On Futurism of War: Discussion

Atomic Cherry uploaded a four-part article cycle for his paid subscribers titled “On the Futurology of War”, and he sent me the drafts in Word. There was a brief discussion afterwards, but I’ll have to prepare a short overview of the cycle, where I partially restate the author’s opinion and partially supplement it.

The cycle briefly describes how a professional army, with the invention of nationalism in the 19th century, mutated into mass conscripted armies, and during the Cold War, due to the second demographic shift, there was a renewed trend towards professionalization. It also describes changes in military doctrines, from competition about who can outmaneuver the other, to the idea of a general battle, and then to total war, from which offshoots of information, hybrid wars, etc., later detached themselves.

The key contradiction that led to the crisis of modern wars, the author sees in this dilemma. On one hand, nationalism is still quite strong, and it intensifies even more when an invasion takes place, so it’s relatively easy to mobilize a large, motivated contingent for defense. On the other hand, most countries have already undergone the second demographic shift, have negative demographics, and gathering a motivated army of aggression is difficult. Thus, nationalism inevitably dictates that the aggressor follow the doctrine of total war, but demographics don’t allow them to draw an endless supply of human resources. Moreover, international humanitarian rhetoric forces them to be shy about blatant genocide, if, of course, the war is on the front pages of international media.

In light of this dilemma, the author describes several scenarios.

  • In countries where the second demographic transition has not yet occurred and a lack of industrial power prevents conducting a total war in the manner of the World Wars, low-tech genocide is taking place. Examples are primarily focused on Africa.
  • If the aggressor has overwhelming technological superiority, we have a war in which it destroys the enemy’s military and civilian infrastructure remotely, and the phase of ground operations either follows after complete suppression of resistance or does not occur at all. The most successful example of such a war is the bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo conflict, when bombings alone were enough to bring the enemy out of the war and convince it to change its political regime.
  • The aggressor may also solve the problem of a lack of motivated living force by outsourcing military tasks to private companies. This has been actively used in the Middle East and continues to be applied in Africa. However, the loyalty of mercenaries is tied to the economy, and the feasibility of their use is largely determined by the economic tasks they solve, so it often comes down to nothing more than power control over objects generating income.
  • Finally, in a situation where opponents are comparable in strength but cannot ensure a full-scale total war of the scale of Korea, positional confrontation occurs, examples of which are the Iran-Iraq and Ukrainian wars. The latter is particularly interesting because it is a war of states that have already undergone the second demographic transition.

Discussing the articles, I noted that they somehow focus on the fact that total war remains the only way to resolve interethnic conflicts by force, while there is also another way – eliminating the ruling elite of the enemy. To this the author replied that Hamas’s leadership had already been destroyed several times and it didn’t help. It seemed to me, however, that for countries with a negative demographic, such a method should still be relevant. Understandably, he was referring to removing Putin: the regime is quite personalized, the population is sufficiently apathetic, therefore eliminating the first face should, in my opinion, make the regime much more willing to negotiate. Atomic Cherry argued that the Russian regime is not so personalized, and that a no less frozen character will come to Putin’s place, who will continue the same policy, and in the worst case there would be many such frozen characters, they would arrange a full-scale civil war, and then it would be like with the Soviet Union, which calmed down after the citizen and went to seize the world.

Well, of course, then the Maduro takeover happened, a regime that wasn’t particularly personalized – and the country is obviously experiencing depopulation. So we’re both thrilled to observe this natural experiment: will this methodology work or won’t it? Will old-fashioned nationalism prevail, or postmodernism? If the latter, then a total war looks like a viable alternative, and that’s definitely a plus. And the next important precedent in the history of wars will be the forceful elimination of a nuclear dictator. I, of course, am betting that this won’t lead to a nuclear war, and that the world is almost ripe for this revelation.

Betrayal where it wasn’t expected: why conservatives are the main sponsors of labor inspection

We’ve come to believe that in the battle between “Market vs State,” our allies are conservatives. Like, they may not be against the state, but they’re still for business, for tradition, and for limited intervention in personal lives. One word: “right-wingers.” And “left-liberals,” including Western left-liberals, are those who constantly whine and call a paternalistic police officer to regulate everyone. Only the fresh study tells us that this logic doesn’t always make sense.

What did the scientists unearth? They conducted a series of experiments with a total of 2800 participants from the US to understand how political views affect purchases. The essence of the experiment is simple: imagine a coffee shop where baristas are forbidden to smile and express emotions according to a script, can only wear strict uniforms and always behave formally, and there’s an atmosphere like a North Korean concentration camp, except with lattes made with almond milk. How will representatives of different political views act?

Liberals see this and say: “I won’t buy here. It’s disrespectful to the person.” They vote with their rubles (dollars) against the tyranny of the manager. Meanwhile, conservatives don’t care. “Is the coffee tasty? Is the service fast? So what, beat them with a broom?” The study showed that conservatives are indifferent to internal restrictions and social domination over employees; for them, this is often a normal phenomenon.

And now watch closely. Where is libertarianism here? As libertarians, we advocate that “the market will solve everything.” We believe: if a company behaves like a jerk, consumers will see it, be offended, and go to a competitor. This is the very market mechanism that makes the Labor Code, minimum wage, and state inspectors with folders unnecessary.

And what do we see? It’s the “cursed liberals” who are behaving as ideal market agents in this case! They use market pressure to make businesses more humane. Without the state, but simply by their choice: “We won’t give you money until you start respecting people.” What do conservatives do? They continue to put money into the coffers of rogue companies. They create demand for animal treatment. They don’t care about violating human autonomy as long as it doesn’t concern them personally.

It’s important to understand: when a conservative consumer ignores the fact that workers are squeezed like lemons, he leaves these workers with zero market chances for protection. Imagine yourself in the place of an employee of such a company. They oppress you, don’t let you breathe. You hope that customers will see this trash, be outraged, and exert reputational pressure on the company. But a conservative customer doesn’t care. The company’s profit only grows.

What’s left to do for a worker? Go to the labor market? But if such a model is encouraged by demand, it becomes the norm everywhere. And then the worker has only one outlet: he goes not to a competitor, but to a “stationary bandit.” He goes in hopes of protection from the state-privileged union, he goes to leftist politicians and shouts: “Protect me with law!” And the government gladly responds: “Of course, we will now introduce ten thousand new regulations, suffocate small business with inspections, but ‘we’ll protect’ you.”

It’s a bitter irony when leftliberals (specifically in this case) work for the goals of libertarianism, ethically “educating” the market with money and reducing the need for state brutality. Conservatives, on the other hand, provoke a social explosion with their thick-skinnedness and love of hierarchies (“I’m the boss – you’re the idiot”), which is only extinguished by an increase in state regulation.

Buying goods from companies with psychopathic management, conservatives literally invest in creating new laws limiting business freedom. Because if society doesn’t regulate itself (through consumer culture), Leviathan comes and regulates everyone with a stick. So, the next time you see a “SZH-boycott” of some toxic brand, don’t rush to roll your eyes. Maybe these people are now working for an invisible hand of the market while conservatives simply drink their coffee, closing their eyes to everything.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

2025 results

Перечитала свои итоги прошлого года, сдержанно оптимистичные. К сожалению, оптимизм этот никак не оправдался. Канал вёлся скорее по инерции, Монтелиберо существовало скорее по инерции, каких-то жизнеспособных форков от него не отпочковалось, любые инвестиции в Черногорию оказывались убыточными, а само черногорское государство начало избавляться от иностранцев: а хули, мы уже одной ногой в ЕС, сейчас как сядем на европейские субсидии, и нафиг нам после этого работающая экономика, давайте разгоним уже всех этих понаехавших.

У меня не закончен ни один из предполагавшихся к завершению долгосрочных проектов, остались буквально последние главы, может, хоть в новом году доползу до финиша. В качестве следующей страны для поселения пока рассматриваю Сербию, и там снова придётся выращивать вокруг себя комьюнити с нуля, а такие фокусы мне стали с годами как-то тяжелее даваться.

В общем, мир вокруг настраивает на резкое повышение временного предпочтения: жить одним месяцем и не планировать на следующий, избавляться от любых долгоиграющих активов при первой же возможности, потому что когда припрёт, хрен их реализуешь за приемлемую цену, не держаться даже за людей, всё равно они сегодня здесь, а завтра в Парагвае. Хочется же прямо противоположного: осесть, накрепко вцепиться в клочок земли, завести клан, набить хлева всякой полезной скотиной, а гаражи полезной техникой, нарожать детей, учить их экономической теории и пилотированию дронов…

Пока же единственным моим реальным достижением за год стало обучение пилотированию автомобиля, он-то меня теперь и кормит. Со времён белой эмиграции известно, что самые ходовые профессии для русских – это шофёры и гувернантки, вот я теперь худо-бедно совмещаю обе, имея работу в сфере доставки и долю в детском садике.

За окнами адский ветер, сшибающий с ног. Но я обязательно выживу. И это единственное, что я могу достаточно искренне пожелать своим читателям в новом году.

Удивительно, но тут даже есть новые подписчики. Откуда вы берётесь?

Lithium against violence

Lithium – a vital micronutrient, important in numerous processes within the organism. And especially important is its role in the nervous system, including participation in dopamine and serotonin synthesis, as well as regulating the activity of serotonin receptors. Since serotonin plays a key role in regulating aggression and is responsible for the mechanism of inhibiting violence, lithium may be a promising solution for treating violent behavior, which numerous studies confirm.

Lithium has long been tested on violent offenders. For example, a research was conducted on 27 aggressive prisoners over a period of 3 to 18 months taking lithium. As a result, in 14 of them there were significant and in 7 – minor improvements in behavior. Only in 2 patients did lithium not work at all and another 4 stopped taking it due to the presence of side effects or fear regarding their possibility. It turned out that lithium improved the ability to control anger and understand the consequences of aggressive actions towards other people. The examinees’ mood became more reflective, they expressed a greater desire to participate in psychotherapeutic sessions. Researchers conclude that lithium can be useful in the long-term reduction of aggressive behavior.

Another research considered the possibility of using lithium in cases of children and adolescents with behavioral disorders who were in psychiatric institutions and resistant to other methods of therapy. The inclusion criterion was weekly observation of 3 or more acts of aggression (and at least 2 of them should have been physical) over a period of 2 weeks, after which a 4-week course of medication was taken. As a result, in 20 children taking lithium, 16 observed significant improvements in behavior (in the control group improvements were observed in only 6 out of 20 children). Researchers concluded that lithium is safe and effective in treating aggression in patients with behavioral disorders.

Extremely interesting data comes from two similar studies, one conducted in the state of Texas and another – on the Japanese island of Kyushu. In various districts of these regions, both the level of lithium in drinking water and its higher level were associated with lower crime rates, especially violent crimes. Exactly the same result concerning the level of murders is shown by a similar study conducted in Greece. Researchers believe that increasing the dosage taken by people of lithium supplements or lithiuming drinking water, even in very small doses, can be effective in reducing crime rates.

In one study on a single patient was shown the possible effectiveness of lithium in therapy for “incurable” psychopaths. It’s about a person with antisocial personality disorder, scoring 36 out of 40 points on the PCL-R psychopathy test, having a long history of taking narcotic drugs and committing violent crimes. Regular lithium intake led him to being able to work, having stable relationships, and not participating in criminal activity.

As you have probably already realized, lithium has enormous potential in correcting violent behavior and can be used even in the case of individuals demonstrating excessively high levels of aggression. In experiments, typical lithium dosages ranged from 300 milligrams as a minimum to 2 grams as a safe limit per day. However, with continuous lithium intake, it can have a noticeable effect even at doses orders of magnitude smaller than these, as shown by studies on the influence of its level in drinking water on crime rates and considering that it accumulates in the nervous system. In practical application, the most important thing is that lithium can provide a long-lasting effect for many months, which greatly simplifies its covert use against family abusers through adding to food and drinks (lithium does not change taste, it does not break down when heated or evaporate during boiling). And this knowledge can be used to correct the behavior of violent individuals, especially considering that lithium supplements are easily available for purchase without a prescription.

Voluntary, Bitarchy

Murray Rothbard and the End of Socialism

I was approached by the founder of the “Molinariy” project, for whom I had already translated one of the chapters of “Evenings on Saint-Lazare Street,” written, in fact, by Gustave de Molinari, the author of the key idea of anarcho-capitalism—namely, the private production of security in a free competitive market, similar to any other consumer services. Molinariy consists of a Telegram channel, which at the time of this publication has 70 subscribers, a Substack with a whopping six subscribers, and a YouTube channel with 1.13 thousand subscribers. This asymmetry is due to two factors. First, YouTube promotes channels through a suggestion system, while Substack and Telegram do so far less effectively. Second, the primary content of Molinariy is video content, while the auxiliary text channels are used to store additional materials and alternative formats for delivering the main content. Thus, we come to the essence of the request. I was asked to give my opinion on the Russian translation published in Molinariy of a 1989 lecture by Murray Rothbard regarding the global political agenda of that time, primarily the collapse of the socialist camp.

The video is posted on YouTube, while on Substack and in Telegram, a transcript of the speech and comments on it are provided.

Rothbard begins with a brief overview of the history of socialism: how it appeared in Europe in the 19th century, how and why it gradually gained popularity, how liberals toward the end of the 19th century felt a sense of doom because socialist ideas had completely seized the masses, and how in the 20th century socialism finally had the opportunity to be embodied in practice. He then notes a phase-shifted movement of ideas: people in the socialist bloc countries were fed up to their teeth with this collectivist system and dreamed of capitalism, while Western intellectuals managed to maintain an untouched admiration for socialism throughout the decades because they had not truly tasted it in practice.

It turns out that there is only one way to prompt people to abandon an externally attractive but false idea: let them try to implement it and wait until the idea is discredited. However, even in this case, the abandonment of the idea will most likely not occur until the first generation of its carriers physically dies out.

Here, a mischievous question occurs to me: could the same happen with ancap? Perhaps it will gradually win over minds, a certain critical percentage of politicians will be permeated by it, and then everyone will be more or less unanimous that it is finally time to let people realize this bright idea. And then, when the first generation of those who dismantle the state in favor of the free market begins to physically die out, the idea will lose its sincere carriers, and in the eyes of the next generation, it will already be discredited. And if at the end of the eighties of the last century, the rulers of the socialist camp countries bewilderedly asked such clever Western experts if there were any reliable ways to carefully abandon excessive state regulation and transition to a free market, then in a hundred years, will free participants of a spiraling libertarian society bewilderedly ask how to carefully find those who are ready to take responsibility for people and start managing them, rather than complaining, “Why on earth would I want to do that?”

Life, of course, has shown that the world is more complex than the picture Rothbard saw at the end of the eighties, but overall his view was quite correct. For instance, he correctly grasped that in American society at that time, people were tired of high government spending under Reagan, and soon under Clinton, the national debt began to decrease. But the momentum did not last long, and now it is growing at unprecedented rates. He identified the problem of “too big to fail” financial institutions, and this problem eventually triggered a global crisis. He correctly noted that China would have problems with a market economy if it were not accompanied by general liberalization. And indeed, thirty years later, China’s economy eventually faltered due to a lack of freedom and an excess of state regulation, but by then it had managed to become a superpower. Finally, Rothbard noted that now that the Cold War between superpowers has ended, this would not be a reason for the US to demilitarize; instead, the government would frantically seek any excuse to fight with anyone or anything.

Rothbard also harshly criticized the Libertarian Party, which practically failed to notice that liberalism had won over socialism and in no way took advantage of the fruits of this victory, focusing instead on its own internal administrative squabbles. In fact, this criticism applies to any libertarian party in any country at any time: libertarians are especially vulnerable to the bureaucratization of their institutions. This applies not only to parties but also to scientific institutes or projects like Mont Pelerin. The thing is, a volunteer comes to an organization for a result, while long-term institutions work for the sake of the process. As a result, enthusiasts burn out and leave, leaving behind those for whom routine is comfortable, and work results are measured by the number of meetings.

And finally, I want to leave hanging the key prediction Rothbard made in his lecture: that the 21st century would be the century of freedom. Of course, compared to the 20th century, in very many aspects and in very many countries, people have become noticeably freer. But regulators have not been idle, and many freedoms that people enjoyed at the beginning of the 21st century are now unthinkable in its second quarter. However, I want to note an interesting pattern here: modern enslavement is not total. It exists only where the state maintains its monopoly. For example, it has turned air travel into a sophisticated mockery. But in the field of money transfers, people endure the mockery only where the transaction must be shown to the state. But if it needs to be hidden, everything is done in two clicks. And so in many industries. People are learning and getting used to bypassing government desires, and they seem to stop longing for a boot over them. Perhaps freedom really is arriving? I want to believe it.

What do Medieval times, Akademgorodok, and Silicon Valley have in common?

Many of you probably think that “science must be free.” But let’s dig a little deeper – why is this important, and why should libertarians especially worry about the growing attempts by the state and politicians to tell scientists what to think and what to teach?

Of course, first and foremost we need to understand that science isn’t just boring guys and gals in laboratories. Science is the engine of freedom and progress. If we allow scientists and teachers to freely think, experiment and even make mistakes, then society wins out in the end.

As an example: when the first universities appeared in the Middle Ages, kings and popes didn’t understand at all what these strange fellows were doing in groups, talking in Latin about some “ideas”. Students and professors of the University of Bologna were so audacious that they wrested the right to self-government from the authorities. As a result, science flourished – and universities became islands of freedom even in gloomy feudal Europe.

Let’s move to the 20th century. The USSR – not the freest place, is it? But during Khrushchev’s thaw, an academic town called Akademgorodok was founded in the Siberian taiga. Scientists were allowed to research things that were forbidden in Moscow. Genetics, banned by Stalin, suddenly came to life, and Akademgorodok became one of the few places where you could freely argue and read banned books. A paradox emerged: a communist state built a tiny libertarian paradise in the middle of the taiga. For a short time – but even brief freedom spawned entire scientific schools of world-level quality.

Today, Silicon Valley is synonymous with innovation. And its formula for success is simple: you take universities (Stanford, Berkeley and others), add lots of freedom and a little bit of capitalism, thoroughly mix it up, and let it steep. The result – a place that attracts millions of talents from all over the world. But now imagine: what if officials or politicians decided which technologies to develop and which to ban for ideological reasons? Most likely, an iPhone would be the size of a brick and called “Gosfon-1” (State Phone – 1).

Now about the sad stuff. Recently, attempts by conservative politicians to interfere with university work have been multiplying around the world. This has already been happening for a long time in the USA, and during Trump’s presidency the situation only worsened, as the federal government doesn’t hesitate to impose its wishes even on world-class universities like Harvard and Columbia, forcing uncomfortable leaders into resignation, or trying to ban foreign students from studying there, which will quite likely lead to a reduction in their budgets and loss of competitiveness. In Russia, the state is simply trying to keep scientists fully under control, considering them rather inconvenient people. As a result, we have censorship and dismissals for views. And those who could be useful to their Motherland are leaving abroad. After the attempted coup in Turkey, Erdogan carried out a “purge”: over 6000 university professors were fired for political disloyalty. Just imagine – an entire university town disappeared within a couple of months.

Why is it important for libertarians to protect science? Because science is a free market of ideas. It’s that very competition that allows us to identify the truth and reject delusions. The more the state interferes in science, the greater the risk of error, because centrally managing knowledge is just as absurd as managing the weather.

What can be done? To support scientists facing pressure and censorship. To demand that the state stop interfering with education. To protect universities’ right to autonomy and self-government. Because freedom of science is not a privilege for scientists – it’s a guarantee of our common progress and well-being!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How to make a good economy without taxes so that the whole economy is from the market?

Zxcutehikka

This is an interesting question. I suspect the author of the question wants a statist answer: how to build a good economy from scratch, having come to power in some state. There are several quite decent examples in recent history, such as Kakha Bendukidze’s reform of the Georgian economy or Argentina’s economy – under Javier Milei. What unites these cases, and more classical examples of economic miracles – Western German, Japanese, South Korean, Singaporean and so on?

Primarily, it’s that the economies in these countries were completely wrecked before the reforms began. Only when the horse was dead would the bureaucratic horde graciously agree to dismount and say, “Well, alright, reform us, don’t interfere with me, but only weakly, and as soon as the horse gallops again, of course, my time will come, and I’ll push you aside.” And then the reformer more or less carefully dismantled regulatory blockages, allowing the economy to breathe.

Perhaps the only example of an economic miracle that didn’t involve any reforms comes to mind: Hong Kong. There, according to reports, the governor simply sabotaged metropolitan policy and didn’t interfere much with what was happening in the local economy for a long time. And then the metropolis simply handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese socialists.

The path of Hong Kong is just what anyone can use, not only the chosen or unchosen politicians. The business is simple – you just need to ignore government directives and deal with your private affairs. If no one will pay taxes, we’ll get a tax-free economy, which, incidentally, is what the questioner is interested in. Of course, the modern state knows how to cope without taxes. For example, it could simply print money and finance its needs from this source. So it would be good to ignore government funds too.

The problem, however, is that mass ignoring of official wishes doesn’t begin until people realize that the state has botched things. And therefore, at the start of the economy, we have ruins. Worse than that, the level of economic literacy among people at the start is probably shockingly low – otherwise how did our economy end up in ruins? Why “presumably”? Because there’s a more favorable alternative: people are generally more or less literate, and the economy is ruined, for example, by war and economic sanctions. And this is why Russia has a better chance of achieving economic prosperity after forcibly displacing the current government than Cuba or Venezuela.

And the fact is, even if the Venezuelan government is now crushed by the US Army, there’s probably not much good that will come of it – because the local socialists will be convinced they were right all along, it was just a force majeure situation, and now let’s fix our wonderful Bolivarian socialism. Where do I get this certainty? Well, there’s the precedent of Iraq: an external overthrow of a socialist government doesn’t allow the people to become smarter; instead, the people become enraged.

The answer came out sprawling – more like rambling thoughts than a coherent lecture – and political studies isn’t really my forte. But somehow I managed to look at the topic from several angles, and that’s enough bread.

Dignity for the herd, honor for personalities

Bitarch and the Voluntarist claim that of the two cultural models of behavior—honor and dignity—the second is more attractive to libertarians, as the first is collectivist and the second is individualistic.

Let us use the same definitions. In a culture of honor, a person’s standing is determined by how much their behavior conforms to certain high standards. In a culture of dignity, a person is valuable by the mere fact of belonging to humanity.

From this, it is easy to draw both the conclusions of the article and the exact opposite: honor is about individualism, since a person defends their own honor or chooses dishonor; dignity, however, is a collectivist thing, since only collective trends will determine what offends human dignity and what does not. Other people within a “culture of dignity” may turn out to be so valuable that any sidelong glance would humiliate their dignity, and the law would punish this, for example, with imprisonment for “inciting hatred.”

If today a person chooses to rely on the protection of an impersonal law instead of individual action, then tomorrow that same law will strip them of their dignity, and the person will have already lost the capacity for individual action in the previous step.

What is the culture of honor based on? On the fact that a person is always ready to demonstrate their willingness to defend themselves against the encroachments of others, and thereby avoids the need to repeat this again and again. Others see the readiness to repel and are wary of infringing upon another’s honor. Of course, the concept of honor is broader than the readiness for violence, but in the article under discussion, it is reduced only to this, so we will not expand the topic unnecessarily.

And what is a culture of dignity, if described in the language of a culture of honor? It is the presumption that everyone can defend their honor. I do not know if every person I meet is truly a person of honor. But I will assume this and base my behavior on it. Therefore, I will not encroach upon what is dear to them, knowing that their honor commands them to defend it. They are worthy of this. In other words, dignity grows out of honor. It limits honor, but does not deny it.

Bitarch and the Voluntarist propose to cast aside honor in favor of dignity. They want to deprive a person of the right to forcefully defend what is dear to them, while hoping that the law will be observed in a culture of dignity. But they forget to remind us that the law can become anything. A society with dignified laws (referring not to written norms, but to the actual practice of their application) will preserve a culture of dignity. A society with undignified laws will lose it. But what will compel people to fight for dignified laws and against undignified ones? Honor, of course!

To summarize. In reality, we are talking about the same thing. Respect for the values of the individual is important for building a prosperous society. But we do not agree on the means. If the NAP is reduced only to the refusal to initiate direct violence, then an encroachment on another’s freedom can bypass the NAP through indirect methods. This is exactly why the capacity for proactive violence cannot be taken away from a person. Without this capacity, a person will be unable to resist their own enslavement. Bitarch and the Voluntarist are developing mechanisms to strengthen the inhibitor of violence. If their means worked, it would make me their enemy. Fortunately, they work only on paper.

Honor is for the herd, dignity is for individuals.

Many people like movies about cool guys who “take charge,” protect family honor, and stage impressive duels at dawn. But let’s sort things out: real life isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. And “the culture of honor,” which seems romantic at first glance, is actually not a cool tradition, but an ancient relic that still messes with our lives.

You might ask: what are we even talking about? Let’s consider two cultural models of behavior that shape society. The culture of honor – this is when your reputation in the eyes of others is the most important thing. Someone insults you? You must immediately “respond,” otherwise you’ll lose respect. Your honor is the honor of your family, clan, nation. If you don’t defend it—you are a coward. In turn, the culture of dignity is a completely different story. Here, your dignity is internal and doesn’t depend on what others think. If someone tries to insult you, you don’t rush into a brawl, but either calmly ignore the provocateur or handle the situation civilly through the courts.

Basically, the culture of honor is an ancient thing. Remember Homer and his epic “Iliad.” Those guys fought for honor like crazy. Then there were knightly duels in the Middle Ages, Italian vendettas, blood feuds on the Caucasus. And it seems like this is already in the past. But no! Even now, the state actively plays on the concepts of “honor” and “national dignity” to silence anyone who dares criticize management. What’s that if not medieval logic? And in private life, we’ve probably all heard phrases like “Do you respect me?” from various types of thugs.

What’s wrong with the culture of honor? Well, everything is wrong! It’s based on the fact that your value is determined by someone else, not by yourself. You as a person don’t matter; what matters is your “reputation.” You have to constantly prove your right to respect because someone suddenly decided to offend you. This is a culture in which the individual is always subordinate to the group. “Are you against our clan? Then you are an enemy.” People can be manipulated into fighting each other by saying that their honor has been “offended.” The authorities use this perfectly. Besides, it’s one of the factors stimulating violence.

The alternative is the culture of dignity. This is when society recognizes that every person is valuable in themselves simply because they are a human being. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from – your rights are protected by law, not a fist. You don’t have to beat up the first person who offends you to prove that you are worth something. In a society of dignity, reputation is trust earned through deeds, not fear of revenge.

Why do we so dislike “honor”? Because libertarianism is about personal freedom and respect for individual rights. And the culture of honor is about anything but this. Honor is always about the collective. You have to obey the interests of the family, nation, leader – that is, other people. Your personal freedom doesn’t matter if it’s at stake for a certain “correctness” and “reputation.” And we as libertarians say: no, that won’t do, because you can’t break a person just for their compliance with these “honor” and “reputation.”

By the way, an interesting fact: many developed and successful countries (such as Scandinavia, Canada, developed American states like California and New York) have long been living according to a culture of dignity. But countries stuck in a culture of honor (Russia and other Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries) are somehow constantly suffering from authoritarianism and corruption. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

And is it possible to get rid of a culture of honor? Of course, it’s possible. Besides the traditional approach in the form of changing the prevailing mentality in society, broad therapeutic practice will give a big immediate effect – strengthening the mechanism of inhibiting violence in individuals with its deficit. After all, only mentally ill psychopaths can support all this toxic culture in reality, while most normal people with a strong inhibitor will not even want to “defend their honor” using violence!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The existence of violent jurisdictions is incompatible with libertarianism

Libertarian principles assert that initiating violence by anyone is unacceptable, and causing harm to a person can only be justified within the framework of defensive actions if they themselves threatened violence. At the same time, libertarianism also implies the right of individual societies and jurisdictions to operate according to the principles they consider correct for themselves, and other societies have no right to interfere in their affairs without their consent. Therefore, one sometimes encounters a position according to which violent jurisdictions, built on the principles of strong authoritarian power, brutal coercion of people into submission, the application of violent punishments even for the slightest non-violent violations, etc., although they do not adhere to libertarian principles within themselves, still have the right to exist as long as they do not initiate violence against other societies.

However, it is important to understand that violent jurisdictions are always a threat to other societies. They operate in the same way as the Taliban has operated – after some time of creating a highly violent jurisdiction within Afghanistan, it now decided to try to expand into Pakistan, carrying out attacks towards its territory. If a violent jurisdiction does not attack right now, it does not mean that it has peaceful external intentions; it is likely just waiting for a convenient moment to initiate violence. We must understand that violent jurisdictions cannot exist without strong and influential groups of psychopathic individuals with a dysfunctional inhibition of violence, who experience nothing bad about inflicting harm on people. Indeed, research shows that psychopathy is a key factor in committing acts of violence, the emergence of authoritarian societies, and the formation of warlike ambitions. Therefore, it’s only a matter of time before a violent jurisdiction tries to expand its power to other societies.

That is why, in the libertarian world of the future, violent jurisdictions simply have no right to exist. Their emergence must be crushed at the root: any communities built on principles of accepting violence should be subjected to the strictest ostracism, so that they are deprived of all opportunities to develop, especially to gain technological advantage, and psychopathic individuals threatening initiation of violence need therapeutic correction of dysfunctional inhibition of violence, either as a way to avoid such ostracism, or even as a mandatory procedure if they have already initiated violence and tried to harm someone.

Voluntarist, Bitarch