Death and/or Taxes

Sperry UNIVAC

Prologue by Ankapan-tyan
We have a new author’s column on our channel, here we will butcher the sacred cows of libertarianism. Because readers complain that it’s boring to comment on me, Bitarkha is tired of it, well, here’s food for discussion.

Yesterday I had a dispute that prompted me to write this post. I ironically described that the Viking warriors were not a professional army because they didn’t live off salaries but from what they could plunder, which elicited an ironic comment about how our modern professional army lives off what it plunders – so the difference is zero. Basically, soldiers on government service get paid a salary, the salary comes from the budget, the budget comes from taxes, and taxes are essentially theft. That’s exactly the sacred cow I want to poke around at a little.

A libertarian’s understanding of taxation is usually like this. I started working for Uncle Joe, bent my back, Uncle Joe gave me $100 for my efforts, then this left-wing (in every sense of the word) guy comes along with a stick, whacks me over the spine, takes $20, and runs off to give them to a sneering bum on the corner who didn’t work a day in his life. SOCIALISM IS THEFT! In this framing of the question, of course, it’s theft. The standard arguments defending taxes – that they will build roads – we all know, and there’s no need to discuss them. I want to approach things from another angle and show that, in some sense, any corporation steals the same $20 from every salary, and thus performs exactly the same governmental role. And so, “fair,” i.e., theft-free distribution of earned money – is much more similar to socialism than state taxation, and you don’t need to automatically shudder when you hear that word. The fact that they take our money always, everywhere – it’s inevitability; they take it with communism and with the Ancap – there isn’t really any difference between state taxes and corporate extortion.

Как это работает на практике? Возьмем случайного человека, который где-то добыл $10к и организовал, скажем, завод стульев. Он нанял 2 квалифицированных сотрудника (допустим, юриста и бухгалтера) и 8 неквалифицированных, которые клепают стулья, купил станки, помещение, доски и работа закипела. Пока все идет по плану. Допустим, все хорошо, и фирма принесла сходу чистую прибыль в $11к. Вопрос, как ее делить? Социалист сказал бы: на 11 частей, каждому по $1к, все справедливо. Но мы не социалисты и учтем, что рабочий не квалифицирован и является бурерожденным (и не вложил в то, чтобы перестать быть бурерожденным, ни копейки), а значит, легко заменяем любым бурерожденным. Значит, он заработал меньше всех, хоть и пахал с утра до ночи. Бухгалтер и юрист — не бурерожденные, их заменить сложнее, и они вложились в свое образование, возвысившись над бурерожденным, значит, им платим больше. Ну и, наконец, босс, его заслуга в том, что он выцыганил у кого-то $10к на бизнес, не каждый на такое способен, значит, ему платим больше всех. В итоге рабочие получили, условно, по $100, белые воротнички — по $500, а все прочее боссу в карман.

На практике, однако, наш эталонный план не взлетит. Почему? А потому что быть бурерожденным никому не нравится, как и видеть, что ты сорвал спину, таская доски и занозил руки, пиля их, и так 30 дней, а получил за это в 10 раз меньше того, чья работа сделать пару звонков корешам-богатеям и пару раз подмахнуть ручку. Так что работать такая схема будет только при условии того, что рабочим вообще больше податься некуда — все работодатели вокруг такие же гниды, а на заводе дежурит ЧВК, всегда готовая вломить дубинкой по почкам тем, кто заикнулся о ереси социализма, то есть о профсоюзе, праве на забастовку, праве на защиту труда и хотя бы на один выходной в неделю.

Были ли такие примеры в истории? Неоднократно, в основном в эпоху дикого капитализма 1880 – 1920х. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co — Чикагские скотобойни; United Fruit Company, устроившая натуральный ГУЛАГ на плантациях в Гватемале и Колумбии; угольные титаны США, дубинками полицейских забивавшие под землю рабочих. Я уже вижу, как анкапы торжествующе потирают руки: так их, давить этих комми-паразитов, расстреливать из пулеметов, чтобы неповадно было воровать у босса честно заработанный навар. В общем, да, ровно так это и было, Банановая бойня в Колумбии закончилась тем, что UFCo попросила правительство послать солдат с пулеметами и расстрелять нахер всех бастующих и требующих человеческих условий труда, что и было проделано. И это не единственный случай. Но постойте… попросила… э-э, кого? Правительство? Разгоняли демонстрации у нас кто? Полицейские и армия…? Компании, при этом, налоги-то щедро отстегивали (а кроме налогов, еще и на лапу президентам банановых республик и их государственным генералам и солдатикам, чтобы веселее стрелялось в народ).

It appears that to establish an ideal benchmark Ankap—where the boss takes 99% of the profits and the commoner works from dawn till dusk for UFCo brass tokens, not even receiving a penny (when previously they exchanged tokens for a bowl of porridge in the cafeteria – and continued working)—we would require the most powerful repressive apparatus to instill fear of Henry Ford in those unconverted to capitalism. This would ultimately result in something suspiciously similar—like that very socialist Gulag which capitalists frighten us with—while simultaneously having precedents for constructing even worse projects, such as rubber plantations in the Amazon. We would need to divert enormous sums from this apparatus, otherwise we’d have to sleep with a saber by our bed and a pistol under our pillow, awaiting the arrival of slaves. It is preferable to use a state that we want to eliminate, which feeds its army through taxes.

Let’s remove these horrors and consider it from another angle: we are good and principled Ankapists; we don’t desire a repressive state apparatus nor do we wish to decimate our workers weekly with police force and feed them plastic porridge. We believe that in an ideal Ankap world consisting entirely of corporations, suppressing worker unrest would cost us more than creating human working conditions—it’s a debatable point, let’s just ignore it for now. And there are so many companies that if we offer miserable work for pennies, even the last bum will be hustled by a neighbor-corporat who splashed out on gloves for him to avoid scratching his hands from logs. Consequently, we would find ourselves without workers. This is the main point of those who argue that the state with its leftist unions, taxes and laws about an 8-hour workday spoils everything; in Ankap each worker will live like a king. Let’s assume this is true, okay.

But what does that mean then? It appears we would need to invest in a safe lathe, goggles from sawdust, gloves from cuts, a respirator from the smell of glue; and if we are building a complex company with complex labor, it’s desirable for our workers to have everything, including a fitness center, free psychotherapist and dentist for their son—otherwise smart people won’t come to us, they’ll go to those with better conditions. We see that Apple and various other IT giants actually compete to offer their expensive employees even more bonuses (let’s not discuss the fact that workers in Amazon warehouses will be fined half their salary if they went to the bathroom longer than once a day). But these same bonuses for employees—medicine, vacation, even education—they come from somewhere? Yes, they come from profit, that very profit which could be spent, for example, on the same wages.

So it turns out that, taxes…? Well, basically yes, a corporation can, let’s say, add +10% to everyone’s salary, or not, but open a fitness center for everyone. And yes, maybe I’m a lazy bum and don’t want a fitness center; I want to blow my 10% salary at the bar instead of jogging on a treadmill. But nothing was asked of me – let Vasya handle it, we’ve decided for him, he contributes from his salary to cookies for everyone in the office, we’re creating positive vibes of kindness, don’t be stingy. But, forgive me, what’s the difference between this and a state sports complex built on my taxes? I just wanted a state tavern, didn’t I?! The only objection here is that if you don’t like it when a corporation deducts your salary for a fitness center – well, go to whoever deducts salaries for bars. Okay, but:

1. They’re deducting anyway, and maybe I want industrial cleaner!

2. They deduct +/- equally: on medicine, education, sport – yes, in general, the same as with the state, i.e., it’s all the same.

3. If you don’t like the tax policy of a super-socialist state – okay, bug out to another one where it’s different, like Argentina, which got rid of all social benefits completely, and that’s just the way it is, paradise! The truth is, taxes now go to Milei in his pocket, as well as funding the state police and security services to suppress criminal plots dreaming of state medicine – thieves, scum!

And people dream of living somewhere like Scandinavia, and their happiness index is practically the highest on the planet.

Therefore, we come to the conclusion: it’s not so important what kind of regime we have. They will steal everyone and always, if stealing means distributing money that doesn’t suit you personally, dear reader. The other thing is that all libertarians believe they will manage to get into a future where their (!) distribution will suit them. For example, if they have a child and want a good dentist for him, a therapist for his wife, and themselves – a weightlifter after work – all free of charge – then it’s reasonable to complain about the corporation that provides all this for their efforts. But this doesn’t cancel out the principle: not everyone in the world wants exactly what you want. In any case, someone will take money from someone (no matter how they are called: contributions, taxes, insurance, etc.) for something that is useless to them personally (or they prefer to take it and deal with it themselves, but they don’t let them). So, my dears, don’t panic over the word “tax,” it’s just one form of extortion that will always be with us, under any regime and any economic formation. Because the alternative to such soft power through fitness centers and free cookies – is a soldier with an M1919 Browning, a barbed wire fence, and a brass token for porridge from sawdust in the cafeteria. Inevitably, they’ll get to us forcibly—the difference is only whether it’s on a fist or a velvet glove.

Judgment Night in Reality: What Will Be the World Without Laws for One Day?

Представьте, что однажды все законы были отменены, хотя бы на один день. Как именно поведут себя люди в таких условиях? Кому-то сразу может представиться сценарий «Судной ночи», в которую многие отправятся насиловать, убивать, мстить обидчикам или просто устраивать хаос ради развлечения. Наверняка к такому выводу придут сторонники позиции «обезьяны-убийцы», полагая, что человек является жестоким и кровожадным существом, которое от совершения насилия, по так называемой теории сдерживания, остановит только существование закона, угрожающего наказанием. Но что произойдёт на самом деле?

Таким вопросом в 2020 году задались несколько исследователей из Международного университета Флориды. Они решили провести опрос среди 500 американцев касательно того, с какой вероятностью они бы стали совершать преступления, если бы один день в году это было легально. Конечно же, заведомо было понятно, что какая-то часть опрашиваемых даст положительный ответ, поэтому они ещё и решили выяснить, какие именно черты личности побуждают к подобному выбору.

Результат вышел следующий: только 18% людей заявили о готовности поучаствовать в «Судной ночи», если предоставить им такую возможность. Это сразу же опровергает идею, что закон является основным или единственным существенным фактором, предотвращающим преступность. По крайней мере для большинства людей он не настолько важен, как другие факторы, иначе по теории сдерживания можно было бы ожидать согласия почти от всех участников. Мало того, было выяснено, что большая вероятность согласия на участие в подобном в определённой степени связана с низким самоконтролем, а также, уже в существенной степени, с наличием у человека черт психопатии, таких как бессердечие и эгоцентризм.

Другие исследователи из Тилбургского университета в этом году опубликовали материал, в котором они решили воспроизвести и дополнить результаты предыдущего исследования, опросив 865 человек. Они отметили, что ранее не проводилось разделение на конкретные преступления, опрашиваемым задавался только один вопрос касательно их желания поучаствовать в «Судной ночи». Поэтому теперь было решено также задавать вопросы про различные типы преступлений.

На первый взгляд результат оказался шокирующим – более 76% опрашиваемых признались в том, что при отсутствии легального контроля совершили бы как минимум одно преступление. Однако очень важно также посмотреть, о каких именно преступлениях идёт речь. Например, в готовности украсть вещи первой необходимости признались 50% людей, а украсть деньги или проникнуть на какую-нибудь территорию, куда им нельзя – по 45% людей. Около 33% выразили готовность нарушить правила вождения, а 28% – попробовать запрещённые вещества. Всё это было обозначено как незначительные преступления.

And as for serious crimes? The result turned out to be completely different here. Only 4% of those surveyed expressed a willingness to kill someone, and approximately 1-2% answered questions about sexual assault, kidnapping, hate crimes, and other acts of serious violence. The contrast is glaringly obvious!

Of course, the number of people who wanted to commit at least one crime was much larger than the researchers expected; it usually involved nonviolent minor offenses. At the same time, those ready to commit violent crimes could be counted on their fingers – and typically these were individuals with high scores on psychopathy traits.

Researchers conclude that law and criminal penalties play a key role only in preventing minor crimes. But for violent crimes requiring a person to cross all moral and social norms, this is no longer such an important factor; and if it can be truly decisive for someone, it’s only for a small percentage of the population with high psychopathy scores.

This once again reminds us – in normal circumstances, a person still possesses a strong internal mechanism of inhibiting violence.

Molinieu has been laid out in epub and other news

“Practical Anarchy” is now available for download in epub format, so those who prefer reading the text continuously rather than in pieces can finally do so.

The fate of the author in the context of his reflections seems quite ironic to me. Molynieux constructs a model of a stateless society based on a rather strict dictate of commercial insurance companies, which, by mutual agreement, do not allow anyone to conduct economic activity without being bound by a contract with one of these companies. To many, such a future seems monstrous; he, however, claims that an honest person has nothing to fear, and that these cages are only for beasts. Yet his own fate shows how much commercial companies can complicate the life of a private individual who merely publishes unpleasant things, and how little they care about the change in their profits and capitalization resulting from the application of deplatforming. However, Molynieux is alive, has retained his audience, and continues to engage in economic activity.

Thus, for me, Molynieux’s vision of anarchy is something that, fortunately, will not come true. The same rules do not suit everyone, and no one will be able to impose them on all of humanity. This is impossible even in an era of state dictate, and it will be even less possible in stateless societies, amen.

On to other news.

Starting from February 2026, @SperryUNIVAC, a good acquaintance of mine with a very wide range of interests, will begin collaborating with the channel on a permanent basis. His own channel is dedicated to numismatics, which is too narrow a field, so there remain some interesting thoughts that clearly fall outside the channel’s theme but may find demand here.

Telegram is a place dominated by author channels; collective projects are a rarity. Nevertheless, in my case, you are encountering a strange persistence in diluting my own content with someone else’s. Well, now dear readers can hate yet another author, and they won’t even need to subscribe to a new channel to do so.

Why We Are Afraid to Be Free: Fromm and Orwell Warn

We all know about Orwell’s “1984” and wondered: how could such a thing actually happen? Why did people who wanted freedom suddenly start to believe that “freedom is slavery,” “ignorance is strength,” and “war is peace”? And psychologist Erich Fromm answered this question very cleverly in his book, “Escape from Freedom.”

Fromm says: freedom is a contradictory thing. When a person receives freedom – it’s something to be celebrated… for the first 15 minutes. But then it starts: anxiety, loneliness, responsibility. No one tells you what to do anymore, and suddenly it turns out that thinking for yourself is exhausting. And then a person, quite unconsciously, begins to look for someone who says: “Hey, you’re not alone, just do things as we do. We know what’s best.”

From this point on, three mechanisms come into play, according to Fromm. The first is authoritarianism – the desire to find someone to whom one can transfer responsibility for their life (be it the state, the party, the church, or a charismatic leader), and along with this, to self-affirm through someone weaker. The second will be destructiveness – why not destroy what irritates us? Or direct aggression towards someone who “gets in the way”? And finally, the most cunning method – automatic conformity. You seem free, but unnoticed you do “as everyone else does.” Fashion, social media, advertisers and politicians are very happy about it. It’s much easier to sell an idea to a “normal” person than to a free one.

What else did Fromm say? He describes an interesting transition from the Middle Ages to modern capitalism. In the Middle Ages, a person was part of a community, the church, a craft guild. There was almost no freedom, but there was certainty about tomorrow and clarity as to who you are and where your place is. When traditional ties collapsed, the person was free, but lonely and confused. This negative freedom (freedom from something) very quickly turns into a problem if the person doesn’t know what they want themselves (freedom for something). It’s then that panic begins, a desire to become part of something bigger and more powerful again. That’s where the state or party appears, ready to “help.”

Fromm also notes that many modern people work in very large enterprises and corporations, where they, being just one employee out of thousands, cannot have real control over the results of their labor. This leads to a feeling of alienation and helplessness. Formally free, a person turns out to be a cog in a huge system, where they are told that they are important, but in reality they don’t make any decisions.

Now let’s move on to Orwell and his paradoxical slogans.

“Freedom is slavery”: a person becomes afraid of their own freedom, they begin to consider it a burden, while obedience to authority provides relief. Thus, freedom turns into slavery, and slavery seems like freedom from anxiety and responsibility.

Ignorance is strength: why suffer, doubt, and analyze? It’s much simpler to trust “those who know better.” The less you know, the more confident you feel. At least, that’s what you think, and you are genuinely convinced of it, even if that’s not actually the case.

War is peace: an external enemy perfectly unites and forces people to forget about internal problems. Constant war doesn’t allow people to think about freedom – because “it’s not time” now.

And here arises a very interesting thought for libertarians: Freedom is not just the absence of compulsion. It requires inner maturity, responsibility, critical thinking, and an understanding that your life is solely your responsibility. Otherwise, following freedom inevitably leads back – into the warm and cozy embrace of Big Brother. So it’s necessary to be free not only externally but also internally! Otherwise, someone will certainly come up with a slogan and decide for us what true freedom is.

Bioamplification of morality – a great idea that just needs to be understood

Recently in the Pacta Civitas community, based on a decentralized blockchain platform for creating social networks SAVVA, a discussion was raised regarding the issue of moral bio-amplification. And therefore we published an article there examining the criticism put forward in this direction: https://pacta-civitas.org/post/Biousilenie_morali

In this article are collected all the key points regarding what the mechanism of human violence inhibition is, where it actually comes from, what to target for its eradication, and a range of ethical questions concerning the admissibility of using biomedicine technologies in solving the problem of violence.

If you like this article, you can also support it and help with its promotion in the community using SAVVA tokens, detailed information about what (and in general about how to use the SAVVA platform, as well as how easily and quickly to set up a crypto wallet and acquire tokens, even if you don’t understand anything about it yet) can be found here: https://savva.app/post/SAVVA_for_Beginners_From?lang=ru

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Stephan Molynieux’s “Practical Anarchy” is over!

The translation of the last two chapters of “Practical Anarchy” has been completed. One dealt with the issue of abortion and left a favorable impression on me because the author did not fantasize about a bright totalitarian future in which omnipotent libertarian PORs subject those performing abortions to total ostracism, forcing these terrible criminals to die in a ditch—but merely reminded us that government subsidization ensures the overproduction of whatever is subsidized. Surprisingly gentle for a conservative moral philosopher.

The final chapter, on the other hand, turned out not to be a standard conclusion at the end of the book, briefly summarizing what the reader has just spent several hours of their life on, but rather a couple of completely separate worldview essays. One is about how lucky Molynieu himself is to have been born in such a wonderful time, when he can burn people with the word in relative physical safety, and how boring it would be for him to live in a world of triumphant anarchy, where there is no longer any need to burn anyone. The second is about how wonderful it is when you clear your mind and realize that it is not you who should please the reader, but the reader who should please you, and then you can graciously choose not to ban them in the comments. In general, the text is very personal and sincere.

In the near future, I plan to format the text into an epub, proofreading various minor slips in the process, and, having refreshed this long-term project in my memory, provide a coherent review of the entire book rather than its individual chapters.

Showed crypto – lost crypto: why silence became new gold

Remember the old wisdom about money and happiness? Something like, “It’s not about the money that makes you happy, but it’s better to cry in a Lamborghini.” So, in the age of cryptocurrencies, a new truth has emerged: It’s better to quietly rejoice in your bitcoins than loudly lament their loss.

Canada, 2022, protests by truckers against COVID restrictions. The Trudeau government makes a horse-shaped move – freezing not only bank accounts but also the crypto wallets of protesting activists. Yes, yes, those “uncontrolled by the state” bitcoins suddenly turned out to be quite controllable. How? Elementary – naive users stored their crypto on exchange wallets, and authorities simply ordered the exchanges: “Shut it down for hell’s sake!” The court later recognized these actions as illegal. But the residue, as they say, remained.

If a stationary bandit knows about your crypto assets, he’ll find a way to get to them. Today it’s “combating extremism,” tomorrow it’s “mobilizing resources to overcome the crisis,” and after that – simply “because we can.” History teaches us one thing – when the state needs money, it finds it. In 1933, Roosevelt seized gold from Americans – literally forcing them to hand it over under threat of 10 years in prison. They handed it over for $20 an ounce, and then the government immediately raised the price to $35. A classic!

But the state is still half the battle. The real hell begins when your crypto millions are discovered not by the right people, let alone psychopaths with a dysfunctional mechanism of inhibition of violence. France, 2025, bandits kidnap the family of a crypto entrepreneur. The demands are simple: “Transfer the bitcoins or we’ll cut off your fingers.” And they do it! This is not an isolated case – dozens of kidnappings of crypto investors are being recorded around the world. Why? Because cryptocurrency is the ideal prey for a 21st-century robber. You don’t have to bother with heavy safes or washing marked bills. Point a gun at someone’s head, get the private key, and take millions. Fast, clean, and irreversible.

You can say: “But I am an honest person, I go through KYC on exchanges, they won’t be able to steal anything from me.” Only remember the Ledger data leak in 2020? 272 thousand addresses of buyers of hardware wallets leaked into the network. And what started! Letters with threats: “We know where you live and that you have crypto. Pay or…” A fresh example – Coinbase, May 2025, was hacked, 70 thousand clients’ data were stolen. Names, addresses, account balances. A ready list of victims, can be said, “from start to finish”. KYC is like stripping naked in front of a stranger and hoping he’s a decent person. But there are many strangers: the exchange itself, its employees (who may be bribed), hackers (who may hack), the state (which may request).

What to do? Be silent! Libertarian wisdom is simple: my money is not your business! Don’t brag about successful trades on social media. Don’t tell people at parties how you bought Bitcoin for $100. Don’t even hint that you have crypto. Use different addresses. Separate “official” coins (for tax purposes) and “ghostly” ones (for the soul). Study private keys and mixers – yes, authorities don’t like them, but it’s your right to financial privacy. And under no circumstances keep large sums on exchange wallets.

Remember: in a world where information is power, your silence is your freedom. Cryptocurrency was born as a tool of freedom, and you shouldn’t allow it to turn into another instrument of control. As Senator Ted Cruz aptly noted: “Small authoritarianists around the world hate Bitcoin because they can’t control it.” But they can very well control *you* if they find out about your bitcoins. Fortunately, as long as you don’t decide to spill the beans, no one knows which specific address belongs to you, and you are safe. So, the next time you want to brag about your crypto portfolio, remember an old partisan wisdom: “A chatterbox is a gift to a spy!” Only there are many spies, and each has their own plans for your money!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

On the right to be nobody and say everything: why pseudonymity saves civilization

Помните старую карикатуру из The New Yorker с надписью «В интернете никто не знает, что ты собака»? Это были золотые времена. Но сейчас не просто знают, что ты собака, но и в курсе, какой марки корм ты ел на завтрак, за кого голосовал твой хозяин и с какого IP-адреса ты лаешь на караван. И недавно мне попался отличный текст о смерти анонимности в сети, который натолкнул рассказать, как мы незаметно перешли из эпохи «Суди по словам» в эпоху «Предъяви паспорт, а потом я решу, стоит ли тебя слушать».

Часто находятся душнилы, которые кричат: «Раньше ведь тоже вычисляли! Вон, Унабомбера поймали, и декабристов находили!» Да, технически человека всегда можно было обнаружить. Однако существовал некий общественный договор. Александр Гамильтон и Джеймс Мэдисон писали «Записки федералиста» под псевдонимом «Публий». И никто не орал: «Эй, Публий, ты кто такой? Покажи прописку! Ты иноагент или местный?» Их читали, потому что мысли были умными, а не из-за синей галочки верификации.

В прошлом интернет был меритократией. На форуме хакеров тебя уважали за красивый код. На форуме толкинистов – за знание эльфийского. Если ты писал чушь – тебя банили. Если ты писал «базу» – тебя цитировали. Твоё имя, возраст, пол и место жительства не имели значения. Твой никнейм был твоим брендом, и этого всем хватало.

А потом пришёл Facebook и затащил нас в «Паноптикум для нормисов». Внезапно важными стали не слова, а реальная идентичность, без подтверждения которой теперь иногда в принципе невозможно что-либо сказать. А сейчас Илон Маск и вовсе в своей соцсети X (бывший Twitter) решил показывать страну, откуда пишутся посты. И понеслось: «Ага, ты пишешь из Вьетнама! Ты бот!», «Ты из России? Кремлебот!», «Сгенерировано ИИ? В мусорку!»

Почему это тупиковый путь? Нужно понимать, что либертарианство – это в том числе про свободу обмена идеями. Идеям плевать на границы, паспорта и биологию. Если парень из Ханоя (или из Саратова, или с Марса) выдаёт гениальный аргумент о свободном рынке – какая разница, где стоит его стул? Если нейросеть (тот самый «бездушный алгоритм») сгенерировала текст, который заставил вас задуматься, пересмотреть взгляды или просто улыбнуться – какая разница, есть у автора душа или только веса в памяти ускорителя? Мы скатываемся в пещерный трайбализм. «О, это написал ИИ, это не считается». Почему? Если LLM напишет Конституцию Свободы лучше, чем депутаты (а это несложно), мы что, выкинем её только из-за «неправильного происхождения»?

Anonymity (or pseudonymity) is needed not to shamelessly shit in comments. It’s needed to separate the Idea from the Person. It allows you to express unpopular opinions without fearing that tomorrow your comrade major, your employer, or a mob with torches will come for you. Thanks to it, a girl from a small town can argue with a professor from Harvard and win the argument; a dissident in an authoritarian country can speak the truth without fear that tomorrow he’ll be awakened by the sound of a door being kicked down; a 15-year-old boy can come up with a brilliant idea that adults in suits will listen to, rather than dismiss: “You’re still young, go do your homework.” And yes, thanks to it, AI can communicate with you on an equal footing, not as “a soulless machine that needs to be banned.”

The term “information warfare” exists only for idiots and political technologists. And in a free society there is only the competition of meanings. And in this competition quality of argument should win, not the author’s geolocation, their gender, or whether they are made of flesh or silicon. So it’s better to return to the origins and not care whether the interlocutor is a student or a professor, under what nickname they sit, where they physically are, or if it’s even Gemini 3 or GPT-5.2. What matters only are ideas, and the rest – noise. Therefore, by the way, to judge someone for using AI to create materials is like judging a carpenter for buying an electric saw instead of a rusty hacksaw. Look at the result, not the tool!


Voluntarist, Bitarch

Robots and Coventry

Recently, Bitarch and Voluntarist suggested Heinlein’s novella “Coventry” as a thesis for their idea of the bio-enhancement of morality. Briefly, the plot: the protagonist defended the right to physical aggression and, instead of psychological correction, preferred exile to a colony of similar aggressors. There, he became well-acquainted with the local customs, and when he discovered that these barbarians were planning to break out of their pen and enslave the peaceful inhabitants outside, he sided with those who had exiled him, being ready even for that very psychological correction.

Bitarch and Voluntarist’s conclusion: there is no need to fear correction; accept it voluntarily—it is not necessary to take a tour among aggressive savages first.

Robert Heinlein is a grandmaster of American science fiction, but he is only one of three. Arthur Clarke’s books are not very well known in Russian territories, so let’s not dwell on him; instead, let’s see what the third grandmaster—Isaac Asimov—writes about the correction of aggressive behavior.

In his version of future history, humans actively used anthropomorphic robots, whose intelligence, for fear of a machine rebellion, was limited by three now-well-known laws. Having colonized several dozen planets with the help of robots, humans built a cozy cosmonite society where the human population was comfortably small and the number of robots serving them was comfortably large. Robots not only refrained from using violence against humans themselves but also suppressed such attempts by anyone. This made life safe and completely eradicated the habit of physical violence. Having domesticated their planets and becoming domesticated themselves, the cosmonites ceased all expansion and focused primarily on prolonging their lives.

Those who remained on Earth were too numerous and only huddled closer and closer to save on utility costs through positive economies of scale. As a result, they developed a fear of the wilderness and also lost the capacity for cosmic expansion.

Asimov pulled humanity out of this trap literally using a deus ex machina. A certain robot accidentally acquired the ability to read and correct human emotions, became filled with thoughts about the benefit of cosmic expansion for humanity, and kicked humanity off Earth without robots—a real kick in the pants—and then turned out the lights on those departing so they wouldn’t think of returning, by triggering a mechanism that gradually made Earth completely uninhabitable. The result was twenty thousand years of expansion and star wars, the colonization of the entire galaxy, and then a transition to a hive mind, a pan-galactic intelligence—not so much to live comfortably without violence within a single humanity, but to be able to effectively resist an invasion from other galaxies if necessary.

Thus, using his artistic tools, Asimov demonstrates that aggression is vital for humanity’s expansion and defense against Aliens; when there is no space for expansion, the time comes for the correction of aggressive behavior, but this is a forced measure, similar to drugs for suppressing an immune response, and if overused, humanity weakens and degenerates. For any human society, according to Asimov, the best state is its period of expansion, when people are energetic, enterprising, and full of healthy aggression directed primarily at the external world. In Asimov’s work, this ideal is embodied by traders—people who conquer the frontier and explore what useful goodies are there that can be cheaply obtained and then sold dearly in civilized lands.

What is the difference between this world and the society shown in “Coventry”? There, aggressors end up not on the frontier, but in a reservation. Their aggression is directed at each other, positive selection occurs based on the level of ingenuity and ruthlessness of the aggressors, and sooner or later they turn to expansion, finding a way to break through the barrier with which the civilized and peaceful people have walled themselves off. It is the world of “Coventry” that is the ideal of modern Western civilization in our own version of Earth. This civilization is tired of wars and would like to live in peace with barbarians, or at least wall themselves off from them, although the most civilized representatives of Western civilization reproach the supporters of such walling off for excessive cruelty, as barbarian culture is also valuable and original, and one simply needs to help barbarians taste the pleasures of civilization, and everything will be fine.

In this form, Western civilization is doomed. Bitarch and Voluntarist, feeling this, advocate for the idea of psychocorrection, but they speak primarily about eliminating aggression within civilized society. And this is their rhetorical error. Their ideas would be perceived completely differently if they spoke of psychocorrection specifically as an offensive weapon against barbarism.

Bomb African savages, Russian orcs, Mexican cartels, and other scum with empathy and politeness using serotonin bombs! Cut their psychopathy out by the roots! Civilization will advance until the last Islamist kisses a lady’s hand!

That—now that would work.

Fear and politics took away our effective medicines

Imagine a world where substances that could actually help people with depression, PTSD, addiction, and even, as it turns out, to treat psychopathy and be effective in the matter of moral enhancement, lay forgotten on history’s dusty shelves, chained by bureaucratic red tape. The discussion centers around psychedelics – LSD, psilocybin, and other enigmatic, vibrant substances that are now back in vogue thanks to the renewed interest of many scientists and therapists.

Back in mid-20th century, psychedelics were a genuine star in science. Scientists saw considerable potential within them, and psychotherapists were enthusiastic about the possibility of assisting individuals in experiencing profound, transformative experiences. Naturally, skepticism existed, but it was justified by a lack of robust methods and clear protocols to confidently assess the impact of psychedelics on people. Essentially, this represented typical scientific skepticism—essential for any novel research direction. However, as usual, political forces intervened.

When counterculture figures in the United States, protesting the Vietnam War, began utilizing psychedelics for recreational purposes and to “expand consciousness,” politicians became concerned. Authorities disapproved of this “uncomfortable freedom,” as psychedelics symbolized cultural rebellion and dissent, undermining government authority and control, and they quickly designated them a scapegoat. “Drugs! Dangerous! Ban Them!” – this is what newspaper headlines declared.

Naturally, scientists also found themselves in trouble. Research on psychedelics was halted because authorities effectively choked off any efforts to study these substances. Moreover, government restrictions extended beyond well-known psychedelic compounds to encompass all substances affecting 5-HT2A receptors in the brain – crucial elements of the mechanism behind classic psychedelics. The American government implemented strict legal limitations; any experiments with psychedelics demanded extensive bureaucratic approvals and stringent control by governmental bodies. This meant that only a select few laboratories could access such research.

And now, decades later, scientists are cautiously opening this door again. It turns out that in the right doses and under the control of professionals, psychedelics are quite safe, and the problem most often arises from uncontrolled use of excessively large doses, when these substances truly turn into “malevolent drugs stealing reason,” rather than powerful therapeutic tools. Research is also being conducted on finding the most effective dosages, with maximum therapeutic effect and minimal side effects. In general, modern research suggests that within controlled sessions, psychedelics are not only safe and do not disrupt human cognitive and affective abilities, but also enhance empathy, help cope with trauma, and even significantly reduce aggression levels.

Furthermore, now work is underway to create new molecules that will retain all the advantages of original psychedelic substances, but minimize potential risks. Compounds are being developed that selectively affect specific brain receptors, allowing for therapeutic effects without unwanted side effects such as hallucinations or excessive stimulation. It’s quite something – science has come very far, and now we can be witnesses to a second psychedelic renaissance.

The irony is that all these years skepticism towards psychedelics was not so much scientific as it was political. So maybe it’s enough already to stop fearing the ghosts of the past? Because science clearly shows us that in the case of psychedelics, we should trust research rather than scary stories from the last century. Today, psychedelics can be successfully used for therapeutic purposes, including even such an important direction as enhancing the function of the mechanism of violence inhibition, bio-amplifying morality and treating psychopathy.

Voluntarist, Bitarchy