Автор: Битарх

Around Progress in 80 Days: How Technology is Changing the World Using Only What Already Exists at Hand

I was recently idly watching the film based on Jules Verne’s novel, “Around the World in Eighty Days,” and realized a thought that perfectly fits our picture of the world. What do the gentleman Phileas Fogg and, say, Steve Jobs have in common? It seems like nothing. One is a fictional character from the Victorian era, the other is a real titan of Silicon Valley. But the point is that both pulled off a brilliant trick that’s available to each of us. And they didn’t need endless government grants or major scientific centers for this.

What was Fogg’s genius? Did he invent super-fast steamboats? Build a personal hyperloop? No! This guy didn’t invent anything himself. His bet became possible only because, by 1872, the world was already covered with ready infrastructure. Steamships were running, rails had been laid across America and India, telegraphs were buzzing. All of this was created by different people, different companies, at different times and for different purposes.

What did Fogg do? He simply looked at all these disparate pieces and first saw in them a single system. He didn’t just see “the ship to Suez” and “the train to Calcutta,” but a global transport network that could be “hacked”—that is, used not for its intended purpose (just getting from point A to point B), but for a crazy, ambitious task—flying around the planet on a bet. His breakthrough was in the new combination, not in a new invention. He was, essentially, a brilliant project manager who found synergy in what everyone else had lying under their feet.

And now let’s move to our time. Don’t we see the same thing happening with the greatest breakthroughs of the last 50 years? For example, the personal computer. It wasn’t an invention of something single. It was a brilliant combination of existing things: microprocessors, hard drives, monitors, keyboards, mice. The breakthrough was in the idea of putting it all together and placing it on a desk for an ordinary person. Or the internet—just a set of common rules (protocols), the language that already existing computers had agreed to communicate with each other. Genius was in creating this “language,” this universal interface. Don’t forget about smartphones. Steve Jobs, during the presentation of the first iPhone, said: “This isn’t one device. It’s three: a phone, a widescreen player, and an internet communicator.” Apple didn’t invent mobile communication, touchscreen displays, or GPS. They took the best that was already on the market, brilliantly combined it into one body, wrote intuitive software, and gave us the Swiss Army knife of the digital age.

The most important thing is that such breakthroughs don’t require an accelerator or a NASA budget. What’s needed is freedom of thought, observation, and the right to experiment. You, the reader of this post, can come up with tomorrow how to combine two known technologies and get something that will change the world.

What prevents this most of all? Of course, the good old bureaucracy. Imagine if Foggu had to get a visa for every border crossing, like residents of many countries with “weak” passports? He’d still be filling out an application somewhere in Mumbai. It’s state regulation, with its passion for “organizing,” “certifying,” and “checking,” that kills the very flexibility and speed needed for combinatorial breakthroughs. While officials are writing regulations on using drones to deliver pizza, free enthusiasts are already figuring out how to use those same drones and neural networks to monitor forest fires.

So, friends, the next great breakthrough is probably already here – just in the form of disparate parts. All the necessary technologies, services, and ideas are already on the table. What’s more, our project to find drugs to enhance violence inhibition was achieved with minimal means by analyzing existing neuroscience research and re-checking widely available animal drugs. And between you and me, ethology doesn’t end on the problem of violence, nor do our studies!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why do Western professors and scientists not understand that the world does not revolve around their cozy campus?

Imagine you’re reading some hefty academic journal from Harvard or Oxford, and suddenly there’s a brilliant council like: “to reduce crime, we need to increase the work of police and social organizations,” or “when confronted with violence, boldly turn to court.” It all looks logical. But what if you don’t live in Basel or Silicon Valley, but in some country in Latin America, Africa, or the post-Soviet space? Going to court to achieve justice would then be like going to a casino – only with even smaller chances of winning.

The thing is, most academics publishing in prestigious journals live in prosperous and well-off countries, and they’re often representatives of what’s called the “crème de la crème” – that is, people from the highest social layers of their countries. And they genuinely believe that the rest of the world is arranged similarly. Their worldview resembles an old anecdote: “Why don’t poor people eat pastries if there’s no bread?”

Western academics often don’t understand that in most of the world, police aren’t your friend and helper, courts are places where righteousness doesn’t win, but a thicker wallet or closer connections to power do, and social organizations, at best, exist for embezzlement. As a result, the articles from academics are about as useful as the advice “just don’t be sad” to someone with depression. Scientists constantly forget that many of their theories are based on the experience of people from “strange Western educated industrialized rich and democratic” countries – which is often abbreviated WEIRD. And indeed, this is an exception when considered on a global scale!

For example, Western studies often propose to strengthen regulation and control over the spread of information to defeat fake news. This idea may even seem good to people with mainstream political views in Scandinavia, because they trust their local government. But in some place like Nigeria, such a law would be used gladly to silence opposition and shut down media outlets that don’t please those in power.

Another excellent example is bioethics. Western experts in articles on the topic of moral amplification often write that this cannot be applied even to brutal murderers as long as they voluntarily agree to amplify their aggression inhibitor. And sometimes the very idea of studying the biology of behavior is rejected. They think it “violates human rights” and is “ethically unacceptable.” Of course, it’s easy to think like that if you live in a cozy apartment in Boston or Oslo – you just call the police and the aggressor will be taken away under armed guard. But in a huge number of countries it doesn’t work that way. There is no police or courts capable of actually protecting against domestic violence or bullying. Ultimately, it turns out that adding drugs to an aggressor to amplify their aggression inhibitor, for example, in food, is often the only accessible way to stop the violence and literally save their life or health.

Why is this important to us, libertarians? Because this Western “academic blindness” plays into the hands of the state and regulation. Scientists from prosperous countries are used to considering the state a reliable protector and helper, so in their research and recommendations they constantly demand even more regulation, control, and funding from it. But in countries with corrupt bureaucracy, these advice works exactly the opposite: more regulation – more repression.

If we really want to help people outside of the cozy Western world, we should admit: less state and more freedom is the only realistic path. Local communities and free initiative solve problems more effectively than officials who sit in distant offices and have never encountered real life. And for now, we should pay close attention to those who offer to “increase control,” especially if they do it from comfortable offices in prosperous countries, because in the real world everything is much more complicated.

Voluntary, Bitarch

Why is violence bad, even if you are a cynical realist?

Многие согласятся, что насилие — это плохо. Но сегодня мы обойдёмся без подобных банальностей, а вместо этого поговорим с теми, кто думает: «Окей, иногда без насилия не обойтись. Мир жесток, правила придумывают слабые, сильный всегда прав…». Но что, если отказ от насилия — это не розовые единороги, а прагматичное условие выживания человечества?

Для начала нужно понимать, что мы неплохо вооружены для разумных обезьян. И речь не только о ядерных ракетах. Сейчас даже один фанатик с доступом к самой дешёвой современной лаборатории может оказаться пострашнее армии Чингисхана. Эту мысль давно уже мусолят серьёзные ребята типа Стивена Хокинга и Карла Сагана. Они намекают на тот самый «Великий фильтр»: момент, когда цивилизации либо учатся жить без агрессии, либо превращаются в радиоактивный пепел. Многих особенно страшит угроза создания биотеррористами искусственных смертоносных патогенов в подвальной лаборатории. И риск самоуничтожения растёт с каждым новым изобретением.

«Может стоит тогда зарегулировать, а то и вовсе запретить опасные технологии!» — кричит общественность и чиновники после очередного теракта или громкого убийства. Но это тупик. Новые лекарства? Запретить, опасно! Искусственный интеллект? Только с лицензией госорганов! Генетические исследования? Слишком рискованно, лучше вообще не трогать!

В итоге прогресс замедляется, экономика буксует, а мы всё ближе к сценарию, где нам нечем лечить болезни, нечем бороться с голодом и нечем отправить людей на Марс, когда Земля устанет от нас окончательно.

Мир как одна большая очередь в аэропорту, в которой обязательно нужно отстоять несколько часов. Почему? Потому что кто-то когда-то попытался взорвать самолёт. Каждый акт насилия порождает всё больше контроля, рамок, камер, проверок и слежки. Если так пойдёт и дальше, то скоро мы будем жить в мире, где на выход из дома нужно будет три справки и четыре пропуска. Жизнь превращается в бесконечный квест: «Докажи, что ты не террорист».

Ещё одна проблема – домашнее насилие. Семья, в которой есть насилие, порождает травмированных людей. Статистически дети из таких семей намного чаще других сами становятся либо жертвами, либо агрессорами. Насилие в семьях — это не просто личная проблема. Это бомба замедленного действия, которая однажды рванёт уже на уровне всего общества.

Насилие – это прямая дорога к тоталитаризму. Каждый раз, когда граждане в панике бегут к государству с криком: «Защитите нас любой ценой!», появляется кто-то очень сильный и властный, очередной диктатор, который с удовольствием «наведёт порядок». Правда жизни такова: чем больше насилия в обществе, тем сильнее становится государство, а чем сильнее государство, тем больше насилия оно производит само. Помним – подавляющее большинство убитых в истории людей погибли от рук государственных армий, а не частных бандитов.

Violence is costing us too dearly. Crime, prisons, the police, cameras, guards, alarms – all this costs us billions of dollars that could have gone to schools, hospitals, salaries and roads. For scale: in 2022, humanity spent approximately $17.5 trillion fighting the consequences of violence—about 13% of global GDP. Imagine what could have been done with those funds! Violence is a hidden tax on each of us.

Violence breaks people. In a country where the norm in the 90s was “to squeeze” stalls, many still nervously go out into the street at night. The problem isn’t just about pain and death; it’s also about the stress that slowly eats away at health, psyche and even immunity. If you constantly fear an attack, you live less and worse. Violence kills us in the literal sense, even when we are not its direct victims.

Finally, violence destroys trust. Where violence thrives, people stop trusting each other, business fears to invest, and children are afraid to play on the street. A world where you can’t trust anyone is a world of lonely, unhappy people. And that’s not what we strive for, is it?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Psychology of *Homo Sapiens*: Why Your Brain Is Stronger Than Your “Want”

There is one thing that really irritates our skeptics: they accuse us of “biological determinism” when we say that violence and aggression can be effectively contained by influencing the mechanism of inhibition of violence. They are outraged: “How is that possible? If a person wants to commit violence, it’s profitable, carries no risks, and nothing prevents it, do you really believe that some neurobiology will stop him?” Of course, it will stop him! Because this isn’t “some neurobiology,” it’s the genuine biological barrier that even the most iron willpower cannot breach.

Let us immediately note: ethology – it’s not just about animals. *Homo sapiens*, man, is as much an animal as any other. Yes, we are proud that we can build rockets and write philosophical treatises. But under the hood, the same “animal firmware” sits there. Although, due to highly developed neocortexes, we are capable of building extremely complex representations of the world, our behavior is often governed by deeply hidden neurobiological mechanisms to which consciousness reaches with enormous difficulty. Or doesn’t reach at all.

Let’s provide a short list of what controls your inner “biology,” or a kind of “ethological stack”:
– Violence and its inhibition
– Depression, anxiety, and fears
– Attachment to children and partners
– Food behaviour and thirst
– Sexual attraction
– Sleep, wakefulness, and biological clocks
– Body temperature
– Tendency towards risk and adventure
– Motivation and apathy.

And now let’s conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that a man really wants physical intimacy with a woman, but his body “doesn’t want it.” Well, this happens. And the question arises: can he, using only the force of thought, make himself want it? As they say, “let’s not name a specific brand,” but everyone knows that in such a situation special medications are indispensable. Why? Because consciousness doesn’t directly control neurobiology. And its influence on actual reactions and behavior goes through that very animal “firmware.”

Let us now offer an open challenge to the skeptics: when you can lower your body temperature by a couple of degrees solely with willpower – come, let’s discuss it and consider a scenario in which the neurobiological inhibitor of violence suddenly “doesn’t work” on a mentally healthy and non-psychopathic person who is inherently programmed to experience strong internal rejection of inflicting harm on people. And until then, let us acknowledge: biology often proves stronger than reason. This isn’t fatalism, but a sober assessment of what we actually are. It’s understanding our natural limits and possibilities, as well as seeking ways to influence them. And ultimately, awareness of one’s biology is the true path to freedom!

P.S. I’ll admit honestly – interest in ethology appeared in me long before the launch of our project on violence inhibitor and it was connected with a personal history of my childhood friend, who got a serious illness because of “wrong design” of one neurobiological mechanism mentioned above in the list (it has nothing to do with violence at all). It’s necessary to understand and accept that evolution produces traits (mechanisms) always with compromises and “workarounds,” which, unfortunately, can be inevitable and unavoidable. Probably there is something similar in our violence inhibitor too. However one must always look at the ratio of benefit/harm and not reject a mechanism giving huge benefit for suppressing most people’s non-violent cooperation between them, but possibly negatively influencing the fate of one person out of a million. This also applies to other mechanisms mentioned above. It’s easy to criticize, but try to develop from scratch the same violence inhibitor or something else from “ethological stack” on other principles, without compromises that natural selection took? Too complicated? Let’s appreciate what nature gave us, because even with compromises it is better than nothing at all!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Thomas Paine: The First Libertarian—Before It Was Mainstream

If Thomas Paine lived today, he’d definitely have not just a Telegram channel, but a full-blown podcast, YouTube channel, and potentially a significant block of bans from Roskomnadzor. Because Paine disliked the state, monarchs, and anyone who sought to dictate how others should live. But why is he so important for libertarianism? It’s considered that “libertarianism” – a modern term. However, already in the 18th century, Paine championed ideas that would today garner thousands of likes in libertarian social media groups:

– State power must be limited to the maximum extent. The less bureaucracy, the better.
– Natural rights of man are paramount. Freedom of speech, property, and religion – no one has the right to deprive anyone of them.
– Government is “a necessary evil,” therefore, the less there is of it, the less evil there is. It was a remarkably radical view for his time!

But who exactly *is* this Thomas Paine? An English youth from a modest family who initially worked as a tax collector (yes-da, an official), but then realized he was pursuing the wrong path. And once it became clear to him that British authority resembled an interminable television series with poor actors, he swiftly relocated to America and unleashed his considerable energy.

His pamphlet *Common Sense* achieved genuine bestseller status. People simply couldn’t believe someone had finally stated plainly and without political correctness that the king was merely a common man wearing a crown, and monarchy represented outdated nonsense detrimental to people’s freedom.

What else did he become renowned for? Here are some of his key works:

– *Rights of Man*: in this work, he confidently explained that rights belong to every individual from birth, not “granted” by monarchs or officials. This sounds commonplace today, but in 1791 it was a major trend. Incidentally, within this pamphlet, Paine skillfully and ruthlessly dissected the arguments of conservative Edmund Burke who opposed the French Revolution, defending the established order and monarchy. Paine believed Burke simply failed to grasp how genuine freedom operates.

– *The Age of Reason*: here he completely lost control and criticized religion, explaining that reason is more important than blind faith. Consequently, he was, understandably, subject to “cancellation” and accused of all mortal sins, but would such figures ever relent? It was within this work that Paine advocated for the complete separation of church and state and freedom of thought from any religious dogma. For him, religion was a personal matter, not an instrument for the state to manage people.

– *Agrarian Justice*: here lies a controversial point for contemporary libertarians. Paine proposed implementing a small tax on the inheritance of large landowners in order to fund something akin to a basic income for others. Today we would challenge Thomas over a cup of coffee, yet his logic was straightforward: all people are born with rights to Earth’s resources. Thus, an early Georgist libertarian.

So was Paine a pure libertarian? No, of course not. That word appeared much later. But the point wasn’t in labels, but in the spirit that permeated his work: man is more important than the state, freedom above authority, reason stronger than dogma.

What would Paine say to us today? He was probably delighted to see how many of his ideas are now taken for granted. Ironically, he died almost forgotten – there were only six people at his funeral. That’s how it sometimes happens with true revolutionaries: they anticipate their time so much that their contemporaries simply can’t keep up. But his ideas live on, inspiring new generations to disagree with stupidity and authoritarianism.

The main conclusion is this: Paine reminded us that real freedom is not a gift from the state, but our natural state. Today it sounds banal, but perhaps precisely because people like Paine made these ideas popular and understandable. Well, we have left us with Paine’s main rule: “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” Good philosophy, right?

Voluntaryist, Bitarch

Fuel for Violence: The Hidden History of Ethyl Gasoline

Представьте себе – кто-то изобретает вещество, которое полезно на практике, но также крайне токсичное и оказывает на людей серьёзные негативные эффекты, включая проблемы со здоровьем, психические расстройства и даже насильственность. Впрочем, создатель этого вещества, несмотря на полную осведомлённость о таких последствиях, решает скрыть эту информацию, и тем самым отравить весь мир. История кажется фантастической, однако это то, что когда-то произошло в действительности.

В 1921 году инженер Томас Миджли обнаружил, что вещество под названием тетраэтилсвинец (ТЭС) можно использовать как антидетонатор для существенного улучшения свойств топлива. После этого крупнейшие американские корпорации «Дженерал Моторс» (на которую работал Миджли), «Дюпон» и «Стандарт Ойл» создали совместное предприятие для производства и продажи антидетонатора с ТЭС, который получил простое название «Этил». И в последующие несколько десятилетий основная доля транспорта в США и во всём мире начала пользоваться так называемым этилированным бензином.

Казалось бы, мир получил отличное топливо, и все должны от этого выиграть. Только вот от общественности решили скрыть важный факт – ТЭС чрезвычайно токсичен для человеческого организма. Уже в 1924 году произошёл инцидент, когда на одном из предприятий погибло 5 человек и 35 стали инвалидами в результате отравления. Мало того, в этом же году отравился даже сам Миджли, из-за чего ему пришлось уйти в длительный отпуск. Однако он решил скрывать этот факт и заявлял на публику, что контактировать с ТЭС абсолютно безопасно и не причиняет организму никакого вреда.

Конечно же, со временем опасность становилась всё более очевидной для общественности. Первым забил тревогу геохимик Клэр Паттерсон, который в 1940-х годах обнаружил, что абсолютно вся поверхность Земли, включая воздух, оба полюса и воды мирового океана загрязнены продуктами сгорания ТЭС. Позже он также собрал данные о том, что содержание свинца в организмах людей повысилось в десятки и сотни раз по сравнению с уровнем, наблюдаемым в останках тех, кто умер до массового использования ТЭС.

Разумеется, после множества исследований, доказывающих серьёзную опасность этилированного бензина, он постепенно был выведен из производства во всём мире. Однако катастрофические последствия ещё долго давали о себе знать. В 1970-х годах исследователь Герберт Нидлман обнаружил, что повышенный уровень свинца в организме детей связан со сниженной академической успеваемостью. Производители ТЭС пытались всячески дискредитировать его исследования, ставя под сомнение их научность, однако со временем его репутация была очищена.

Though lead is toxic to many organs of the human body, particular attention has been paid to its influence on the brain. And this is not just about lowering intelligence and mental disorders. Researchers have noted a significant increase in the level of violence in industrialized countries, and as a result, they even developed a lead theory of crime. It was found that the curve of violent crime practically repeated the curve of ethylated gasoline usage with a delay of 22 years. The conclusion was simple – toxic exposure to lead in childhood leads to committing violence in adulthood, and during the popularity of ethylated gasoline, this happened exactly.

All of this could have been avoided if manufacturers of CHP plants hadn’t spread blatant and immoral lies, including Mizly who himself seriously suffered as a result of his actions, but decided to hide it. This once again reminds us how important transparency and independent expert evaluations are. Moreover, modern researchers would undoubtedly assess such a story as a result of corporate psychopathy, when personalities with psychopathic predispositions are ready to consciously inflict harm on other people and benefit from it for their own gain. This is a danger that everyone should be aware of in order to notice it in time and effectively counter it.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

While officials fear it, genes break down: why deregulation of biotech is a question of humanity’s survival

Представь, что ты едешь по трассе на старой машине, и внезапно понимаешь, что тормоза давно не работают. Сначала кажется, что всё в порядке: ты просто спокойно катишься, скорость не очень высокая, погода хорошая, ветерок в лицо. Но впереди – огромная бетонная стена, и с каждым метром она ближе. Примерно так сейчас выглядит ситуация с генетикой человека.

Когда-то естественный отбор беспощадно отсекал вредные мутации — сурово, конечно, но эффективно. Если твои гены были совсем уж плохи, то детей у тебя, скорее всего, не было. Так человечество поддерживало здоровье поколений веками. Потом мы построили цивилизацию, создали медицину и сделали прекрасную вещь: теперь выживает почти все. Но у этой прекрасной медали есть обратная сторона — генетический груз. Каждое поколение накапливает всё больше мелких мутаций, которые раньше бы природа просто не пропустила. Теперь же они спокойно передаются дальше. Ты и не заметишь этого сразу: дети пока рождаются вполне здоровыми. Но статистика уже фиксирует медленный, но верный рост наследственных заболеваний.

Например, сто лет назад диабет 1-го типа был приговором, сейчас — не более чем неудобством. Замечательно? Да! Только вот гены, ответственные за болезнь, теперь свободно гуляют в наших потомках. Мутации растут с каждым поколением как снежный ком. Пока что это не критично, но через сотню-другую лет можно прийти к тому, что каждая новая жизнь станет лотереей с плохими шансами. Сюжет фильма «Идиократия» станет реальностью.

Посмотри на породистых собак — пример вырождения наглядный и печальный. Когда люди решили «отключить» естественный отбор и занялись селекцией по внешнему виду, здоровье пород пошло под откос. Бульдоги задыхаются, у такс спины ломаются от минимальной нагрузки, а лабрадоры страдают от артритов и ожирения. Нам стоит задуматься, хотим ли мы такого же будущего для человечества.

Есть ли решение? Конечно, есть. Генная инженерия и биотехнологии уже готовы нам помочь. Генная терапия — это уже не фантастика, а реальность. С её помощью уже сегодня спасают детей от редчайших смертельных болезней, таких как спинальная мышечная атрофия и серповидно-клеточная анемия. И это только начало: потенциально, с помощью генотерапии можно исправлять десятки наследственных заболеваний прямо в клетках уже живущего человека. Но если мы смотрим дальше в будущее, то самое перспективное направление — это редактирование генов эмбрионов. Представь, что можно не просто лечить болезнь у отдельного человека, а полностью исключить её из генофонда навсегда. Одно точечное исправление в зародыше — и больше никакой проблемы не будет ни у ребёнка, ни у его потомков. Такие технологии уже успешно тестируются на животных, и технически они полностью готовы к применению на человеке.

But here, the state enters the game – or, as it should be called correctly, “stationary bandit.” The state decided: no, friends, don’t rush. Let’s put ten thousand bans, regulations, licenses, and bureaucratic filters on all biotechnology. Want to get treated? Get medications for a million dollars per injection, even if its production cost is negligible. Want to correct a genetic error in advance, at the embryonic stage? No, wait, it’s “unethical,” not the time for this. The result is absurd: humanity is rushing headlong into a wall, but the only mechanic capable of fixing the brakes has been locked up in a garage with ten padlocks – and that’s just the beginning. Instead of giving science and business freedom, the state chooses to over-insure. Just in case it gets worse. Although it already does every year.

Why should we wait decades while bureaucrats and officials allow scientists to use gene technologies for the benefit of all? Why do we agree to let the only arbitrator of our future be an endless ethics commission, which doesn’t even have its own vision of the future?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Harry Potter Yudikovsky – this is freedom from traditions and mysticism

If you suddenly hear someone say to you: “Read a Harry Potter fanfic,” you can be skeptical of the idea, especially if you have little time for wands and spells. But after opening the first pages of “Harry Potter and Methods of Rational Thought” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, you’ll likely understand: this is exactly what I was missing.

Imagine what it would be like if Harry were raised not by conformist *muggles*, but by real scientists. Here, magic is a puzzle that can be solved through scientific experiments instead of “magic just happens because Joan Rowling said so.” Instead of obedience to authority – healthy skepticism and the desire to find the truth yourself. This isn’t just a retelling of the famous story; it’s a deep and witty critique of traditional thinking, bureaucracy, and blind adherence to rules.

So what’s libertarian about this? Well, almost everything!

Rationality here opposes mysticism and authority, and the main character of the book, Harry-the-scientist, constantly asks uncomfortable questions. “Why does this rule work?” “How do you know it’s true?” and, most importantly, “Can I check it myself?” Such questions are a nightmare for any authoritarian regime. Because when people start thinking for themselves, they’re much harder to manipulate. Yudkowsky here reminds us of Ayn Rand, who warned: “Where there is mysticism, there is always tyranny.” Harry literally shows us that magical thinking (even in the literal sense!) breeds obedience and stagnation.

Harry from this work doesn’t agree with being told how to think and act. He acts independently and autonomously, choosing his own friends, ideas, and rules to follow. And when he’s told, “You can’t change it, that’s the way it’s always been,” Harry responds: “What if you could?” This is a pure libertarian dream – a person who refuses to live by imposed templates. He’s like a character from Ayn Rand’s novel – not a “second-rater” but someone who creates their own reality.

And remember the Ministry of Magic? In this book, it’s even worse than in the original. This government isn’t just inefficient—it’s cruel, conservative, and downright inhumane. Harry is shocked by the existence of Azkaban and Dementors. His reaction isn’t to accept it but to find a way to change things. As if Lisander Snape were at Hogwarts and decided to overthrow the local government simply because it violates the natural rights of *wizards*.

Yudkowsky also mercilessly mocks the pointless veneration of traditions. The magical world in this book is so attached to established customs that Harry regularly experiences a mixture of bewilderment and irritation. Why write with a quill on parchment when you have pens? Why follow ridiculous rules when they are clearly outdated? This reminds us of an old joke: “That’s how it’s always been done” – the worst argument possible.

And the brightest and boldest theme of the book – fighting death. Wizards for centuries had reconciled themselves to the fact that people die, even though they literally had a cure for death in their hands. Harry doesn’t accept this order of things and plans to use the Philosopher’s Stone to grant immortality to everyone. This is straight up modern techno-libertarians who believe in technology freeing us – from illness, violence, and even the state.

Why should you read it? Yudkovsky gives us a powerful manifesto of intellectual freedom, rationality, and critical thinking. Yes, formally it’s a fanfic. But essentially – it’s a classic Enlightenment novel disguised as fantasy. It’s a story where rationality, freedom, and individualism triumph over dogmatism, bureaucracy, and authoritarianism. As Milton Friedman said: “Concentrated power is dangerous, even when its creators were motivated by the best intentions.” Harry Potter by Yudkovsky demonstrates this to us on the example of a magical world that had been living in an illusion of traditions and obedience for far too long.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Food vs. Violence: How to Fix a Domestic Tyrant Through the Stomach

Someone might find themselves in the following situation: they come home from work, their face like brick, looking for an excuse to quarrel. There are plenty of minor grievances that can turn a house into a real hell within ten minutes. Who’s to blame? Stress, fatigue, temperament, childhood trauma? Okay, maybe. But what if it’s much… prosaic? Like, on the plate.

Let’s pay attention to the “corn theory” of crimes. Back in the 70s, researchers Anthony Moulton and Kit Jacobs surprised the scientific community with a simple yet unsettling observation: in societies where people were overindulging in corn, there was a higher incidence of murders. The core problem is straightforward: in a diet where corn constitutes the primary food source, there’s a deficiency in tryptophan. Lack of tryptophan – no serotonin. No serotonin – no mood, impulsivity and dysfunction of the mechanism inhibiting violence.

Today we know more. Contemporary large-scale studies confirm that problems with mood, irritability and aggression often hinge on elementary nutrients. Omega-3, B vitamins, fiber – and suddenly, instead of roaring at home, there’s coziness again, conversation, and even smiles.

How does this work in practice? Imagine you have a hidden tyrant lurking within your house who transforms every minor matter into a drama. You could spend years trying to persuade him, undergoing therapy or hypnosis. But you can… more cunningly. Simply prepare the “correct food.” Without bombastic declarations and gloomy lectures.

Here’s the secret weapon against domestic violence and aggression:

1) Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines). Omega-3 in it works almost magically, reducing irritability. Try replacing one or two dinners a week with something fishy. You can say you’re doing it for your health – fewer suspicions!

2) Eggs and dairy products labeled “rich in omega-3/DHA.” A concealed supplement that no one would suspect. Ideal if fish provokes dissent.

3) Oats, bran, chia seeds. The more fiber – the better for bacteria in the gut producing tryptophan, and therefore the better for the person. Seriously, the gut microbiome significantly influences our mood and even mental health.

4) Walnuts. An ideal snack. Simply place a bowl of nuts on the table. Right next to the TV show. It works reliably.

5) Carbohydrates with a low glycemic index (whole grain bread, legumes, berries), preventing sugar spikes, and therefore mood swings.

What shouldn’t be given? A lot of sugar and simple carbohydrates (sweets, white bread), excess alcohol (no explanation needed here), and, of course, a monotonous “corn” diet or any mono-diet.

Does this actually work? Current research shows that even a simple supplement of omega-3s can reduce the level of both reactive (impulsive) and proactive (deliberate) aggression by 30%, and this works among representatives of any groups of people. Similarly, with tryptophan – according to studies, it reduces hostility and aggressiveness, as well as increases trust and generosity.

And what about sweet tooths and fast food? It’s not necessary to refuse completely, but you can cleverly replace harmful things with more useful ones: homemade desserts with a minimum amount of sugar, fruit instead of sweets, dark chocolate with a high cocoa content. The main thing is to ensure an abundance of vegetables, fruits, fish, milk and meat in the diet.

This approach is also fully compatible with libertarian philosophy. See, no one is forcing anyone. You simply put the right dishes on the table and give freedom of choice. Want – eat, don’t want – don’t. No violence or pressure. This isn’t the notation “what to eat in order not to be a psychopath.” It’s a quiet, inconspicuous and unobtrusive way to change the atmosphere in the family. And then – it’s everyone’s choice.

So the next time a domestic quarrel looms on the horizon, try first to fry some fish, and then already reach for diplomatic talents. Who knows, maybe the best prevention of violence is not the police, not the state and even not psychotherapists, but simply a plate of tasty and healthy food.

Well, let’s check it out?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Uninvited Residents and Freedom from the State: Dealing with Squatters

Представьте себе картину: возвращаетесь из отпуска, а в вашем доме, уютно расположившись на диване, пьёт кофе совершенно незнакомый человек. На вопрос: «А что вы тут делаете?» – отвечает невозмутимо: «Живу». И по закону (сюрприз!) полиция разводит руками и говорит, мол, разбирайтесь сами, это гражданский спор. Картинка не из приятных, верно? Но реальность такова, что во многих странах это абсолютно обыденная ситуация.

Но мы же либертарианцы, верно? И привыкли решать проблемы сами, не бегая за каждым чихом к государству. Мало того, зачастую может утверждаться, что такая проблема не может иметь никакого решения, кроме насильственного, а значит, учитывая, что мы не желаем инициировать насилие, и государство в таком случае встанет на сторону сквоттеров, у нас просто завязаны руки. Так что же делать?

В США есть парень по имени Флэш Шелтон – уже почти легендарный охотник на сквоттеров. Однажды сквоттеры оккупировали дом его матери, и вместо судов, которые могли тянуться месяцами, он провернул гениальную штуку: просто поселился туда сам. Он и его верные друзья (плюс пёс и пара видеокамер для убедительности) буквально стали жить в доме вместе со сквоттерами. Те были слегка шокированы таким нахальством, но быстро поняли, что против наглости нет приёма, и покинули жилище через несколько часов. Эта история настолько понравилась американцам, что Флэш уже запустил целое движение добровольцев, помогающих владельцам «пересквотить» свои дома.

В Испании дела ещё интереснее. Там появился настоящий бизнес по выселению «окупас» (местное слово для сквоттеров). Фирмы вроде Desokupa нанимают здоровенных парней, которые не ломают двери и не нападают, а просто стоят у входа и долго, нудно, но убедительно просят незваных гостей уйти по-хорошему. В 99% случаев «оккупанты» не выдерживают психологического давления и уходят сами. Иногда, правда, приходится немного заплатить. Обидно, конечно, платить человеку за то, что он нагло въехал в твой дом, но это быстрее и дешевле, чем годы судиться.

Британцы в этом вопросе консервативнее и стараются просто не допускать захватов, заранее заселяя пустые дома так называемыми «сторожами недвижимости». Люди получают дешёвое жильё, а собственники спокойны за свои квадратные метры. Всем выгодно, и никто никому не портит нервы.

Во Франции, кстати, владельцы часто вынуждены идти на хитрость: пока оккупанты ушли за покупками, в дом срочно вселяются рабочие, меняют замки, укрепляют двери, и сквоттерам остаётся только разводить руками на улице. Жестоко? Возможно. Но весьма эффективно и без насилия.

В Нидерландах проблему решили творчески – там собственники арендуют дома студентам, художникам и фрилансерам практически за копейки. Такие временные жильцы не дают посторонним вселиться в пустующие дома и одновременно привносят что-то полезное в район — будь то выставки, студии или просто активная молодёжь, которая не даст заскучать местным пенсионерам.

In Canada, private mediators have become popular. These are people who, for a reasonable fee, help property owners and squatters find a compromise and agree peacefully. Sometimes it’s easier for the owner to help find housing for an uninvited guest than to feed lawyers and endure nerves for years. Again, it sounds a little like rewarding audacity, but it’s pragmatic and often works.

What unites all these stories? The fact that people can protect their property even if the state is powerless or simply lazy. Private initiative, cunning, creativity, and a little healthy cynicism are able to solve the problem faster and more effectively than any government machine. The main thing – avoid direct violence, otherwise the state may send you to prison in this case, and anyway it will go beyond the values of non-violence that we promote!

Voluntarist, Bitarch