Рубрика: Columns

Partner columns

A license for one’s own mouth: illusions about freedom of speech in the USA are time to bury

It is hard not to notice that our domestic liberals possess an incurable form of cargo cult. They still fervently believe that across the ocean, a shining city on a hill has been built, where the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects any citizen better than tank armor. They claim that in the “civilized world,” even the most vengeful president or an out-of-control official would not dare to gag a TV presenter, and that freedom of broadcasting to a million-strong audience is an unshakeable sacred cow. But it seems it is time for them to take off their rose-colored glasses.

Recently, a demonstrative drama unfolded in the USA, which even the witnesses of “free America” certainly cannot ignore. Jimmy Kimmel’s immensely popular late-night show on the national ABC television channel simply cut out a full interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico from the broadcast. They weren’t afraid of viewer boycotts or advertiser whims. The leadership of the media giant panicked and tossed the conversation from the broadcast schedule to the backwaters of YouTube simply because officials from the Trump administration unequivocally cocked the hammer of the regulatory club known as the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

But what about the First Amendment, under which the state has no right to silence anyone? Watch closely, for we are witnessing a classic trick of state-level swindling. Why should the Leviathan crudely ban words if it can instead subjugate the infrastructure? Officials do not enter the studio shouting about the introduction of censorship. No, they simply politely state that the airwaves are a scarce public resource, that there is a sacred “Equal Time Rule” and a doctrine of serving the public interest. And also that the local ABC network television stations happen to have broadcasting licenses up for renewal, and it would be extremely unfortunate if the commission perceived a political bias in their evening jokes and delayed the review by a couple of years or so.

Trump’s new appointee as head of the FCC, Brendan Carr, demonstratively threw away years of leniency for entertainment news and openly threatened the Disney holding company with the cancellation of its licenses. And what did the multi-billion dollar corporation do? It instantly tucked its tail between its legs and engaged in primitive self-censorship.

Now is the perfect time to open a libertarian classic. As early as 1959, future Nobel laureate Ronald Coase released a devastating scientific paper on the creation of the FCC. Coase literally demonstrated with simple examples: the radio frequency spectrum is fundamentally no different from plots of land. It is an ordinary limited resource that should belong to broadcasters as full private property based on the principle of first use (homesteading). All overlaps, noise, and frequency disputes are elementary solved through the institution of private property and courts—without a single ministerial parasite.

But a century ago, the American state intentionally nationalized radio waves, declaring them “public domain.” Why? The answer is obvious: solely for the sake of political control. So that over everyone who picks up a microphone hangs the sword of Damocles of bureaucratic favor, and at the same time, no one could complain that some amendment was being violated.

It is time for libertarians to take note: a state license is an absolute oxymoron for freedom. What is licensing by its very nature? The state first forcibly steals your natural right to speak, broadcast, trade, or produce, and then, for money and an oath of submission, sells you a scrap of stamped paper: “Fine, we allow it for now, but if you behave badly, we’ll take it away.” A right, reduced to the status of a licensable handout from an official, instantly ceases to be a right.

Therefore, it is time to finally purge the provincial cargo cult from within and stop praying to the stars and stripes. American statism is exactly the same predatory stationary bandit, it has simply learned to hide its claws behind complex bureaucratic procedures.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the state filtered migrants so that only psychopaths were left on the streets

Ceuta is a tiny Spanish enclave on the Moroccan coast. And recently, a real drama has unfolded there. An interview with a local resident, who went out to protest against the dominance of illegals, went viral online. She described an interesting dynamic: once the guys who sailed in from Morocco realized that the Spanish state had no intention of handing out legalization and documents on a silver platter, the vast majority left the city. It would seem that bureaucracy won? Far from it.

The most sane people left. Those who wanted to work honestly, did not want problems with the law, and were looking for a normal life. But who stayed? Aggressive psychopaths, thugs, and degenerates, of course. They don’t care about legal status, the police, or the laws. In the end, normal people left, and concentrated crime settled on the streets. Now, Spanish women are simply afraid to leave their homes after sunset.

It turned out to be a classic, crystal-clear example of the law of negative selection. But let’s step back a little to understand how Spain even reached this state of affairs.

The Spanish authorities have been complaining for years about the demographic pit, about the fact that there is no one to earn pensions. And that means mass legalization of hundreds of thousands of migrants is urgently needed! But why did this hole form in a warm, fertile country? Because the state has suffocated its own population with care and regulation. Incredible tax pressure, a bloated state apparatus, draconian labor laws (where hiring a young man is a lifelong risk, because firing him later will cost you more), insane housing prices due to urban planning restrictions. And on top of that—thousands of absurd laws about victimless “crimes,” turning the average citizen into a perpetual neurotic and potential lawbreaker. A person lives in permanent stress under the microscope of a bureaucrat. And as any biologist knows, animals in captivity simply do not reproduce.

And now let’s see what happens when the state begins to clumsily “fight” immigration using its usual prohibitive methods.

If a person is a normal, sane hard worker, then he respects private property and personal boundaries. Yes, he might have crossed the strait illegally in search of a better life. But if he is told that he won’t be allowed to work legally here, that he will have no rights, and that deportation awaits him at the slightest stir, what will he do? He will go somewhere where there are chances, or return home. He has something to lose: his own safety, his reputation, the prospect of a stable income.

And who has nothing to lose? A completely broken sociopath. He deeply doesn’t care about residence permits, employment contracts, or the police. The police didn’t scare him in his homeland, and they won’t scare him here (especially knowing the toothlessness of European justice). He had no intention of integrating into the economy. His craft is robbery and violence.

By banning or making legal stay as difficult as possible, the state builds a barrier that filters out the cautious, the moderate, and the constructive. But only predators step over it. This works exactly the same as with gun bans: when authorities ban pistols, they disappear from law-abiding citizens but do not go anywhere for bandits. When the state bans drugs, it does not destroy demand – it simply hands the market over to bloody cartels instead of civilized pharmacies. And when the state bluntly “bans migration” instead of making way for free trade, private hiring, and strict protection of private property from encroachments – it is guaranteed to result in streets overwhelmed by a wave of violence.

In the end, we get a weeping simple woman from Ceuta, who cannot walk to the store in the evening. First, the stationary bandit stripped her of taxes and deprived her fellow citizens of a future, and then created a perfect sanctuary for those who recognize no rules at all. However, there is nothing new: any state intervention always only makes things worse. Even where it hypocritically promises to “restore order”!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Illusion of a Satiated Demographic Sunset: Why There Will Be No One to Fix Robots in a Half-Empty World

We always say that if you regulate every step, burden a person with a million prohibitions, licenses, and fines for every sneeze, people will simply stop having children. A human is a biological being, and animals in cramped cages do not reproduce. But the response we get is simply, “So be it; there are too many people as it is, and if there are fewer, there will be no traffic jams, nature will cleanse itself, and silence and beauty will prevail.” Usually, we counter with economics: infrastructure will collapse, the solidarity pension system will burst, and markets will shrink to the size of a street stall. That is exactly what will happen. But behind this facade hides something far more terrifying—technological regression and the risk of a slow but certain extinction of humanity as a species.
 
Population reduction enthusiasts stubbornly see a human only as an “extra mouth,” a “source of carbon footprint,” and a walking problem. But a human is not just a mouth, but also a brain. It is the entrepreneurial spirit, ingenuity, and labor. So let’s break down in simple terms why the dream of a “small, cozy humanity” is a most dangerous illusion.
 
First, rare talents. Geniuses capable of driving fundamental science do not appear by government decree. They are born statistically rarely—roughly one in a million. If you have a population of 8 billion, you have a pool of eight thousand potential Einsteins, von Neumanns, and Turings. Cut the population in half, and you cut that pool by exactly 50%. Cut it even more, and breakthrough ideas will become many times fewer. And yet, it is these individuals who create the technologies that later feed and heal everyone.
 
Second, the specialization trap. Modern scientific and technological progress relies on an incredibly deep division of labor. In the 18th century, an erudite person could understand mechanics, botany, and philosophy. But today, the low-hanging fruit of science has already been picked. To move the edge of knowledge even a millimeter, thousands of ultra-specialists are needed. One person cannot design a lithographic scanner for chips, synthesize a molecule for a rare cancer, and build a thermonuclear reactor all at once. The larger the society, the more unique, niche professions it can afford. A small society, even if everyone has three higher education degrees, is physically incapable of maintaining millions of complex competencies simultaneously.
 
Thirdly, economies of scale and technological accessibility. Developing a new processor or medication costs billions of dollars. In a global market of billions of people, these colossal costs are spread thin—resulting in penny-priced pills and affordable smartphones. Shrink the market, and the most complex projects will cease to be profitable. Businesses simply will not invest in something they have no one to sell to. First, niche drugs for rare diseases will disappear, then specialized equipment, and eventually entire industries. The state, of course, will attempt to save the situation with “subsidies,” but taking money from a shrinking economy is a path toward an even faster collapse.
 
Fourthly, knowledge does not live in books. Blueprints without a living chain of succession are just dead terabytes of data. Complex technology lives only in the hands of practitioners: when a gray-haired engineer passes on implicit skills to a young graduate student right at the machine tool or in the laboratory. If one generation is replaced by a much smaller one, the chains break. Humanity has lost technologies more than once—from the recipe for Roman concrete to the ability to quickly reproduce the rocket engines of the moon program.
 
And finally, we cannot simply stand still. Nature does not take pauses for a “cozy life.” Bacteria mutate and develop resistance to antibiotics. The climate presents surprises, infrastructure decays, and space threats have not gone anywhere. For civilization to simply maintain its current level of security, it must run as fast as it can forward—discovering new energy sources, creating new materials, and new medicines. If we slow down the scientific and technological progress due to a shortage of brains, we are not staying in place, but beginning to slowly slide into a new dark age.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Psychopathy – a zombie idea? Not quite!

Recently, the article by Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen has made waves, attempting to completely refute the concept of psychopathy and labeling it a “zombie idea.” The author concludes that psychopathy does not exist in principle, and that the scientific community’s interest in this idea is fueled only by the cultural popularity of the concept. But do such claims actually hold water, or is this just another attempt to ride the hype by denying the obvious? Let us examine everything in order.

First of all, the author refers to his own meta-analysis, in which he finds that, according to research data, psychopathic personalities perform no worse than ordinary people on empathy tests. However, it is extremely important to note that modern science does not claim an absolute inability of psychopaths to empathize. Often, the discussion concerns a deficit in affective empathy (the ability to feel the emotions of others while observing them) to varying degrees, while simultaneously, cognitive empathy (the mere ability to read others’ emotions without feeling them) is frequently fully intact. The author of the article primarily uses empathy as a monolithic construct, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Furthermore, such results may have a rather interesting explanation—psychopathy may consist not in the absence of empathy itself, but merely in the absence of its automatic activation. For instance, in one experiment, psychopaths were found to have the same level of mirror neuron activation (which is typically associated with empathy) as ordinary people. But this only occurred when they were given the task of manifesting it intentionally! As for spontaneous empathy, they demonstrated a clear deficit in neural activity in that case. Another experiment similarly proved the ability of psychopaths to take the perspective of others (to understand their state and thoughts), but only when it is an intentional task. At the same time, automatic (reflexive) perspective-taking occurs only in low-psychopathic personalities.

The author also uses psychopathy itself as a monolithic construct, without paying particular attention to its individual traits and the connections between them. This is also an extremely incorrect approach, as in modern research, results and conclusions are often presented within the framework of multi-factor models of psychopathy, which are perfectly functional.

There are also moments where the author has explicitly lied. He claims that frequently cited studies in favor of the psychopathy concept—for example, neurobiologist James Blair’s article on the mechanism of violence inhibition, which normally deters a person from harming others, the presence of moral-psychological impairments in psychopaths, as well as certain neurophysiological studies—are merely isolated pieces of evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously. However, Blair’s core positions and his violence inhibitor model, such as the reduced ability of violent and psychopathic personalities to perceive distress signals (sadness, fear, etc.) from others, have been replicated by dozens of studies! Furthermore, there is already a great deal of evidence regarding the link between structural brain impairments and psychopathy.

Finally, the author decided not to mention the strongest argument in favor of the psychopathy concept at all: its extremely high predictive power regarding violent crime, and especially murder. This, for example, is supported by numerous studies and meta-analyses by criminologist Matt DeLisi. Moreover, so far there is not a single study that refutes such a link. As forensic psychologist John Marshall notes in one of his articles, psychopathy is the strongest indicator of violence, it is difficult to ignore in the matter of predicting such behavior, and the fact that the “average” criminal who commits a murder demonstrates moderate manifestations of psychopathy underscores that this is not just a rare subtype of murderers, but a general trend for all cases of lethal violence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the state turned rights into privileges

Once, a person simply sat in a carriage, and later—behind the wheel of a car—and drove. Not because the state “allowed” it, but because the road was a road, transport was transport, and an adult person was considered capable of being responsible for their actions.

Then came the stationary bandit (“the state”). It did not take away freedom all at once—that would have been too noticeable. It acted carefully: first accounting, then registration, then a license, and finally a fine for its absence. And suddenly, that which was a right yesterday is called “authorization” today.

Driving a vehicle without a driver’s license? When automobiles first appeared, people learned to drive much like they learned to manage a horse: through practice, advice from acquaintances, and sometimes painful lessons. The license gradually became not just a confirmation of skill, but permission to use one’s own transport.

Crossing a border without a passport? Before the era of total passport control, millions of people traveled, moved, and looked for work without the ritual we are now accustomed to involving visas, stamps, and the humiliating question: “What is the purpose of your trip?” Today, a person is born on the planet, but to walk a few kilometers in another direction, they must prove to an official that they have a valid reason.

Building a house on your own land without approvals? It would seem the land is yours, the money is yours, the risk is yours. But no: bring a project, get a permit, coordinate setbacks, height, purpose, materials, utilities, and perhaps even the shade of the fence.

Buying medicine without a prescription? Once, a person could decide for themselves what to take, consulting a doctor, a pharmacist, or their own common sense. Now, many medications are available only after an official blessing. And it is not about whether medical advice is beneficial. It is about something else: why has advice turned into permission?

Opening a workshop, a production facility, or a small business without a license? Making soap, baking bread, transporting people, repairing houses, cutting hair, teaching children, hosting guests—the state increasingly views this not as a peaceful exchange between people, but as suspicious and illegal activity that must first be legalized.

Buying, carrying, and using weapons for self-defense without a license? In many countries and eras, weapons were a common tool of a free person—dangerous, requiring responsibility, but not a state gift. The authorization system turns everything upside down: a peaceful person must explain why they need a means of protection, and the state decides whether they are sufficiently convincing in their fear for their life.

And what about a child who wants to leave abusive parents for another reliable adult? In a natural order, they could find refuge with a relative, a neighbor, a teacher, or a family acquaintance. In an authorization-based order, an adult ready to help faces a practically prohibitive guardianship procedure, while the child meanwhile remains inside “properly documented” violence. The papers are in order—so, apparently, everything is fine. Bureaucracy has an amazing ability to fail to notice the human being behind an ideally filled-out form.

Practicing medicine without a state license? Of course, one should not deceive patients, hide qualifications, or cause harm—responsibility must be held for that. But the very fact of voluntary assistance, consultation, or treatment between people did not always require official permission. Licensing has replaced the question “Are you competent and honest?” with the question “Are you on the right list?”.

The main trick of the authorization state will be that it first declares a natural action dangerous, then forbids it without permission, and then issues permission and calls it the protection of freedom. This is how a right turns into a privilege. A right is something you can do as long as you do not violate the rights of others. A privilege is something you can do only when you are told “yes”.

And the most uncomfortable question here is not: “Why are they forbidding this to us?”. It sounds differently: “Why have we become accustomed to asking permission for our own lives?”.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

You will be punished for what was legal yesterday (or why it is deadly dangerous to be “law-abiding”)

You surely know people who say the following: “I pay all my taxes, my business is completely white, I’m not interested in politics, I have nothing to hide.” This is a very cozy position. And although such people are often called “hamsters” in libertarian circles, it must be understood that the desire to simply live, create, raise children, run a legal business, and not play hide-and-seek with the state is an absolutely normal and natural need of a healthy person.
 
But there is one little nuance. By trying to play by the state’s rules, you are playing chess with a pigeon. Or more accurately—with an armed cheat who has learned to change the rules of the game after the match has already been played.
 
This is precisely why agorism (that very counter-economics, crypto, working for cash, hiding assets, and quietly disappearing from the radar of the stationary bandit) has become a matter of survival even for those who bake legal cakes or write legal code. Because the Leviathan across the world—and in Russia, by already kicking down the door—has begun to massively apply laws retroactively and nullify statutes of limitations.
 
Let’s first look into the history of law. Why did humanity come up with statutes of limitations in the first place? Even in Ancient Rome, jurists understood a simple thing: society needs legal certainty like air. If you honestly bought an anvil, you shouldn’t have to wake up in a cold sweat for the rest of your life thinking that in 20 years, the grandson of the previous owner will come for you and take it away due to an error on a parchment. Evidence decays, witnesses forget everything, and people die. A statute of limitations is a guarantee that society will not sink into an abyss of eternal paranoia, endless vendettas, and the revisiting of old cases. It is on this foundation that trust in the future is built.
 
And now let’s return to our reality. What is the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation doing now? It is churning out lawsuits in batches to seize factories (like “Solikamsk Magnesium” or “Maxfa”), lands, and companies privatized in the 90s. That is, 30 years ago! Businessmen invested money, paid taxes, and were crystal “white.” But the courts, with an unperturbed face, declare: “Statutes of limitations do not apply to the requirements of the state.”
 
Or take the laws regarding “foreign agents,” “undesirable,” and “extremist” organizations. Did you transfer 500 rubles to a foundation five years ago when it was not just legal, but respected and encouraged? This means today they can come to you with a search and charge you with financing extremism. You were absolutely legal yesterday, but they made you a criminal today—for your action yesterday.
 
One might think this only happens to us. But the erosion of law is a global trend. In the US and Europe, ideas of retrospective taxes are heard more and more often (“you earned too much last year, let’s have you pay extra at the new rates”). In Canada, authorities could freeze the bank accounts of protesting truck drivers and those who simply sent them 20 bucks for coffee at the snap of a finger. In the US and the UK, there is a retrospective stretching of modern moral norms onto the deeds of days gone by regarding “sexual harassment.” If the state needs to expropriate you or shut you up, it will find a reason, ignoring any old guarantees.
 
And this is where we return to agorism. “Going underground,” using cryptocurrencies, working outside the legal field, refusing to register property in one’s own name—this is no longer the romance of cyberpunks or the domain of darknet smugglers, but basic insurance. Even if you sell teddy bears today and sacredly honor the Criminal Code, tomorrow they might pass a law declaring plush to be a toxic material, and all sellers from the last 10 years to be enemies of the people with confiscation of property.
 
Disappearing from the “legal field” is the most rational choice for a person who has understood the essence: it is impossible to be “law-abiding” where the law is one today, another tomorrow, and you are punished by it for the day after tomorrow. Therefore, it is necessary to study counter-economics, hide assets, use cash and crypto, and most importantly—build horizontal connections with those you trust!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Neither Tor nor VPN could save him: what GDID is in Windows and why it is dangerous for each of us

A while ago, the story of 19-year-old hacker Peter Stokes from the Scattered Spider group went viral. The guy breached a jewelry store network and demanded $8 million for non-disclosure of data. He wasn’t an idiot: he used a VPN, operated via RDP, and covered his tracks. But the FBI knocked on his door anyway. Do you know what tripped him up? It wasn’t an IP leak or snitching on accomplices. It was his own computer via GDID technology.
 
GDID (Global Device Identifier) is a unique identifier that Microsoft binds inextricably to every Windows installation. It is not tied to hardware or an account, but is a digital passport of your system. And this system maniacally collects telemetry: which programs you open, which websites you visit, and when you turn off your computer.
 
How does the VPN trap work? Many people think they become anonymous after turning it on. Metaphorically, a VPN is like fake mustaches and dark sunglasses. You put them on (change your IP), enter Telegram or Tor to read opposition channels, and go about your business. Windows records: “User with GDID №12345 opened Tor.exe at 14:00.” Then you take off your “fake mustaches” (turn off the VPN) to log into your banking app and place an order on Ozon using your real home IP (as you probably already know, it is impossible to access many Russian services with a VPN turned on). Shortly after, Windows makes another entry: “User with GDID №12345 logged in to play Dota from an IP address in the city of Syzran.” Then, all of this is sent in a neat little package to the servers of the “Corporation of Good” in Redmond.
 
But I’m in Russia, Microsoft has left, the FBI won’t reach us?! Yes, a Major cannot simply send a fax to Bill Gates requesting the logs of an opposition figure. But:
 
1) Broker data and telemetry leak regularly. Intelligence services are perfectly capable of buying the necessary databases from providers and corporations on the black market.
2) State trojans and spyware (which can reach you disguised as anything) can read your GDID locally. From there, it’s just a matter of technique—matching it with provider logs, which, under the “Yarovaya Law,” already record all your traffic.
3) If they want to get to you, they can fabricate a “cyber fraud” case and send a request through Interpol. Corporations often satisfy such requests without unnecessary questions.
 
How, then, can you protect yourself?
 
The radical solution is switching to Linux. If you engage in opposition activities, admin channels, or work with sensitive information—delete Windows. Stop voluntarily letting a corporate overseer into your home. In 2026, Linux is not just a black screen for geeks. Something like Linux Mint or Ubuntu can be installed in a couple of clicks and looks more intuitive than Windows. An open-source system doesn’t snitch out of the box.
 
The compromise solution is to gag Windows. Because sometimes you can’t do without Windows: specific work requirements, corporate software, favorite games. And if you are forced to live in the same room as a snitch, you should at least tape his mouth shut. To this end, enthusiasts have created excellent free utilities: wpd.app (Windows Privacy Dashboard) and O&O ShutUp10++.
 
Download them, run them, and in a couple of clicks, cut out all telemetry. They disable data collection, block report transmissions to Microsoft, shut down Cortana, and prevent applications from reading your location. But there is an important nuance: Windows is a stubborn creation. After every major update, the system will try to secretly reset your settings and start spying again. So, check these utilities after updates.
 
And remember the main rule of digital hygiene: separate your identities! The device you use to write posts about freedom should not know your name, where you live, or what your favorite type of coffee is when ordering delivery.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“It’s the Law of the Jungle”: how to lock wolves in a cage and accidentally invent a justification for authoritarianism

Every time the conversation turns to freedom, self-organization, and rejecting the state boot on one’s neck, a skeptic inevitably emerges in the comments. They believe that such ideas are mere idealism, since in nature, the strongest male always rules. The alpha keeps the pack in fear, and if you remove the leader, the wolves will tear each other apart. After all, man is a wolf to man!

But for now, let’s set aside politico-economic treatises and speak the language of biologists. Because the main biological trump card of “strong hand” supporters is not just a misconception, but a grand scientific myth that people have blindly believed for half a century.

Where did this myth of the vicious alpha male, who growls at his peers, dominates, and holds power through violence, even come from? In 1970, American biologist L. David Mech released the book “Alpha: His Essential Role in the Wolf Pack,” where he described the brutal hierarchy of predators. The book instantly became a bestseller, and the “alpha” image was plucked for management textbooks, movies, and political speeches. It sounds like the perfect justification for authoritarianism: males fight for status, the strong subjugate the weak, and order is maintained through fear.

However, there was one tiny but extremely important nuance. Mech conducted his observations in a cramped zoo enclosure. Adult wolves from different places, who did not know each other, were herded there and locked behind bars. The scientists essentially created a prison barrack, observed the camp-style bullying that emerged in the confined space with its local “overseers,” and with a knowledgeable look, declared that this was the natural order of things.

When that same researcher ventured into the wild years later to observe real, free wolves, he was appalled. There were no bloody tyrants there. A wolf pack in the wild is simply a cohesive family. The “alphas” are just an ordinary mom and dad. They don’t oppress their peers for self-assertion; instead, they teach the young how to hunt, care for the wounded, share prey, and coordinate the pack through care and authority.

Mech then spent thirty years unsuccessfully begging publishers to stop printing his old book. But authoritarians fell so in love with the fairy tale of the “right of the strong” that the alpha male myth remains more alive than ever.

Of course, a lover of dictatorship might concede that things are that way with wolves. However, we are primates, which means the most vicious one should definitely rule us. But even that is not the case.

The eminent primatologist Frans de Waal studied chimpanzees for decades and proved: the leader among primates is far from the most muscular and aggressive male. Stupid tyrants at the top of the hierarchy do not live long. If an alpha begins to act like a banana dictator—beating the weak and seizing food—their peers quickly unite into a coalition, lie in wait for the bully, and stage an early impeachment (with a possible lethal outcome).

A true leader among chimpanzees is a subtle politician and diplomat. He regularly shares delicious food, grooms allies, protects females with offspring, and, most importantly, breaks up fights. His status is maintained not by the animal terror of those around him, but by trust, respect, and mutual benefit. This is a voluntary recognition of leadership, not submission under the lash.

Do you see the irony? The entire pseudo-scientific concept of “natural tyranny” was born from observations of animals that were forcibly placed in a cage. Statists of all stripes love this trick: first, lock people in an artificial cage of prohibitions, taxes, regulations, and redistribution of wealth; then wait for an angry struggle for resources and status to begin on the soil of artificial scarcity and lack of freedom; and finally, step onto the podium in a white tie and solemnly announce the vicious and wild nature of man, whom only a guard with a baton can save from mutual destruction.

Market relations, horizontal connections, mutual aid, and voluntary communities—this is what is truly woven into our nature. Violence, the cult of the leader, and coercion are systemic failures that arise where people are deprived of freedom and driven into an enclosure. So stop confusing the laws of nature with the routine of a prison cell block!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How to legally hack the state and not go to prison for extremism

You surely know that vile feeling of helplessness when the state comes up with yet another absurd law, and you realize there is nothing you can do. Go out with a placard—and you’ll be jailed for extremism. In the West, of course, it’s easier: you can boldly curse taxes with friends in a pub without fearing that the bartender will report you. But try to break into parliament or catch a deputy at their house to tell them what you think about new eco-standards—at best, you’ll be ignored, and at worst, you’ll be charged with harassment or a threat to national security.
 
Most libertarians recoil from getting involved in politics altogether. It’s a dirty game where the rules are written by cheats. But if sitting idly by makes you sick, and becoming a political prisoner isn’t in your life plans, there is one elegant way. Let’s call it “judicial jiu-jitsu.” The idea is very simple, yet brilliant. We take their own system and force it to work against them, driving the situation to utter absurdity.
 
Imagine this situation as an example: you consider speed limits unfair. You drive slightly faster, a camera snaps a photo, and a fine arrives. What does an ordinary person do? They curse quietly and pay with a discount. What does a clever person do? They come up with an excuse like, “My brother-in-law’s brother was driving, but I forgot exactly who.” Now, watch this. Instead, you launch a multi-year, public legal campaign to discredit speed limits as such. You go to the district court, then the regional court, the appellate court, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court. And at every stage, you roll out new, crushing arguments so that they have no right to refuse to accept the case (and AI is here to help us now—it can generate lawsuits in batches).
 
You declare: “The tolerance of the devices is too low to physically drive without exceeding it by even a kilometer!”, “Compliance with this regime causes me constant stress and harms my health,” “Constant monitoring of the speedometer distracts from the road! The state is literally forcing me to risk my life and increasing the number of traffic accidents!” and finally: “Speed limits on an empty highway are an unlawful interference in my private life and freedom of movement!”.
 
Why might this work and why is it safe? First and foremost, you are outside of politics. De jure, you are not an oppositionist, not a revolutionary, and you are not shaking the regime. You are simply a very meticulous citizen fighting for your rights as a motorist. Even the most hardcore autocracy wants to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. To do that, they need the illusion of a working judicial system. The authorities won’t turn on the repressive machine over a camera fine—it would discredit the system itself and look comical. You are hitting them in their blind spot.
 
Additionally, you set off an information bomb. You attract many times more attention than dreary politicians with their boring speeches. The media loves stories like this! “Madman reaches the Supreme Court, proving the speedometer causes panic attacks!” People begin to read your arguments and suddenly realize: “Wait, he’s actually right…”. You shape the libertarian agenda elegantly and with humor.
 
Furthermore, the possibility for donations and crowdfunding arises. While you are headbutting the system, the public will gladly donate for popcorn and legal costs. You become a folk hero.
 
And you know what else? Constant dripping wears away the stone. Even if you lose the first 10 trials, public pressure will begin to grow. And on the 11th time, the court might side with you. Or officials, tired of this circus and the resonance, might quietly change the law just to get you off their backs.
 
This hack, of course, is applicable to everything! A ban on installing air conditioners? Tax rates? Absurd construction regulations? Go to court; there are chances—history knows many successful examples of such legal trolling. So, if you cannot break the wall with your forehead—become the water that destroys its foundation. Sue, troll, and defend your freedom with a smile!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Do it quietly and live peacefully: how an attempt to legalize home renovations retroactively led to a catastrophe

As we know, the state loves to stick its long bureaucratic nose into someone else’s bedroom, someone else’s balcony, and even someone else’s bathroom. But this monster is incredibly blind, deaf, and lazy. At least until you yourself come to it to bow and confess how you have improved your life and are now ready to be fined.
 
A perfect example of this is a recent tragicomic incident from Berlin. A man named Kasper was quietly renting an apartment in the Kreuzberg district, paying his rent, and enjoying the coziness, as his bathroom featured both a full bathtub and a separate shower stall. It seemed like he could continue living with these amenities. But then the landlord intervened. She decided to act like a “law-abiding citizen” and legalize the completed renovations retroactively.
 
Naturally, the bureaucratic machine howled with delight. It turned out that the building stands in a so-called “social protection” zone (Milieuschutz), where officials from above determine the acceptable level of comfort for citizens. The department issued a verdict: having both a bathtub and a separate shower in one apartment is an “unallowable luxury” (Luxussanierung). Apparently, such bourgeois chic increases the attractiveness of the housing and raises its value too much.
 
The result? Officials ordered the landlord, at her own expense, to hire workers, tear the stall to pieces, strip the tiles, and throw the shower out. And Kasper was left with a demolished bathtub. Had the landlord simply remained silent, the man would still be peacefully lathering his back under his favorite shower.
 
Do you think this is purely German madness? Of course not; the Leviathan is structured the same way everywhere. Try going to a municipality in somewhere like France or Italy and declaring that you want to cut a small dormer window in your private house to see the stars at night. You will immediately be dragged into a years-long hell: you’ll need historical and architectural approvals, environmental certificates, the visit of three inspectors, and the icing on the cake will be a property tax reassessment upward.
 
In the US, homeowners regularly step on the same rake: you go to get approval for a miserable wooden shed for your lawnmower—an inspector arrives, fines you because the structure is five centimeters closer to the fence than allowed by the standards of the Carter administration, issues a cease-and-desist order, and while he’s at it, picks on an “unlicensed” outlet in the garage.
 
Now, look at the alternative—so-called quiet, guerrilla improvement. Millions of people around the world simply take their housing and make it comfortable. Without queues, without bribes, and without humiliating bows to officials.
 
Imagine that a hypothetical Uncle Seryozha lives in the next entrance. Back in 2004, he silently glazed his loggia, ran electricity there, installed an air conditioner, and knocked down an unnecessary partition made of cheap gypsum. Since then, eras have changed, children have grown up, constitutions have been rewritten, but Uncle Seryozha still drinks his morning tea in warmth and comfort. Does the state know about this? No. Will an official come to inspect him? The chance of this approaches absolute zero, unless he himself goes crazy and takes the apartment plan to the district administration.
 
The bureaucratic apparatus is incredibly cumbersome, and it lacks X-ray vision through reinforced concrete. It relies exclusively on the incoming flow of paperwork brought to it by naive citizens. And trying to “legalize a renovation retroactively” is like approaching a robber in a dark alley and asking: “Excuse me, I’ve earned some extra money here, could you tell me what share I am supposed to give you?”. Rest assured, the robber will take every last penny and even punch you in the jaw for your audacity.
 
Of course, in such matters, one should remember physics and respect for neighbors. You shouldn’t touch load-bearing walls or block the building’s general ventilation, and you should also ensure reliable waterproofing so as not to flood anyone and not to give neighbors a reason to complain to the authorities, revealing the unauthorized renovation.

Voluntarist, Bitarch