Theory of Moral Nativism and Moral Intuition

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Moral nativism is a theory that, in response to the question of where moral intuition, moral judgment, and other important elements of moral psychology come from, provides the answer that they are to some extent innate and emerged as a result of human biological evolution. Moral nativism relies on a two-stage argument. The first argument is that the mind contains a moral grammar: a complex system of principles, rules, and conceptual building blocks that generate and connect various mental representations upon which moral intuition depends. The second argument is that at least some of the fundamental attributes of this moral grammar are innate and are not based exclusively on experience, but rather come “from nature’s hand.” Cultural factors certainly influence the development of morality; nevertheless, a significant amount of evidence suggests that at least some aspects of moral cognition are innate.

How can we confirm the position of moral nativism? Darwin, de Waal, Kropotkin, and other biologists have emphasized that empathetic and altruistic behavior seems to have deep evolutionary roots. Rats experience stress when they hear the cries of other rats and perform altruistic acts to protect them from harm. Great apes experience evident grief over the death or disappearance of those to whom they were attached, and often comfort victims of attacks. Human infants cry more intensely in response to the crying of other infants than to comparable computer-generated sounds or even to a recording of their own crying; this means that “they react to the awareness of another’s pain, rather than simply to a specific pitch of sound.” Human children are also biologically predisposed to recognize and comfort those experiencing emotional distress. In a broader sense, young children are predisposed to help others achieve their goals, share valuable resources with them, and provide them with useful information. Furthermore, clinical and experimental studies have confirmed that specific areas of the brain underlie moral cognition, and that damage to these areas can lead to impaired moral judgments while leaving other cognitive functions intact.

We can also refer to norms that are universal across all societies. Research across hundreds of jurisdictions shows that the prohibition of murder appears to be universal and highly invariant. All known justifications and excusable reasons for committing murder consist of a relatively short list of defensive arguments familiar to everyone. Moreover, the attitude toward intentional killings specifically is even stricter. And a study conducted among ten cultures from different parts of the world, including residents of villages, cities, and even representatives of nomadic peoples, shows that battery, rape, theft, slander, and perjury are assessed as unlawful (i.e., “bad” or “extremely bad”) acts by about 95% of people.

Finally, one cannot fail to mention the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which many animal species and humans possess strong deterrents against causing harm to members of their own species. In animals, these deterrents are most often expressed through the ritualization of combat. In humans, they consist of unconditioned (innate) and conditioned (acquired during socialization) reflexes, primarily causing a reaction of rejection and internal resistance to witnessing the suffering of other people and performing aggressive actions toward them. Many studies, including anthropological and military ones, confirm that the average healthy individual possesses strong internal resistance to committing violence. And only a few, completely dysfunctional individuals, experience no resistance at all, even to committing murder—these are also called psychopaths.

From Theory to Practice: Social Support Cases in the Montellibero Ancap Community

This is my second article from the first issue of Yozh magazine, which is distributed via a paid subscription model. The issue was dedicated to the libertarian view on social support.

I am writing this post in a libertarian club, sipping a suspended beer. Recently, I needed money, and I sold my promissory notes on the exchange. Several times, people helped me move my things to a new apartment for free. In the early stages of Montelibero’s existence, I received an unconditional basic income. And at the very dawn of the project, when I first arrived in Montenegro, I received a generous relocation allowance from one of the community’s ideologues—he appreciated that I was convincing people to participate in the movement by personal example. Finally, through one of the project participants, I managed to find stable remote work with a decent income that allows me to live and even save a little, without being an IT specialist.

These were only the cases of social support where I was the recipient. I can recall a few others. An acquaintance of mine received a loan from a private charitable foundation to develop her private kindergarten, and I am helping another person obtain investments to open her own jewelry workshop. And when one idiot borrowed a huge amount of money and was in no hurry to pay it back, he was helped to tokenize his debt, and now all his obligations are available for public viewing on the blockchain. Less patient creditors sell his promissory notes at a deep discount. And when someone buys enough of these debt obligations, it becomes market-justified for them to visit the debtor and very gently ask him to reconsider his priorities regarding spending on personal needs in order to buy back his notes at face value as quickly as possible.

The Montelibero ancap community is young. Therefore, major social support here usually boils down to loans or taking an equity stake in a business. Minor support takes the form of in-kind services or one-time gifts. We haven’t yet reached the point of thinking about what to replace (or if it’s necessary to replace) state pension payments for our participants. For now, it is far more relevant for us to help each other find ways to earn a living.

Our task as a libertarian community is to acquire enough resources to transform the world around us to our liking, and at the same time, not allow the state to seize these resources. Additionally, it is very important to us that other communities borrow and replicate our experience, and that those who know about us but are not part of the community view us favorably.

Therefore, it is required, on the one hand, to be proud and self-sufficient, not begging for money from the state or obscure external NGOs, and on the other hand, not to acquire the image of caricatured ancaps who can help only for money.

As a result, we created a quite original internal tokenomics on the blockchain, where tokens are issued to denote any public obligations, which can then be traded freely. On the one hand, this allows for the easy attraction of the community’s free resources for private needs. On the other hand, for the state, especially one as archaic as Montenegro’s, all these blockchains are a dark forest. Quite serious value is stored in the tokenomics, but it is difficult for an outside observer to analyze, despite the full transparency of the blockchain.

In tokenomics, it is easy for a person to confirm their business reputation: they show a link to their contracts, and then to the transactions on the blockchain made according to those contracts. In tokenomics, it is easy to provide some low-liquidity property as collateral to obtain a loan denominated in high-liquidity euro-stablecoins. In tokenomics, finally, one can simply collect micro-donations. For example, when the path to the club began to be overgrown with blackberries, one of the activists organized a community cleanup. A dozen people showed up and worked with pruning shears for a couple of hours, while many others sent donations for this good cause to the activist’s wallet. Then she divided the collected money equally among the participants. Thus, literally in passing, public goods are created under ancap.

One cannot mention all the cases, but the general principle is this: ideological kinship creates trust, tokenomics tools consolidate it, and an entrepreneurial spirit allows it to be used to solve social tasks.

How stateless social support works

This is my article from the first issue of Yozh magazine, which is distributed via a paid subscription model. The issue was dedicated to the libertarian view on social support.

1. Why is it needed?

Although the free market promotes general enrichment, commerce alone will not make everyone wealthy. Some will be unable or fail to save enough to cover suddenly arising urgent needs. Some people’s needs may exceed their credit limit, so the possibility of a loan will not solve the problem.

Such people have a request for the mercy of those around them.

2. Can they count on it?

In a society of strangers, people show mercy more willingly the wealthier they are, the more secure their position seems to them, and the more undeserved the plight of the petitioner seems to them.

In close-knit communities, additional factors play an important role: the gratitude of the community, a further increase in its cohesion, and the fact that an example of mercy will encourage mercy from other members of the community.

3. Who can count on mercy?

3.1. First and foremost — their own. That is, family members, friends, and participants of a close-knit community.

3.2. Those who are merciful themselves. Helping them is also an opportunity to express one’s gratitude. This also includes everyone who is considered worthy of gratitude for other reasons. Usually, these are positive externalities associated with their activities. Thus, artists, service workers valued by those around them, etc., can confidently count on charity.

3.3. Those who know how to express gratitude. This is a currency that anyone at all is able to find.

3.4. And finally, those who tried to take care of themselves rather than living for the day. This is especially relevant if hard times come for many.

4. What effect does this system of incentives produce?

As is easy to guess, these incentives will encourage people to gather in communities, strive to be useful and grateful to others, but not forget to create a safety net for themselves. Serious deviations from the described socially responsible behavior can mostly be afforded by very proud and self-sufficient people who, in essence, refuse social support themselves, and who are we to impose it on them?

5. What forms will social support take under ancap?

Let us stipulate: market behavior cannot be planned, therefore, in describing the future of self-regulating systems, we can only make plausible assumptions.

5.1. Spontaneous support

A person suddenly needs help, they broadcast a request among their circle of communication, and those willing either satisfy the request without further communication or get in touch to clarify the optimal option for themselves and the object of help.

The market is able to provide the necessary tools here: verification of need, convenience of money transfer, selection of providers of in-kind services — either on a gratuitous basis or at the expense of funds transferred by donors.

5.2. Regular support

A person requires constant help, or funds are needed to maintain some costly infrastructure that is not paid for by direct contributions from those who use it.

The market here provides a competitive environment in which the following operate: (a) funds that accumulate one-time and regular voluntary contributions and spend them on charitable projects; (b) contractors ready to implement these projects on a commercial basis.

6. Limitations of social support under ancap

Charity is an exchange of resources for moral satisfaction. In the absence of coercion, support will be received not by those who need it most, but by those whose support provides more moral satisfaction. This triggers competition among those in need of help, in which those who best satisfy the criteria in section 3 win.

Will everyone get help? It is impossible to say for sure, but the probability is higher the wealthier the society and the more developed the market, including the market for charity.

Will the volume of help be higher than under state distribution? It is quite possible that not, but it will certainly be spent more efficiently, and such a distribution will definitely be perceived as more fair.

How dominant behavior arises and what is the difference between social and aggressive dominance

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Dominant behavior is the desire to promote one’s own initiative, guide and control the actions of others. Such behavior is characterized by high self-confidence and confidence in one’s decisions. But why do some animals or people behave in a more dominant manner than others? And what is the connection between dominance and aggression? The answers to these questions may be quite unexpected for some.

Let’s start with an interesting experiment. It involved observations of a group of people who interacted with each other for 28 days. With varying frequency, different participants in the experiment took either a placebo or tryptophan—a substance involved in the synthesis of serotonin. Earlier trials showed that taking tryptophan and increasing serotonin levels in general reduce aggressive behavior in animals and humans. However, it was also known that increasing serotonin levels in animals stimulates dominant behavior. This result was also reproduced in humans.

As part of the experiment, the participants’ behavior was divided into 4 categories. Dominant behavior, such as expressing one’s opinion, setting goals for other people, etc., was significantly strengthened when a person took tryptophan. At the same time, grouchy or quarrelsome behavior, characterized by deception, lack of restraint, raising one’s voice at others, etc., was significantly weakened. Submissive behavior (the tendency to avoid responsibility and follow others even when disagreeing with them) also weakened, but only slightly, while negotiating behavior remained unchanged.

Some may believe that a dominant individual must be aggressive by nature. But as we see, taking a substance known for its anti-aggressive effect led to an increase in dominant behavior. However, there is no contradiction here. Even the study of animal behavior, for example, wolves, shows that alpha males should not be aggressive toward their subordinates or coerce them in any way. Attacks by alpha males on subordinate individuals are extremely rare. And the leader of the pack is usually the oldest male, the father of the family; the myth that the hierarchy in a wolf pack is strictly vertical and headed by the most aggressive male who obtained his position through violence is actually based on the study of wolves kept in enclosures, rather than those in the wild. Also, consider which pack has a better chance of survival—one that is cohesive and cooperating, or one in which some forcibly subjugate others and everyone is at odds with one another?

Research also demonstrates that dominance in humans can be divided into two forms—social and aggressive. Both forms of dominance are characterized by self-confident and leading behavior. However, some dominant individuals choose strategies in which they rely on other people (for example, subordinates) and are prone to social learning (using solutions that proved successful for other people). At the same time, other individuals resort to aggressive and Machiavellian strategies. They are not inclined to rely on social information, even if it may be beneficial. Additionally, socially dominant individuals have better relationships with the people around them and receive greater recognition of their leadership qualities than aggressively dominant individuals.

As we can see, a true “alpha” is not the one who is most aggressive and ready to forcibly compel others to submit, but the one who treats others well, sets an example for them, and gains recognition for their leadership qualities without resorting to violent coercion. And judging by research, such healthy dominant behavior is governed by the serotonergic system (the link is bidirectional—increasing serotonin levels stimulates such behavior, and achieving a high social status leads to greater serotonin production), which is also responsible for the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism that prevents violent behavior and causing harm to others.

Network State. Translation of chapters 5.1 and 5.2.

The translation of The Network State is steadily nearing completion. Chapter 5.1 (a short preamble to the fifth part of the book) and Chapter 5.2, where Balaji Srinivasan analyzes the phenomenon of the nation-state in detail: what a nation is, what a state is, how they differ, how they influence each other, what their combination represents, and much more along those lines, are ready.

From some fairly recent thoughts: various strategies of public administration are likened to various programming paradigms.

The next piece will definitely, certainly be the last, and I hope the most interesting—after all, we must finally figure out what the author proposes in a practical sense, after going on for so long and in such detail about the global situation and upcoming challenges!

Essentialism and Constructivism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Perhaps, when you were taking political views tests such as PolitiScales, you encountered a scale such as constructivism–essentialism. If someone is unfamiliar with these concepts, we will briefly describe them in this post, including considering them from the perspective of the problems we are studying here.

The constructivist position is that a person is created by the environment (especially the social one) in which they are located, and their personality traits are acquired. In turn, essentialism claims that there are certain innate and natural characteristics that make a person who they are.

Constructivism can be easily traced when someone attempts to explain certain social phenomena, including social relationships between people, by referring solely to the social environment itself as the cause of their formation in the form in which we observe them. The USSR’s approach can be called extremely constructivist, consisting of creating a new “Soviet man” – changing the very psychology of people through their re-education in a new environment with the indoctrination of communist ideology. The same applies to the approach of gender studies currently conducted in the West, based on which the concepts of man and woman themselves are not biologically determined – one is not born a man or a woman, but becomes one. A similar approach is practiced regarding a person’s sexual orientation. In these and a number of other works, essentialism is subjected to enormous criticism, consisting of accusing this idea of fixing a biologically determined difference between men and women, different races, and ethnicities.

Constructivism can hardly be called a productive approach, at least for the reason that it ignores a truly scientific understanding of how a human is structured, their psychology and behavior. Much in a human is still biologically determined, and the environment participates in their development, including personality development, strictly in conjunction with innate biological predispositions, which most often mediate its influence. We will not now consider the confirmation of such a view in all possible forms of social phenomena, but we will nonetheless turn to the data we have on such a phenomenon in social relationships between people as violence.

For example, it is known that while the tendency toward reactive (affective and impulsive) aggression may be equally explainable by genetics and environment, proactive (instrumental and intentional) aggression is predominantly explainable by genetics, and the environment, if it leads to its emergence, generally does so in the presence of a genetic predisposition to it. Also, antisocial behavior in children in conjunction with certain characteristics of primary psychopathy, such as traits of callousness and insensitivity, is observed at an extremely high level of heritability. Furthermore, such behavior, which is often intentional, is extremely resistant to correction. At the same time, antisocial behavior on its own, without traits of callousness-insensitivity, has only moderate heritability, is often not intentional, and is easily corrected during the upbringing of children.

These and other similar evidence align well with the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which a healthy person possesses an innate tendency to feel aversion to causing harm to other people. And the absence of such a tendency should be regarded as a pathology, rather than something arising purely for social reasons. Of course, improving the social environment can significantly reduce the manifestation of such pathology. However, even in the matter of aggressive behavior, the environment does not influence the manifestation of its different forms equally. Therefore, to guarantee a solution to the problem, the pathology must also be treated, since individuals may appear in any environment who do not experience the slightest internal resistance to achieving their goals through the intentional infliction of harm on other people.

My partners and I created the MEREXP investment fund and share some of our analytics in a Telegram channel. Could you evaluate the channel?

Lisoz Tech (the question is accompanied by a donation of 15 USDC)

Here is the link to the channel: https://t.me/merexp_analytics

It only started being populated recently, since May 2, and so far it has been doing so on a daily basis (at one point, my own channel had a similarly auspicious picture). The materials can be roughly divided into two categories: reviews of specific markets and articles explaining the advantages of Merexp Analytics.

As far as can be understood, the advantages lie in the fact that the company uses its own proprietary metrics. I particularly liked the breakdown of how these metrics work based on historical Bitcoin data. Admittedly, based on the channel’s materials, it remains unclear how the raw data for all these metrics is collected, but perhaps the company shares this information with its clients.

The fund views Bitcoin as simply another asset in the stock market, which gives the reviews their own charm, since the Bitcoin market is usually written about either in the context of cryptocurrency world news or in the context of technical analysis; here, however, the focus is mainly on the influence of fiat liquidity fluctuations and similar matters.

Strictly speaking, this is already at least the second attempt to launch the fund’s channel; the first happened in December 2023, and by February 2024, publications had already ceased. Back then, the publications were much less regular and concerned Bitcoin exclusively.

It was somewhat surprising that there is no link anywhere in the channel’s materials to the investment fund’s website or its analytical division. This is inconvenient both in terms of presenting materials (for example, the website could contain a convenient archive of review publications broken down into categories by individual markets), as well as a lack of information about the fund that is awkward to present in a Telegram channel format (for example, information about the volume of attracted investments and the fund’s portfolio). Instead of a website, it is suggested to contact the support bot for all questions. This model of presenting material and interacting with potential clients is not very clear to me, although perhaps it is simply a trend. After all, people even manage to do business on Instagram.

The feedback bot was tested by me at the most unfavorable time — on a Friday evening. The response time was 40 minutes, which is very good.

Or perhaps the website and other interactive tools are currently being actively finalized and will soon see the light of day. If so, I even appreciate such an approach: first fully develop one’s key know-how that provides an advantage over competitors, and only then pay attention to how to present them to the public. This is much more honest than first making a beautiful presentation and website, then attracting venture investment, and only then, possibly, spending that investment on the development of metrics and algorithms.

In any case, I subscribed to the channel because the content provided there is quite original. Regarding Bitcoin, it will even be possible to track how the forecasts come true, and if they prove reliable, then perhaps I will start looking for entry points, rather than just buying coins blindly as soon as I receive income exceeding the subsistence minimum.

As a right-libertarian and legal individualist, can I support the Russian Volunteer Corps?

Max Stirner

From the proposed positions, it is strange in general to ask questions about whether one can do something. Of course, one can; the only question is the extent of responsibility.

If we are talking about sanctions from the Russian state, then solving the problem comes down to finding sufficiently safe ways of transferring money, publishing propaganda, delivering equipment, and so on.

However, I believe the question is more about whether other right-libertarians and right-individualists, upon learning of such activity, would feel obligated to obstruct you.

The RDK is a semi-autonomous armed formation within the AFU: in some ways it obeys the central command, it depends on it significantly for supplies, and it seems to be quite autonomous in matters of recruiting and the informational coverage of its activities. But there are other units within the AFU that independently conduct recruiting and crowdfunding. How is the RDK so different that the German Stirner asks about the permissibility of helping specifically the RDK, and not some Azov?

Azov was mentioned for a reason. Both this brigade and the Russian Volunteer Corps face numerous accusations that Nazis serve there. Economic theory tells us that values are subjective. Any person has every right to prefer one nation over all others; this in itself does not provide grounds to condemn them. Do the guys from Azov and RDK exterminate representatives of all other nations for the sake of the greatness of the nation they prefer over all others? No, they exterminate people according to a different criterion, and this criterion is no different from the one guided by other military formations within the AFU.

The only remaining difference between the RDK (and a couple of other smaller units) and other parts is that they physically, on foot, crossed the internationally recognized Russian-Ukrainian border to fight the Russian army on Russian territory. And what, does this make them aggressors? No, they are still participants in a defensive war. Just like the drone operators striking refineries deep in the Russian rear.

Ah, yes, they also have Russian passports, or at least they did at the start of the war. And what, does this somehow change their legal status? No, not even under Russian laws. They still remain AFU servicemen, toward whom all sorts of rights and restrictions associated with the laws and customs of war apply—laws which the RF pledged to observe (but does not). But even if there were a law in the RF according to which any RF citizen who joined the ranks of foreign armed forces was subject to execution without trial, what significance would this have for a legal individualist?

However, I assume that the reader with the nickname Max Stirner is a Russian citizen. Therefore, his question can be reformulated more sharply: does libertarian morality justify war against one’s own state? Actually, libertarian morality justifies war against any state. Even against states led by libertarians, such as Javier Milei, Nayib Bukele, or Hans-Adam II. Fighting against one’s own is even more meaningful, because that is where your main grievances lie, it is that state that causes you direct harm, whereas all others are just some predators roaming nearby, who, of course, should also have no place on earth. However, a successful war requires allies. Most of us do not have them. The RDK does. Let us be happy for them.

How psychopathic predispositions are linked to authoritarian views and what can potentially be done about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It would be quite obvious to suggest that among supporters of authoritarian views and violent methods of achieving goals, the number of psychopathically predisposed individuals is higher than among supporters of libertarian and non-violent views. This assumption stems from the simple fact that a person who feels no internal resistance to causing harm to others and is even ready to commit a violent attack under certain circumstances is far more likely to end up in the first camp than in the second. But what can various studies examining people with both right-wing and left-wing authoritarian views say about this?

Most often, such studies are focused on the study of supporters of authoritarian-right views. For example, one of them showed that right-wing authoritarianism, a tendency toward prejudice, and an orientation toward social dominance (a preference for a society in which group hierarchy and inequality exist) are linked to psychopathic factors such as the interpersonal (a tendency to manipulate others and consider oneself superior to everyone) and the affective (a lack of empathy and guilt). It should be noted that the manifestation of these specific psychopathic factors in an individual is most closely linked to a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, which makes a person capable of causing harm to people without experiencing any repulsion.

The issue of authoritarian-left views is studied much less frequently; even the existing tools for this purpose are quite new. However, existing research shows that a tendency toward left-wing authoritarianism, and especially its component such as the permissibility of carrying out a violent revolution against the established social system, is strongly linked to psychopathy and antagonistic narcissism (the tendency to believe that the world is a highly competitive place in which one must achieve their own dominance over others). At the same time, neither a tendency toward altruism nor a tendency toward social justice were linked to left-wing authoritarianism. This may indicate that some left-wing politicians are not concerned with social justice and equality, but merely use them to justify violence against other people to satisfy their own egocentric needs.

Interesting results were demonstrated by a pilot study on the influence of psilocybin on a person’s tendency toward more authoritarian or libertarian views. After two sessions of taking the substance, authoritarian predispositions in the subjects decreased significantly, and this effect was maintained to a sufficient extent even after 7-12 months. It is very important to note here that psychedelic substances have long been studied for anti-aggressive and empathic effects. They affect the operation of the serotonin system, which plays a key role in the regulation of aggression and is responsible for the violence inhibitor function—more precisely, they are agonists of its 2A receptors (leading to their activation). However, there are studies suggesting that the empathic effect of psychedelics may be linked to the activation of 1A receptors, for which they are often partial agonists.

Serotonin 1A receptor agonists have demonstrated in a number of studies to be some of the potentially most effective anti-aggressive agents, without leading to the suppression of defensive behavior and other side effects characteristic of many agents, including psychedelics. Since the study of therapy for disorders in the regulation of aggression and dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism is oriented precisely toward these agents, their influence on a person’s tendency toward authoritarianism should also be tested. Perhaps, as a result of such therapy, a violent and psychopathic individual will not only stop throwing punches and manipulating other people to their detriment, but will also be inclined to stop supporting fellow sufferers of the mental disorder in society and politics, leaning toward more libertarian positions.

The principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is illegal even within the current legal system

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Everyone has surely heard of the principle that every person is as if obliged to know the laws of the country in which they are located, and that violating the law due to ignorance of it does not exempt one from liability. This principle has been known since the times of Ancient Rome and is adopted today by all states in the world.

It is easy to understand the origin of this principle in Ancient Rome, when all crimes were obvious, such as theft or murder. When committing such offenses, it is indeed impossible to excuse oneself by claiming ignorance of the existence of a law prohibiting it, as all people living in society know from early childhood that such acts are crimes. However, modern states have spawned so many laws that studying and precisely understanding all of them is possible only for a specialist for whom this is a professional activity, but not for the average person. Moreover, laws are constantly changing, which is simply impossible to keep track of. This contradicts another generally accepted principle of the legal system in most countries of the world – the realism of fulfilling the requirements of the legislation. For example, one cannot demand that a sea carrier drain the ocean to raise a sunken ship with valuable cargo. Nor can one be obliged to appear in court, before an investigator, or at a military enlistment office upon a summons within a minute (teleportation currently exists only in science fiction). Even in wartime, a deliberately impossible order is considered criminal, and the guilt lies with the commander who gave it. This legal principle is usually rarely remembered, but recently American lawyers successfully used it in court.

In the USA, the story of a woman from Texas became widely known; she wanted to vote in the 2016 presidential election but did not have the right to do so because she was under supervision (something similar to probation) due to a “tax crime.” She was unaware of this, no one had informed her that she could not vote, and she decided to go to the polls only because her mother convinced her to do so. But the court did not care; her ignorance was called “irrelevant” to the judicial process, and in 2018 she was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Only in 2022 did an appellate court review this decision based on the lack of evidence that she was aware she had no right to vote. Effectively, the court decided to go against the principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Considering that the legal system in the USA relies on case law, it can be hoped that such decisions will become much more common in the future. This, in turn, will demonstrate to everyone that people have no obligation to follow and attempt to fulfill the deliberately impossible requirement of being familiar with the countless laws that stationary bandits try to use to intimidate them at every step.