Автор: Битарх

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

The world is hostile by its nature, and everyone around is an enemy?

Let’s immediately give a short answer for those who don’t have time to read the whole post: those who think this way almost certainly are psychopathic individuals and probably also suffer from a dysfunction of the mechanism of violence inhibition. We will then analyze in more detail why this is so based on a scientific publication.

Some people tend to hold such a view of the world – that it’s inherently hostile. They also tend to consider other people’s actions as being more aimed at causing harm than they actually are. Thus, they can see threats even where none actually exist. All of this is described by the concept called “hostile attribution bias”.

Of course, no one is obliged to carelessly treat other people, and in many situations checking each person for potential hostile and harmful intentions is perfectly normal. But we must understand – this is done because some people *do* want to cause harm, and you can run into them. At the time same, labeling people as bad and the world in general is unlikely to be an adequate view. And perhaps some personality traits are significantly linked with such a view.

Research conducted by the University of Alabama examined the link between hostile attribution bias and psychopathic predispositions. As a result, this link turned out to be moderately expressed. So, it’s quite possible that people with high overall scores on psychopathy, as well as, in particular, such a factor as impulsivity control impairment (indicating problems with controlling impulsive reactions), would be more inclined to perceive the actions of others in situations they don’t understand as hostile than others. Furthermore, hostile attribution bias was moderately linked with all forms of aggression – both proactive (intentional) and reactive (impulsive). This shows that individuals with elevated levels are prone to respond to perceived hostility by resorting to aggressive actions of various types, including the observation of a link with the manifestation of physical aggression. Don’t forget that all forms of aggression are also significantly linked with psychopathic predispositions.

As we see, individuals who have psychopathic predispositions and are prone to manifesting any forms of aggression often perceive a threat where one simply doesn’t exist. The world seems more hostile to them, and everyone around them – those who undoubtedly want to harm them. Of course, there really do exist psychopathic individuals among us who can easily, without experiencing any psychological discomfort or internal resistance, even commit murders, and it is quite reasonable to be wary of them. But most people are still non-violent and don’t seek to harm anyone. And if someone thinks otherwise, if someone labels people as inherently hostile and aggressive creatures, then it’s perfectly justified to think whether this person is judging others according to themselves.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

What is the point of inhibitor weapons and what makes them better than classic lethal ones?

Unfortunately, our skeptics still may not understand the fundamental point of the idea about developing combat means to enhance the violence inhibitor. They suggest “don’t waste time,” develop a classical army and invest in traditional lethal weapons. But let’s break it down – why they are wrong.

1) Increasing mobilization potential by several orders of magnitude – unlike what is typically observed with soldiers armed with lethal weapons, drones with this means in the sky will not be shot at, even by those possessing a strong variant of violence inhibitor from birth! And this is even more relevant to opposition forces than armies of states, because among anti-authoritarian people there will be fewer psychopaths willing to kill easily than in the security structures protecting the status quo.

2) Greater public support and less outrage about brutality from sympathizers, which is especially important for a weaker side.

3) The possibility of using inhibitor means in civilian life against domestic abusers, unlike the complete uselessness of classical weapons like tanks and artillery during peacetime (billions are spent on their production, maintenance, and crew training annually from taxes, and this does not benefit society at all, and it is particularly burdensome for more free societies compared to authoritarian ones).

4) Safety of manufacture for the manufacturers themselves – inhibitor drugs cannot accidentally explode during manufacturing, transport or storage; even accidental exposure to workers will do them no harm.

5) Even cluster munitions (CMWs) can be humane. Replicable (“contagious”) vector vaccines have already been tested on animals and their effectiveness was recognized, meaning there are no technological barriers for developing “contagious” gene therapy to enhance the violence inhibitor. Of course, this is a very risky solution, but believe me, anyone would rather catch a “new cold” than be defeated by classical CMW types like nuclear or VX gas.

6) Extremely low cost and simplicity of production of the dose of the inhibitor drug. Of course, developing the first dose may cost billions and require complex equipment, but the cost of reproducing each subsequent one will be on the level of the current cost of doses of popular vector vaccines. The need for equipment and materials to reproduce is not comparable to the equipment needed to produce classical weapons (the equipment easily fits in an apartment, while factories producing artillery shells or tanks occupy square kilometers and are easily vulnerable to air strikes).

7) Extremely small weight of the “combat part” and little energy is required for successful defeat (it’s enough to pierce the skin anywhere on the body). In theory, it’s possible to create a drone the size of a bee, which is already a real technology – not science fiction!

8) Humane mines with no demining problems – after the war, classic mines can remain dangerous for civilian populations for many decades, while inhibitors in traps are quickly neutralized by environmental factors.

As a final note – why not tranquilizers to temporarily sedate the enemy? Indeed, science fiction often features plots where instead of lethal weapons, darts with tranquilizers are used. However, in real life and especially in combat conditions, this is difficult to implement because even a small dose of any tranquilizer won’t have an effect, while too large a dose will be fatal, and the dose needs to be calculated for each person individually, primarily taking into account their body weight. On the other hand, for most inhibitory drugs, the therapeutic window (a “dynamic range” when the dosage already gives an effect but is not yet lethal) will be extremely wide, and one dosage can be boldly applied to any person.

VoluntaristBitarch