If you suddenly hear someone say to you: “Read a Harry Potter fanfic,” you can be skeptical of the idea, especially if you have little time for wands and spells. But after opening the first pages of “Harry Potter and Methods of Rational Thought” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, you’ll likely understand: this is exactly what I was missing.
Imagine what it would be like if Harry were raised not by conformist *muggles*, but by real scientists. Here, magic is a puzzle that can be solved through scientific experiments instead of “magic just happens because Joan Rowling said so.” Instead of obedience to authority – healthy skepticism and the desire to find the truth yourself. This isn’t just a retelling of the famous story; it’s a deep and witty critique of traditional thinking, bureaucracy, and blind adherence to rules.
So what’s libertarian about this? Well, almost everything!
Rationality here opposes mysticism and authority, and the main character of the book, Harry-the-scientist, constantly asks uncomfortable questions. “Why does this rule work?” “How do you know it’s true?” and, most importantly, “Can I check it myself?” Such questions are a nightmare for any authoritarian regime. Because when people start thinking for themselves, they’re much harder to manipulate. Yudkowsky here reminds us of Ayn Rand, who warned: “Where there is mysticism, there is always tyranny.” Harry literally shows us that magical thinking (even in the literal sense!) breeds obedience and stagnation.
Harry from this work doesn’t agree with being told how to think and act. He acts independently and autonomously, choosing his own friends, ideas, and rules to follow. And when he’s told, “You can’t change it, that’s the way it’s always been,” Harry responds: “What if you could?” This is a pure libertarian dream – a person who refuses to live by imposed templates. He’s like a character from Ayn Rand’s novel – not a “second-rater” but someone who creates their own reality.
And remember the Ministry of Magic? In this book, it’s even worse than in the original. This government isn’t just inefficient—it’s cruel, conservative, and downright inhumane. Harry is shocked by the existence of Azkaban and Dementors. His reaction isn’t to accept it but to find a way to change things. As if Lisander Snape were at Hogwarts and decided to overthrow the local government simply because it violates the natural rights of *wizards*.
Yudkowsky also mercilessly mocks the pointless veneration of traditions. The magical world in this book is so attached to established customs that Harry regularly experiences a mixture of bewilderment and irritation. Why write with a quill on parchment when you have pens? Why follow ridiculous rules when they are clearly outdated? This reminds us of an old joke: “That’s how it’s always been done” – the worst argument possible.
And the brightest and boldest theme of the book – fighting death. Wizards for centuries had reconciled themselves to the fact that people die, even though they literally had a cure for death in their hands. Harry doesn’t accept this order of things and plans to use the Philosopher’s Stone to grant immortality to everyone. This is straight up modern techno-libertarians who believe in technology freeing us – from illness, violence, and even the state.
Why should you read it? Yudkovsky gives us a powerful manifesto of intellectual freedom, rationality, and critical thinking. Yes, formally it’s a fanfic. But essentially – it’s a classic Enlightenment novel disguised as fantasy. It’s a story where rationality, freedom, and individualism triumph over dogmatism, bureaucracy, and authoritarianism. As Milton Friedman said: “Concentrated power is dangerous, even when its creators were motivated by the best intentions.” Harry Potter by Yudkovsky demonstrates this to us on the example of a magical world that had been living in an illusion of traditions and obedience for far too long.
Someone might find themselves in the following situation: they come home from work, their face like brick, looking for an excuse to quarrel. There are plenty of minor grievances that can turn a house into a real hell within ten minutes. Who’s to blame? Stress, fatigue, temperament, childhood trauma? Okay, maybe. But what if it’s much… prosaic? Like, on the plate.
Let’s pay attention to the “corn theory” of crimes. Back in the 70s, researchers Anthony Moulton and Kit Jacobs surprised the scientific community with a simple yet unsettling observation: in societies where people were overindulging in corn, there was a higher incidence of murders. The core problem is straightforward: in a diet where corn constitutes the primary food source, there’s a deficiency in tryptophan. Lack of tryptophan – no serotonin. No serotonin – no mood, impulsivity and dysfunction of the mechanism inhibiting violence.
Today we know more. Contemporary large-scale studies confirm that problems with mood, irritability and aggression often hinge on elementary nutrients. Omega-3, B vitamins, fiber – and suddenly, instead of roaring at home, there’s coziness again, conversation, and even smiles.
How does this work in practice? Imagine you have a hidden tyrant lurking within your house who transforms every minor matter into a drama. You could spend years trying to persuade him, undergoing therapy or hypnosis. But you can… more cunningly. Simply prepare the “correct food.” Without bombastic declarations and gloomy lectures.
Here’s the secret weapon against domestic violence and aggression:
1) Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines). Omega-3 in it works almost magically, reducing irritability. Try replacing one or two dinners a week with something fishy. You can say you’re doing it for your health – fewer suspicions!
2) Eggs and dairy products labeled “rich in omega-3/DHA.” A concealed supplement that no one would suspect. Ideal if fish provokes dissent.
3) Oats, bran, chia seeds. The more fiber – the better for bacteria in the gut producing tryptophan, and therefore the better for the person. Seriously, the gut microbiome significantly influences our mood and even mental health.
4) Walnuts. An ideal snack. Simply place a bowl of nuts on the table. Right next to the TV show. It works reliably.
5) Carbohydrates with a low glycemic index (whole grain bread, legumes, berries), preventing sugar spikes, and therefore mood swings.
What shouldn’t be given? A lot of sugar and simple carbohydrates (sweets, white bread), excess alcohol (no explanation needed here), and, of course, a monotonous “corn” diet or any mono-diet.
Does this actually work? Current research shows that even a simple supplement of omega-3s can reduce the level of both reactive (impulsive) and proactive (deliberate) aggression by 30%, and this works among representatives of any groups of people. Similarly, with tryptophan – according to studies, it reduces hostility and aggressiveness, as well as increases trust and generosity.
And what about sweet tooths and fast food? It’s not necessary to refuse completely, but you can cleverly replace harmful things with more useful ones: homemade desserts with a minimum amount of sugar, fruit instead of sweets, dark chocolate with a high cocoa content. The main thing is to ensure an abundance of vegetables, fruits, fish, milk and meat in the diet.
This approach is also fully compatible with libertarian philosophy. See, no one is forcing anyone. You simply put the right dishes on the table and give freedom of choice. Want – eat, don’t want – don’t. No violence or pressure. This isn’t the notation “what to eat in order not to be a psychopath.” It’s a quiet, inconspicuous and unobtrusive way to change the atmosphere in the family. And then – it’s everyone’s choice.
So the next time a domestic quarrel looms on the horizon, try first to fry some fish, and then already reach for diplomatic talents. Who knows, maybe the best prevention of violence is not the police, not the state and even not psychotherapists, but simply a plate of tasty and healthy food.
When considering emigration, the topic of marriage was entirely dismissed by me, as migration was considered a purely personal project. Now I want to contemplate how migration affects everything concerning marriage.
By “marriage” can be understood different degrees of rapprochement. For some, marriage boils down to primarily sexual rights, for others it implies more or less shared housekeeping, and for many it’s simply relationships formalized in a state-issued official document.
Institutional pressure encourages people toward increasingly officially-registered marriages. A constant partner enjoys greater neighborly goodwill than a constant change of partners. Standard apartments are usually designed for two adults, so living alone in them is disproportionately expensive, while cohabiting with three – considerably less convenient. Finally, having a marriage certificate can reduce aggressive government pressure or even give the government some benefits.
If a person has adapted to these factors and entered into marriage, his life becomes organized, easier, more predictable and calmer, until circumstances change. And here, the rigidity of such a structure as officially registered monogamous marriage with joint housekeeping inevitably leads to fragility, since under new conditions everything needs to be restructured. Circumstances can relate to the personal emotional sphere – for example, a more attractive potential partner appears. They can – to economic, for instance, one of the partners changes their field of activity and income level. And they can – to relationships with the state, for example, one of the partners is mobilized into the army or begins to be persecuted for unenthusiastic thoughts.
The latter category of changes most often leads to such a step as emigration, although, of course, economic factors and personal ones can also influence this. At this stage, marriage is easily able to collapse. One partner decides to bail out, the other has never thought about it before and doesn’t plan it further, which means they will have to break up. The more actively the state stimulates one of the partners to leave, the fewer opportunities there are to civilly divide what has been acquired, and the greater the likelihood that you will have to leave with one backpack and a cherished “seed phrase” instead of illiquid assets, children and livestock left behind by those who don’t go anywhere. Life completely starts from scratch. Some find this quite convenient, others it completely breaks them, but in any case, now it’s not about marriage.
If the marriage withstood this test, new dangers threaten it. In a foreign country, much will be exaggerated by partners, and quite possibly – differently. Economic roles in the family can readily change places. This often happens due to the fact that higher incomes usually correlate with more specialized skills. As a result, someone who earned more at their previous position will find themselves without demand for their specialization on the new one, their income will decrease, and the second partner will become the provider.
Moreover, various preferences in lifestyle may emerge. For example, the customs of one partner will seem pleasant in the new location, while to the other they’ll seem unattractive. As a result, one will enjoy the new society, while the other will isolate themselves, old network contacts and nostalgia for their homeland. In short, even if both partners agreed that emigration was necessary, it might turn out that different countries are more suitable for them.
To top it all off, the factor of state pressure won’t disappear and on a new place either. It’s quite possible that one partner will be unwelcome to the receiving country, and he will require a new emigration, while the second has just started to settle in and is determined not to repeat the traumatic experience of moving.
In general, marriages in emigration break up much more frequently than they do at home – and this is despite the fact that people in the unfamiliar environment should ostensibly hold onto each other even tighter. This also happens, and joint trials can only strengthen relations.
So, people often go to emigration as unanchored individuals, or they become such after arriving on a new place. Of course, they seek out new partners among the immigrant community and local residents. This is facilitated by the same institutional pressure, however it may take unusual forms. For example, in the Balkans, locals tend to acquire Russian brides more often, while in impoverished countries of Southeast Asia – Russian grooms.
Also, in emigration, an official marriage certificate usually has much greater significance, since it’s typically one of the grounds for obtaining a residence permit, and in the case of marriage with locals – also citizenship.
However, a loner may, on the contrary, decisively refuse to make strong personal connections again if, for example, emigration forced him to experience their painful breakup. In this case, he will be looking for something lighter and generally trying not to get involved in anything. This is also quite rational behavior, although, of course, if a person manages to find themselves a full new homeland, then over time everything else will come into play. Let’s wish these people that their new homeland does not disappoint them like the old one.
In conclusion, I want to recall the thesis from the previous article – that for a successful emigration, it’s useful to travel with a head start, arriving in an established community of ideologically like-minded people. Such a community will accelerate all processes related to your marriage. If your marriage proves unsuitable for the new country, then with a community present, it will break up faster. If you are worthy of each other, the community will even strengthen your bond further, giving you fertile ground for joint activity. Finally, if your marriage breaks up and you’re looking for a long-term or fleeting alliance, you’ll have more chances to find one in the community.
Anyway, whatever your fate turns out to be, remember that every voluntary decision you make is intended to change a less preferable state into a more preferable one. And if you understand anything about life, you’ll take more correct decisions than wrong ones, and therefore everything will be fine for you.
Представьте себе картину: возвращаетесь из отпуска, а в вашем доме, уютно расположившись на диване, пьёт кофе совершенно незнакомый человек. На вопрос: «А что вы тут делаете?» – отвечает невозмутимо: «Живу». И по закону (сюрприз!) полиция разводит руками и говорит, мол, разбирайтесь сами, это гражданский спор. Картинка не из приятных, верно? Но реальность такова, что во многих странах это абсолютно обыденная ситуация.
Но мы же либертарианцы, верно? И привыкли решать проблемы сами, не бегая за каждым чихом к государству. Мало того, зачастую может утверждаться, что такая проблема не может иметь никакого решения, кроме насильственного, а значит, учитывая, что мы не желаем инициировать насилие, и государство в таком случае встанет на сторону сквоттеров, у нас просто завязаны руки. Так что же делать?
В США есть парень по имени Флэш Шелтон – уже почти легендарный охотник на сквоттеров. Однажды сквоттеры оккупировали дом его матери, и вместо судов, которые могли тянуться месяцами, он провернул гениальную штуку: просто поселился туда сам. Он и его верные друзья (плюс пёс и пара видеокамер для убедительности) буквально стали жить в доме вместе со сквоттерами. Те были слегка шокированы таким нахальством, но быстро поняли, что против наглости нет приёма, и покинули жилище через несколько часов. Эта история настолько понравилась американцам, что Флэш уже запустил целое движение добровольцев, помогающих владельцам «пересквотить» свои дома.
В Испании дела ещё интереснее. Там появился настоящий бизнес по выселению «окупас» (местное слово для сквоттеров). Фирмы вроде Desokupa нанимают здоровенных парней, которые не ломают двери и не нападают, а просто стоят у входа и долго, нудно, но убедительно просят незваных гостей уйти по-хорошему. В 99% случаев «оккупанты» не выдерживают психологического давления и уходят сами. Иногда, правда, приходится немного заплатить. Обидно, конечно, платить человеку за то, что он нагло въехал в твой дом, но это быстрее и дешевле, чем годы судиться.
Британцы в этом вопросе консервативнее и стараются просто не допускать захватов, заранее заселяя пустые дома так называемыми «сторожами недвижимости». Люди получают дешёвое жильё, а собственники спокойны за свои квадратные метры. Всем выгодно, и никто никому не портит нервы.
Во Франции, кстати, владельцы часто вынуждены идти на хитрость: пока оккупанты ушли за покупками, в дом срочно вселяются рабочие, меняют замки, укрепляют двери, и сквоттерам остаётся только разводить руками на улице. Жестоко? Возможно. Но весьма эффективно и без насилия.
В Нидерландах проблему решили творчески – там собственники арендуют дома студентам, художникам и фрилансерам практически за копейки. Такие временные жильцы не дают посторонним вселиться в пустующие дома и одновременно привносят что-то полезное в район — будь то выставки, студии или просто активная молодёжь, которая не даст заскучать местным пенсионерам.
In Canada, private mediators have become popular. These are people who, for a reasonable fee, help property owners and squatters find a compromise and agree peacefully. Sometimes it’s easier for the owner to help find housing for an uninvited guest than to feed lawyers and endure nerves for years. Again, it sounds a little like rewarding audacity, but it’s pragmatic and often works.
What unites all these stories? The fact that people can protect their property even if the state is powerless or simply lazy. Private initiative, cunning, creativity, and a little healthy cynicism are able to solve the problem faster and more effectively than any government machine. The main thing – avoid direct violence, otherwise the state may send you to prison in this case, and anyway it will go beyond the values of non-violence that we promote!
In his time, the article by Savva Shanaev “Mathematics in Defense of Libertarianism” made a strong impression on me. It presented various models of agent behavior, exploring how they seek to minimize personal costs through democratic reforms, migration, or secession. The modeling results indicated that public costs decreased most rapidly when individuals exercised “vote with feet,” and that democratic mechanisms played only a supplementary role. Regarding secession – the formation of a new jurisdiction – it functioned effectively only with significant local self-sufficiency.
Naturally, this model’s effectiveness depends on minimizing the cost of status changes; therefore, the article framed it as an argument for extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions. However, analyzing how these three jurisdictional change options function in reality reveals that secession or a state transition via democratic means is incredibly expensive, lengthy, and requires coordinating numerous individuals. Migration, conversely, remains cheaper and effective even when it’s a purely individual undertaking.
Applying Theory to Real Immigration
When considering relocating to another country, people often focus solely on the relationship between an individual and the state. Consequently, they select countries where the state is perceived as benevolent and offering superior conditions. This severely restricts their choices, often to nothing, leaving them in their current location. Some substitute the state with a corporation for which they intend to work, assuming it will provide immigrants with all necessary support. This is valid until a job offer arrives from a reputable company. However, according to Shanaev’s model, any local community with its own rules – including those pertaining to collaborative problem-solving – can function as a jurisdiction. Such communities provide far greater opportunities for actively voting with your feet in pursuit of a better life. A corporation might hire you today and lay you off tomorrow; the state may welcome you today and deport you tomorrow. Individuals whose values aligned with yours at the time of joining the community will only begin to irritate you if those values change within the community, or if your own evolve.
In principle, the community is completely unnecessary to relocate to a new country if it can instead geographically isolate itself and remain in an old one. But specifically in РФ, this would be a dubious decision. Firstly, the cost of relocating to another part of the country may not be lower than the price of moving to another state, simply due to the immense scale of Russian Russia. And secondly, the Russian state is extremely suspicious of organized communities and will pursue any cohesive group for the mere fact of cohesion, regardless of loyalty to the current course of the state.
Some Observations and Recommendations
I, of course, assume that the target audience for this article is libertarians. However, libertarianism may not be your primary identity. For example, you might primarily consider yourself a streamer. Or a chemist. Or a vegan. Basically, your wishes regarding the surrounding order can be quite specific, but whether they are sufficiently libertarian remains secondary to you compared to the width of the internet channel, the frequency of tournaments, or the availability of tofu.
Therefore, before deciding to go to a certain place, you can always first familiarize yourself with local public chats and similar resources to try to feel the vibe of that place. Of course, all legal restrictions are important, as even if there are ways to circumvent them, this still means additional hassle and risks. And of course, it’s best when there is an opportunity to first come for reconnaissance, sniff the air, get to know the local community, understand how they live, and how comfortable it would be to join them.
Of course, there are those whose activity is almost entirely focused on the network. Their income – online. Their friends and like-minded people – online. The entire context of their communication is also online. They require only an inexpensive, comfortable environment and fleeting acquaintances from the offline world. This approach greatly expands the choice of countries, and if income and temperament allow, you can freely roam the world based on the weather at the window, discounts on tickets, and fleeting whims.
It’s the most difficult thing for those with strong offline attachments. Usually this is elderly parents and various pets. Exactly for such people the choice between their interests and the interests of loved ones is usually unambiguous: of course, you have to sacrifice your own. If you are one of these, it will be difficult to convince you; I suspect that you are only hiding the interests of loved ones, while actually just fearing any changes. And therefore, changes will catch up with you right on the spot. Practice shows that people move in families and with pets; there would be a desire to.
And there’s another category you should say something about. It’s enthusiastic idealists. They have a clear idea of how things *should* be. They get infected with the idea of moving to a community of like-minded people, they throw everything away and go. And at the new place it turns out that everyone around is just down-to-earth, no circles are formed around them, no hymns are sung in the mornings. Disappointed, they return just as quickly, spending a huge amount of resources on their wanderings and harboring bitter resentment towards those they were so recently charmed by. If you recognize one of these on online resources of your community, ban him immediately, without waiting for him to arrive. It will be much easier for everyone. If you recognized yourself in this description (which is unlikely), then accept my sympathy: I don’t know how to help you. Try to practice stuffing your head with ideas, without putting everything on the line all at once.
Brief Conclusions
Emigration is a quite radical step that allows you to build a life in a new place, with new people, according to new principles. The more readily people are willing to emigrate, the better the world around them begins to conform to their values.
When emigrating “to the state,” a libertarian chooses from kinds of shit. It’s much more logical to emigrate “to a community,” presenting only minimal demands for the state so it doesn’t stink too much, while studying potential future friends and neighbors with much greater care.
The latter applies to those who have already formed an emigration community: don’t call everyone in indiscriminately. The person who is obviously not going to fit in can usually be recognized even at the stage of preliminary acquaintance. Even a totalitarian sect cannot cut out each neophyte, and libertarians all the more so.
Let’s immediately give a short answer for those who don’t have time to read the whole post: those who think this way almost certainly are psychopathic individuals and probably also suffer from a dysfunction of the mechanism of violence inhibition. We will then analyze in more detail why this is so based on a scientific publication.
Some people tend to hold such a view of the world – that it’s inherently hostile. They also tend to consider other people’s actions as being more aimed at causing harm than they actually are. Thus, they can see threats even where none actually exist. All of this is described by the concept called “hostile attribution bias”.
Of course, no one is obliged to carelessly treat other people, and in many situations checking each person for potential hostile and harmful intentions is perfectly normal. But we must understand – this is done because some people *do* want to cause harm, and you can run into them. At the time same, labeling people as bad and the world in general is unlikely to be an adequate view. And perhaps some personality traits are significantly linked with such a view.
Research conducted by the University of Alabama examined the link between hostile attribution bias and psychopathic predispositions. As a result, this link turned out to be moderately expressed. So, it’s quite possible that people with high overall scores on psychopathy, as well as, in particular, such a factor as impulsivity control impairment (indicating problems with controlling impulsive reactions), would be more inclined to perceive the actions of others in situations they don’t understand as hostile than others. Furthermore, hostile attribution bias was moderately linked with all forms of aggression – both proactive (intentional) and reactive (impulsive). This shows that individuals with elevated levels are prone to respond to perceived hostility by resorting to aggressive actions of various types, including the observation of a link with the manifestation of physical aggression. Don’t forget that all forms of aggression are also significantly linked with psychopathic predispositions.
As we see, individuals who have psychopathic predispositions and are prone to manifesting any forms of aggression often perceive a threat where one simply doesn’t exist. The world seems more hostile to them, and everyone around them – those who undoubtedly want to harm them. Of course, there really do exist psychopathic individuals among us who can easily, without experiencing any psychological discomfort or internal resistance, even commit murders, and it is quite reasonable to be wary of them. But most people are still non-violent and don’t seek to harm anyone. And if someone thinks otherwise, if someone labels people as inherently hostile and aggressive creatures, then it’s perfectly justified to think whether this person is judging others according to themselves.
The book on libertarian theory of war is steadily moving toward completion. Having previously analyzed wars initiated by an individual, I am now describing situations in which a group starts the war. So far, the sections on a group attacking an individual and group on group have been completed. The “group versus state” scenario is on the way.
The process of writing the book is bringing me unexpected discoveries. For instance, at the very beginning, I had to deviate from strict methodological individualism and introduce collective subjects. Now, I have come to the point where I am encroaching on the holy of holies, asserting that when analyzing group-on-group war, there is no practical sense in determining who is the aggressor and who is the victim. In short, read it, and I will be glad to receive your comments.
Unfortunately, our skeptics still may not understand the fundamental point of the idea about developing combat means to enhance the violence inhibitor. They suggest “don’t waste time,” develop a classical army and invest in traditional lethal weapons. But let’s break it down – why they are wrong.
1) Increasing mobilization potential by several orders of magnitude – unlike what is typically observed with soldiers armed with lethal weapons, drones with this means in the sky will not be shot at, even by those possessing a strong variant of violence inhibitor from birth! And this is even more relevant to opposition forces than armies of states, because among anti-authoritarian people there will be fewer psychopaths willing to kill easily than in the security structures protecting the status quo.
2) Greater public support and less outrage about brutality from sympathizers, which is especially important for a weaker side.
3) The possibility of using inhibitor means in civilian life against domestic abusers, unlike the complete uselessness of classical weapons like tanks and artillery during peacetime (billions are spent on their production, maintenance, and crew training annually from taxes, and this does not benefit society at all, and it is particularly burdensome for more free societies compared to authoritarian ones).
4) Safety of manufacture for the manufacturers themselves – inhibitor drugs cannot accidentally explode during manufacturing, transport or storage; even accidental exposure to workers will do them no harm.
5) Even cluster munitions (CMWs) can be humane. Replicable (“contagious”) vector vaccines have already been tested on animals and their effectiveness was recognized, meaning there are no technological barriers for developing “contagious” gene therapy to enhance the violence inhibitor. Of course, this is a very risky solution, but believe me, anyone would rather catch a “new cold” than be defeated by classical CMW types like nuclear or VX gas.
6) Extremely low cost and simplicity of production of the dose of the inhibitor drug. Of course, developing the first dose may cost billions and require complex equipment, but the cost of reproducing each subsequent one will be on the level of the current cost of doses of popular vector vaccines. The need for equipment and materials to reproduce is not comparable to the equipment needed to produce classical weapons (the equipment easily fits in an apartment, while factories producing artillery shells or tanks occupy square kilometers and are easily vulnerable to air strikes).
7) Extremely small weight of the “combat part” and little energy is required for successful defeat (it’s enough to pierce the skin anywhere on the body). In theory, it’s possible to create a drone the size of a bee, which is already a real technology – not science fiction!
8) Humane mines with no demining problems – after the war, classic mines can remain dangerous for civilian populations for many decades, while inhibitors in traps are quickly neutralized by environmental factors.
As a final note – why not tranquilizers to temporarily sedate the enemy? Indeed, science fiction often features plots where instead of lethal weapons, darts with tranquilizers are used. However, in real life and especially in combat conditions, this is difficult to implement because even a small dose of any tranquilizer won’t have an effect, while too large a dose will be fatal, and the dose needs to be calculated for each person individually, primarily taking into account their body weight. On the other hand, for most inhibitory drugs, the therapeutic window (a “dynamic range” when the dosage already gives an effect but is not yet lethal) will be extremely wide, and one dosage can be boldly applied to any person.
Few will argue that the topic of intelligence services monitoring activists via mobile phones is very important. It’s 2025, but things remain the same: authorities of almost all states dislike freedom and are ready to make a serious effort to peek into your smartphone. Even if you’re a super-conspirator, you’ve got a disposable phone with a “poor man’s” SIM card and you’re sitting at home, carefully posting statuses in Telegram or using this device as a Wi-Fi hotspot – there remains the risk that one day a cop will knock on your door.
How is this possible, you ask? Simply: there’s the old triangulation method. If a phone is connected to a network, even without GPS and Wi-Fi, intelligence services can calculate the approximate location of the device based on the level of signal from nearby base stations. This isn’t instantaneous, but gradually one can narrow down the search area to a building entrance, or even a specific apartment. Remember how they tracked down Shamil Basayev in Chechnya? That’s roughly so, only now it works faster and cheaper.
But don’t panic! There’s a simple solution: a Faraday cage for a phone. Sounds futuristic, doesn’t it? In reality, it’s just a case or bag made of special fabric that blocks absolutely any radio signals and is sold on all marketplaces. A phone inside this thing seems to vanish from reality: no cellular networks, Wi-Fi, GPS, or Bluetooth see it anymore. Imagine “airplane mode,” only 100% reliable.
And here’s the key point: if you keep your phone in a Faraday cage for most of the time (when you’re not using it), calculating its location is almost impossible. After all, no government in the world will spend huge resources constantly triangulating some ordinary activist. That luxury intelligence services reserve for leaders of insurgent groups, and simple activists are definitely not on the VIP list of a stationary criminal.
Of course, after purchase, you must check the Faraday cage case! Quality doesn’t always match the description. To test it, you use exclusively your personal phone – so as not to create a chain of connections for intelligence services with your anonymous device. Place your personal phone in a bag and try to call it from another phone (e.g., a friend or family member’s phone, but not your own anonymous phone). If the call doesn’t go through, then the case is good!
Here’s another tip – it always pays to use a paid VPN with a high privacy rating, both on your phone and PC, even if the phone is used as a Wi-Fi hotspot. A VPN will hide your real IP address and make it more difficult for those who want to track your actions online. It’s also important to regularly check the privacy settings of your phone and apps. Don’t forget to turn off geolocation, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi if you don’t need them right now. This will help avoid accidental data leaks and make the device less noticeable for gathering information. Remember that modern phones even in “sleep” mode continue to periodically send requests and connect to towers and networks. It doesn’t hurt to also remember about physical security: You shouldn’t take a phone used for activism to real meetings, and if you do need to move it – it needs to be turned off beforehand and placed in a Faraday cage case. Remember that safety is not just a set of technical actions but a habit and a lifestyle.
Of course, no technology can make a person completely invisible. But with due caution, you can become so boring and uninteresting for surveillance agencies that they’ll prefer to spend their forces on something more exciting. Take care of yourself and stay free!
I’ve been advised that I haven’t talked about Montelibero at all lately. That’s not entirely true; it’s just that I usually write about specific problems, whereas there truly hasn’t been a general overview of the state of affairs in the project for a very long time. I’m correcting that now.
Overview
For a long time, the project’s calling card was MTL-City. This is also what undermined it. One day, a local journalist appeared who, based on separate and loosely connected facts, concluded that Montelibero was a Putin project created for another attempt at a coup in Montenegro, similar to the one that took place in 2016. As a result, the state, having received such a public denunciation, became interested specifically in the activities of DOO Montelibero, the legal entity through which the land in City was purchased. A criminal case regarding illegal construction was opened, and as a result, the construction of all permanent structures was frozen pending the investigation. Well, now only modular houses are being assembled there, which, being temporary structures, require no installation permits. However, the unfinished construction doesn’t look very pretty, not to mention the money buried in vain.
Nevertheless, people live in City, public breakfasts are held on Fridays—for those wishing to meet the project participants—plus there are occasional creative evenings and other cultural events. However, to people who have just arrived in Montenegro and want to “settle in this commune of yours,” I advise against jumping on this idea without thorough prior acquaintance. In City, the ratio of costs to comfort is not very optimal, and there is practically no choice of housing. This situation will improve as new modular houses for rent are put into operation—but not very quickly.
The main Montelibero community, as before, resides in the city of Bar, spreading fairly evenly across the city, some in rented housing and some in purchased. They have the opportunity to gather at the First Montelibero Club (it was evicted from its premises in the spring, but recently opened in a new location), at Quiet Backwater (it was evicted from its premises in the summer, but reopened in a new location almost immediately), as well as in several non-Montelibero Russian bars, where the crossing of Monteliberians with the rest of the Russian diaspora occurs most naturally. In Budva, the Montelibero movement has practically gone quiet; in other cities, it never started.
Tokenomics is used by the local Montelibero community no longer with the enthusiasm of neophytes, but simply as a clear and long-familiar tool. EURMTL and EUROMUT are used for cashless payments. USDM mainly serves as an auxiliary token for currency exchanges (I, for example, withdraw dollars from a crypto exchange into USDM, and then exchange them for “mulki”). Some businesses fix debt obligations in their own tokens. The Blockchain Social Network still hasn’t acquired a convenient viewer and editor, so it remains deeply marginal. The Stellar wallets being developed by community members, Montelibero Wallet and especially Sunce, are gradually becoming more convenient. The MTL Fund has sharply reduced its public activity and is now effectively interesting only to its shareholders, and even then, not to all of them. The Montelibero Association has de facto become the mouthpiece for the project as a whole, so let’s discuss it in a bit more detail.
Of course, the fears of paranoiacs that the Association was created only to leak lists of members of an organized criminal community to “comrade major” have about as much relation to reality as that Montenegrin journalist’s ideas that Montelibero was dreamed up by Putin to destroy Montenegrin democracy. Everything is much more boring. The project activists simply rearranged the furniture in the room. I hope they’ve become more comfortable. The Association implies liquid democracy, a secretariat, and a small budget for its routine expenses. This internal kitchen has little effect on the lives of others (which is good), but draws some resources away (which is bad).
Fortunately, the Association activists also handle periodic contacts with the outside world, which is potentially the most useful part for fitting Montelibero into the global libertarian movement. Alas, I rarely have the strength to keep track of this. For instance, in recent months, there have been public calls and private negotiations with representatives of the Cosmos blockchain ecosystem (they have their own rich developments in DAO), with the MetaState project (creating a system of non-governmental electronic passports), with a project to lobby for a simplified visa and entrepreneurship regime for relocants to Albania, with volunteer fire organizations in Montenegro, the Free Private Cities fund, and certainly with others—it’s impossible to mention everyone.
The Association also includes corporate participants, among whom are the aforementioned MTL Fund and the First Club. Besides them, Green Zyland is more or less noticeable, a producer of modular houses for rent (they had a business back in the RF, and now they are expanding into three more countries). In November, they plan to hold a festival in Georgia; a few people from the Montenegrin Monteliberians will go, but I cannot afford it financially. Another active participant is the MTL Alert group. They are preparing for a zombie apocalypse; it’s a cool hobby, but for some reason, I find it hard to take seriously.
The Association is divided into factions, but only the panarchist faction is more or less publicly active. Two of its members, Stas and Ved, both run very sensible thematic channels.
The previously announced redirection of Montelibero’s efforts toward Argentina has not yet led to the formation of a Russian-speaking libertarian community there that is in contact with the rest of the project. The only news from those parts is that a delegate from Montelibero spoke at some Argentine libertarian conference and delivered a letter to Milei. What was in that letter and what effect it had, history remains silent about.
Conclusions and forecasts
At the start, Montelibero participants acted monstrously irrationally and made a ton of mistakes. How could this have been avoided? For example, by delaying the start of construction and other loud activity to instead more thoroughly scout the situation, and only then decide what to do and how. Was it realistic to act according to a more rational scenario? No. Montelibero is a movement, not an organization. It was precisely the drive of the pioneers and their enthusiastic mistake-making that attracted many new participants to the project. Without all this, a fairly strong libertarian community in Montenegro might simply not have formed, just as it didn’t form in Serbia, Georgia, Thailand, or even Argentina. So once again I state: centralized planning sucks, the market decides.
Nevertheless, many initiatives within Montelibero have successfully fizzled out, and many previously active project participants have, at best, tempered or completely lost interest in it, and at worst, moved into open opposition, considering the project to be meaningless “info-gypsyism.”
The economic part of the project must be mentioned separately. Here, the miscalculation proved fatal. It’s one thing when nine out of ten startups fail and one takes off. This happens thanks to fierce competition that selects the truly best. It’s a completely different matter when nine out of ten startups fail, and the tenth balances on the brink of breaking even. This happens thanks to a disgusting investment climate, under which one simply should not invest serious market capital here, just as one should not invest it in some Donbas. Even if something does take off, it will be not thanks to high utility for clients, but thanks to connections with the authorities, for example. And for libertarians, making money this way is usually considered “beneath them.”
Therefore, the following forecast can be made about Montelibero now. This project will not make Europe, or even just Montenegro, free. But it allowed those who believed in it to create a free society around themselves, and also became a platform for testing interesting ideas and technologies suitable for application in other places.
