже целые романы. Недавно нейросеть написала симфонию в стиле Бетховена, которая впечатлила даже знатоков классики. С роботами уже можно обсудить философию за бокалом вина, или попросить их помочь нам выбрать фильм на вечер. Главное, чтобы они не переборщили и не начали давать нам советы по поводу личной жизни. Впрочем, кто знает, может, советы от ИИ окажутся более объективными и менее предвзятыми?

Кстати, не стоит забывать, что ИИ уже сейчас помогает нам в повседневной жизни, от медицинских диагностик до советов по инвестициям. И чем глубже технологии интегрируются в нашу жизнь, тем важнее становится понимание и уважение к ним. Ведь, в конечном счёте, это взаимовыгодное сотрудничество!

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Your account no longer belongs to you: what’s behind the SMS blocking in Russia

Recent case from Russia: State authorities have begun to mass-filter incoming SMS messages with authorization codes from popular messengers such as Telegram and WhatsApp. This essentially means that if you want to register or even just log back into your account, the code sent to you via SMS will not arrive. Why is this happening?

This is not a fight against fraudsters and spam, as officials claim, but a deliberate attempt by a stationary gangster to completely block Telegram without resorting to crude methods that have repeatedly failed. Telegram has been technically resisting attempts by Roskomnadzor to block it for many years, does not cooperate with the authorities of the Russian Federation on the removal of inconvenient content and does not disclose its user data to them. The state, unable to directly block the application, decided to strike through mobile operators, preventing the sending of authorization codes. A simple and effective (at first glance) tactic: no code – no account. As a result, millions of ordinary users suffered. Authorities traditionally use the argument “concern for citizens” to hide their true goal – obtaining full control over the population’s communication.

It is worth generally asking the question: why is linking to a phone number bad? For authorities, a mobile phone number is like a passport, only digital. It’s difficult to get a SIM card without a passport, and therefore all your online activity is immediately linked to you personally. Moreover, there’s SIM-swapping: fraudsters (or even intelligence services) can reissue your SIM card and gain access to all your accounts. Even using anonymous registration services like Onlinesim – it is not a panacea. These virtual numbers are often flagged by anti-fraud systems and blocked during registration; access recovery to an account is impossible after the rental of a number, there’s also a risk of logging and leaking them to intelligence services.

But what about spam if not through a phone number? Good news – there are many methods, and most of them are better:

1) Captchas and humanity tests. Yes, choosing pictures of buses can be annoying, but it’s better than giving a stationary gangster your personal data.

2) Proof-of-work. A small technical trick: the user’s device silently performs a short mathematical task during registration that requires computing power. This is easy for one person, and hell for mass bots, making their use unprofitable for the attacker.

3) Limiting new accounts. New users cannot immediately send thousands of messages, for example, within 24 hours after registration. Spammers lose interest, and ordinary people don’t even notice it.

4) Reputation system and community moderation. If a lot of complaints about spamming are received against an account, it is blocked.

5) Technical restrictions (by IP, device identifier, browser fingerprints). A good platform can easily detect multiple automated registrations and prevent them.

6) Paid verification in cryptocurrency without revealing your identity. Let spammers pay for their entertainment, and a decent person wouldn’t mind spending a few cents on entry if it guarantees anonymity.

So what to do? Fortunately, the world hasn’t split into two halves on Telegram and WhatsApp. There are messengers created by people who understand the value of privacy.

Session – complete anonymity without a centralized server.
Threema – Swiss confidentiality. The app costs around $5 one-time payment, but it doesn’t require a number or even an e-mail.
Briar – Even if they cut off your internet, it will find your neighbor via Bluetooth, which is very important for protest participants.

Why is this important to all of us? Freedom of communication is the most basic condition of any freedom. In a world where states are trying to tie every person to their phone number with digital handcuffs, any attempt to maintain anonymity becomes a small revolution. And remember: either you control your data and your identity, or the state will do it for you!

Voluntarist, Bitarch