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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Minnesota and the Libertarian Theory of War

For a long time, I struggled to find the right tone for the final chapter of the book on libertarian theory of war, where a libertarian analysis and recommendations for wars initiated by the state should be provided. However, then a road incident occurred in the US state of Minnesota, which was accompanied by heated discussions online—and things finally started moving. So, I express my gratitude to all security services, civil activists, and lovers of online flame wars for their valuable contribution to science.

So far, only section 3.3.1, in which the state attacks the individual, is ready, but things should move faster from here.

Oh, and a small warning has been added at the very beginning of the third part of the book, regarding the fact that war with the state can be understood in different ways; in this book, we are interested in war in its more brutal sense, as it is precisely this form that has so far lacked libertarian theoretical reflection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntary, Bitarch