So, the fifth chapter of the book, on Islamic law, has been translated. As expected, it turned out to be similar to a refined version of Jewish law, and due to its inherent decentralization, libertarians can borrow quite a lot from it for their own purposes.
Please don’t forget to donate to this and all other translations, and I will try not to drag out this process too much.
The primary activity of the “Voluntarist” project is the study of the nature of violent behavior, in which we have succeeded thanks to the violence inhibition mechanism theory. Violence is primarily a pathology, a malfunction of internal neurophysiological mechanisms, causing a person to stop experiencing sufficient repulsion and resistance to causing harm to other people. Additionally, a series of animal experiments demonstrates the possibility of treating such a disorder; some agents are capable of eliminating attacking aggression in intraspecific clashes without affecting defensive aggression and other forms of behavior, i.e., acting selectively. Some of these agents are of natural origin, primarily belonging to Asian medicine.
Given the accessibility of agents in this category, distributed as medicinal herbs or bioactive supplements, organizing experiments to test them is not an overly difficult task and proved manageable even for a small team associated with our project. For now, the experiments are ongoing, and the final protocol and conclusions are still far off; however, some intermediate results have already demonstrated success that cannot go unshared.
1. Experimental Setup
The experiment consists of combining the resident-intruder paradigm and social isolation in rats. The development of territoriality (for example, in their own cage) and the absence of social contacts provoke attacking aggression in them when encountering a conspecific, especially if the latter has a lower weight. First, a series of control experiments is conducted, after which the agents can be tested. Due to the small number of available subjects (5 residents and 5 intruders), they are used repeatedly; however, experiments are conducted no more often than once every 3 days, and every other time a control experiment is performed to measure the aggressiveness of the resident subjects to ensure its presence and that any subsequent decrease observed will be due to the application of the agent rather than external factors.
2. Kamishoyosan and Si Ni San
Several already tested agents demonstrated a significant influence on rat behavior, but the reduction in aggressiveness either did not occur, was insufficient, or was non-selective. However, among them, one agent proved extremely effective. This is Kamishoyosan (and in our case, the Chinese analog Jia Wei Xiao Yao Wan produced by Min Shan) — a popular agent in Asian medicine that is potentially, based on pharmacological data, capable of activating the violence inhibition mechanism.
Relying on the fact that a scientific publication on this agent demonstrated only a partial effect in the case of a single oral application at a dosage of 400 mg/kg, we decided to test dosages of 500 mg/kg and 1 g/kg. Furthermore, the second dosage was applied to an extremely aggressive subject that always actively attacked a conspecific introduced into its cage. However, the original study did not measure aggressiveness specifically in intraspecific clashes, and according to another study, a dosage of 200 mg/kg is the best for maximizing social activity in mice during contact with conspecifics, so we decided to test that as well.
As expected, the effect of Kamishoyosan was neither sedative nor stimulating; it proved to be specifically anti-aggressive. Aggressive attacks were eliminated in all three experiments, and even if they appeared occasionally, it was exclusively in non-intense forms. At the same time, while dosages of 500 mg/kg and 1 g/kg did not disrupt the social and non-social activity of the rats, the reduction in their aggressiveness occurred through an increase in inactivity. On the other hand, the 200 mg/kg dosage replaced aggressive behavior specifically with non-aggressive social activity.
However, the question of the specific mechanism of Kamishoyosan’s action remained open. It was necessary to determine which specific component and bioactive substance from this mixture of herbal extracts produces this effect, so we decided to test the agent Si Ni San, which contains only three components from Kamishoyosan and was expected to produce the same effect. A dosage of 500 mg/kg was tested, and the result was confirmed — a previously highly aggressive subject, which had performed active attacks on the intruder subject, including during the control experiment before the application of the agent, ceased the attacks. At the same time, its non-social activity was not significantly reduced, and its social non-aggressive activity actually increased, although inactivity also increased, but not at the expense of these forms of activity (only at the expense of attacks). This means that the effect was specifically anti-aggressive, not sedative.
Detailed study of materials on mixtures similar to Si Ni San suggests to us that the main bioactive substance in them, including Kamishoyosan, may be paeoniflorin from the extract of Paeonia lactiflora (white peony) — one of the components of these mixtures. Research indicates that this substance both activates serotonin 5-HT/1A receptors and affects the expression of TPH2 and SERT genes associated with the functioning of serotonin and the violence inhibitor. Also, in general, substances from this extract further influence the expression of the MAO-A gene, which is also extremely important in the matter of aggressive behavior. Based on all this, we obtain the most promising candidate for a component from the previously mentioned mixtures that activates the violence inhibition mechanism.
3. Inhalation Experiments
In addition to oral application, in the case of some agents, inhalation (breathing in a drug with bioactive substances) can also be used. Especially considering the overall possibility of creating an effective agent of this kind; for example, the recently approved inhalation drug Zavzpret (or Zavegepant) proved so effective in the therapy of chronic migraine that in some patients it works in as little as 15 minutes and for 48 hours after application.
To date, we have managed to test three such agents containing the substances d-limonene and linalool, which act as agonists of serotonin 5-HT/1A receptors. All of them are essential oils from different parts of the bitter orange (Citrus aurantium). We used fruit peel oil, which consists almost entirely of d-limonene; flower oil (neroli), which roughly contains 34% linalool and 10% d-limonene; and twig and leaf oil (petitgrain), containing up to 40% linalool.
Inhalation was carried out as follows — for 10 minutes, a mixture of essential oil, an equal amount of emulsifier (oil solvent), and water if necessary, was evaporated in an isolated chamber (60 L). Then, a rat was placed in the chamber and remained there for another 10 minutes while the evaporation of the mixture into the chamber continued. 2 ml of bitter orange peel oil, 4.5 ml of neroli oil, and 5 ml of petitgrain oil were used in a mixture with a volume of 10 ml (sufficient for 20 minutes of evaporation).
All agents had a significant anti-aggressive effect; attacks were either completely eliminated or reduced to extremely rare and non-intense manifestations. And, of course, the effect is selective. Meanwhile, the inhalation of vapors of other essential oils (clove, lemongrass, sage), which do not contain these substances, did not eliminate intense aggressive attacks. Obviously, the substances in them do not act on the neurophysiological mechanisms associated with the violence inhibitor.
Experiments are still ongoing, and most likely other agents affecting the violence inhibitor will be found. However, we have already been able to confirm the very concept of this mechanism and the possibility of such an effect by using various methods of delivering active substances into the body.
I am also attaching recordings of the process of conducting successful experiments to the material:
It would have been more correct to call it “Why they are afraid of weapons.” Or even better, “Why we are not afraid of weapons.” I am talking about us, libertarians, or, to be less broad, about the people of Montellibero, regarding whom I am absolutely certain about their attitude toward weapons, and it is indeed as Mikhail describes.
Indeed, by recognizing the right of one’s neighbor to be armed, we thereby show trust in them. The best gift for a child is a knife. What kind of child is without a knife? In all classical children’s literature, all children have knives. Well, alright, the male half.
I didn’t have a knife in my childhood. But my first boyfriend won me over by offering to show me, right from the start, the nagayka whip he had made for himself. He was the one who gave me my first knife; how could I not melt from such trust?
And although he was from some leftist sect, and we broke up after a couple of months, this episode played its important role. Every time I hear this “you want to give weapons to everyone so that they all kill each other,” I am sincerely surprised: first of all, why “give away” suddenly? Let them buy them themselves, or accept them as gifts from people who care for them; and secondly, why would they suddenly kill each other? Are they stupid or something?
This basic presumption of trust in people is very characteristic of libertarians. If a person is convinced that people are a gathering of vices, then they cannot become anything other than an etatist, hoping for someone’s firm hand to bring everyone to heel. They say there are also religious libertarians who, considering man a vessel of sin, rely on the Lord and imagine themselves as His instrument, but that is some overseas heresy that I cannot judge with certainty; I only know that it is not characteristic of the people of Montellibero.
In general, thanks to Mikhail for the good formulations; the video is food for thought.
There was also something there about psychopathy, but let Bitarch and Voluntarist reflect on that; it’s their theme.
It will be quite obvious that extremely cruel people who commit violence both privately and by official order—for example, while serving in the police or armed forces—are psychopathic individuals with problems in the inhibition of violence. While a large number of studies compare the distribution of psychopathic traits between private criminals and the general population, there is very little such data regarding war criminals. However, there is one study examining men who served in the police or armed forces in Chile under the regime of dictator Augusto Pinochet and committed crimes against humanity, such as mass arrests, torture, murder, and the “disappearances” of people unwelcome to the regime.
The average psychopathy level according to the PCL-R test (scale from 0 to 40) for a sample of Chilean men who were not criminals was 5.21. Chilean men who were criminals demonstrated an average psychopathy level 4 times higher—20.93. This result is consistent with other studies conducting similar comparisons between samples of violent criminals and the rest of the population in various countries.
But far more interesting results are shown by Chilean men who committed crimes against humanity. Their average psychopathy level was 21.06, almost the same as that of ordinary criminals. It would seem there is no difference between them. But let us move to the comparison of different components of psychopathy. For each of the 20 items of the PCL-R test, a person can receive 0, 1, or 2 points, depending on the absence, partial presence, or full presence of a certain psychopathic trait. These items are divided into 4 categories representing the assessment of manipulation in interpersonal relationships (tendency toward lying and deception), affective psychopathy (lack of empathy and guilt), an impulsive lifestyle, and antisocial behavior. In the first two categories, the average scores for these criminals were much higher (1.43 and 1.64) than the scores of ordinary criminals (0.91 and 1.19) and the rest of the population (0.31 and 0.37). Meanwhile, in the last two categories, their scores (1.00 and 0.51) were much higher than those of the rest of the population (0.24 and 0.16), but lower than those of ordinary criminals (1.28 and 0.99).
The commission of cruel and mass crimes against humanity is associated with extremely pronounced manipulativeness and deceitfulness, as well as insensitivity and ruthlessness, even when compared to the commission of ordinary private acts of violence. At the same time, the perpetrators of such crimes appear much more normal than ordinary criminals in their lifestyle; they are not as impulsive or antisocial.
It should be noted that the second category of PCL-R test items, responsible for affective psychopathy, can be most directly correlated with the mechanism of violence inhibition. A malfunction of this mechanism in a person primarily leads precisely to the absence of internal rejection and resistance to causing harm to others, whereas the other categories rather reflect traits that often accompany such ruthlessness. Based on this, it can be concluded that in those who commit crimes against humanity, the malfunction of the violence inhibitor is far more severe than in private violent criminals. At the same time, they are well able to restrain themselves in situations where it is rationally beneficial, for example, in everyday life. This may be linked to a sufficiently high level of intelligence in these individuals, which allowed them, among other things, to successfully enter police or military service and be honored with the dictator’s order to destroy people unwelcome to him.
I have had to answer something like this many times, but it’s easier to answer briefly once more than to search for links to old posts.
General recommendation: increase the level of decentralization. The more decentralization there is in a particular sphere, the fewer free riders there are—there are no incentives left for them.
Decentralization in the sphere of defense means arming oneself. To a neighbor with a rifle, you are no longer just a neighbor, but also someone who will provide friendly cover fire. There is a non-illusory danger of an attack by a serious enemy—this is a great excuse for regular team-building activities. Have a few shots, then go drink beer.
Decentralization in the sphere of security is, conventionally speaking, about keeping private keys yourself rather than on an exchange. Installing an alarm system in your apartment so that security you’ve hired arrives on call, rather than some state police. And so on.
Decentralization in the sphere of law means settling things yourself, and if you cannot, turning to those you trust, rather than those appointed by other people. Most conflicts are resolved out of court even with a state, although, one would think, here is a centralized conflict resolution service provided to you, why not use it? Inconvenient? Exactly!
Why doesn’t this picture surprise us? Because it is natural behavior when there is no state.
A month ago, the guys from the projects HypeCoinNews and Bitcorn tried to launch a joint podcast Bitcom in Bitcoin, inviting Soz for the first episode to tell them about Montelibero. There was a false start, and they had to discuss Montelibero among themselves. I later commented on one of the takes from this conversation on my page.
I was briefly reprimanded for the inaccuracy of my comment: by freezing BTC in the Liquid sidechain, I receive LBTC coins in exchange, which I can then use to buy LMTL tokens or any others, and the fund, after selling me its tokens, is free to dispose of the received LBTC as it sees fit, including selling them for euros. But since the liquidity of this market is extremely low, the comment remains essentially valid: using this mechanism to accumulate resources offline is inconvenient.
And then the conversation continued for over an hour about other things (if anyone is ready to make timecodes, it would be very helpful—drop them in the comments). I listened and felt envious: I have to give a talk about Montelibero at the upcoming festival, and it certainly won’t be better than Soz’s, no matter how hard I try(
I’ll probably add one more thing to what Soz said about “broke people.” In principle, a broke person just needs to arrive in the country and start earning; they can completely ignore legalization. The culture of under-the-table payments is extremely developed here. Documents aren’t demanded at every step (and if they ask once every six months, there are no sanctions for saying your documents are at home). Difficulties only arise when trying to leave the country. But if you’re broke, why would you be traveling abroad! Stay in Montenegro, enjoy its—no joke—immense natural and cultural diversity, participate in the activities of the local community, and just don’t worry. Roma people make up five percent of the population here; learn from them the correct attitude toward the state (though it’s better to learn the attitude toward private property from us).
It is well known that a person’s socioeconomic status is closely linked to their capacity and inclination to commit acts of violence. However, it would be incorrect to say that this link is direct and that every person is equally susceptible to the negative influence of the environment, even in the case of youth, who are generally considered highly suggestible. As we know, the absence of a sense of repulsion and internal resistance to causing harm to others, which stops a healthy person from committing violent attacks, stems from a mental disorder consisting of a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. And the findings of some studies indicate to us that this may mediate the link between socioeconomic status and violence.
To begin with, let us recall that psychopathic traits can serve as a fairly good indicator of this dysfunction, primarily those related to interpersonal and affective (emotional) psychopathy. Psychopathic traits are also linked to violent crime, and especially to intentional and targeted acts of violence. In this dysfunction, not only the environment but also genetic factors play an important role. Research has already shown that the MAO-A gene mediates the influence of childhood abuse on violent crime. Whether under good or abusive treatment, carriers of the high-activity variant of the gene did not become more violent; however, carriers of the low-activity variant were 4 times more prone to brutal violence in the latter case. Similarly, the HTR1B gene mediates the link between abuse and psychopathic traits. Both genes are directly linked to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism.
An equally important result is demonstrated by a study of different variants of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4, encoding the 5-HTT protein) in young people with different socioeconomic statuses, determined based on the income and professional status of their parents. As was discovered, homozygosity for the long allele of this gene in the case of low socioeconomic status significantly increased the risk of the development of narcissistic traits and traits of callousness-unemotionality compared to average statistical indicators. These very traits are components of psychopathy that demonstrate a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism. Naturally, the higher a person’s socioeconomic status, the lower the indicators for these traits were. However, an increased risk of their occurrence was in any case not observed in carriers of the short allele of the gene; their indicators did not differ significantly from the average statistics regardless of socioeconomic status.
Once again, we see that certain variants of genes related to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism are capable of either making a person resistant to environmental influence or creating a risk that this influence may reduce their resistance to causing harm to others. Violence is not simply the result of socioeconomic status or abuse. Although these factors create a risk of violence, this is far from always the case, as the roots of such pathological behavior lie in human neurophysiology and genetics. And this suggests to us the necessity of creating therapeutic solutions to the problem of violence.
I recently happened to listen to a debate between two Russian emigrants about how to behave toward the Russian people. As it turned out, they sparked a heated discussion in one of the Montelibero chats, so I decided to join in with my own opinion.
Briefly, the positions of the parties:
Mikhail Svetov. The people must be loved; the people are victims of the regime; speaking out against the regime now is pointless, one must wait for the right moment; the people need a leader, a kind master, who will take power and rule guided by love.
Mark Feigin. We have no time to coddle the people, they have already squandered every opportunity; if the people do not overthrow Putin themselves, then there is no reason to be offended if others continue to decide everything for them; reparations will be taken, and the country will be dismantled; by the way, if it is dismantled, that’s not bad—there is a chance for the emergence of a Russian Taiwan, where Mark himself could settle his weary bones.
What causes the greatest repulsion in me throughout all this rhetoric is that everyone talks about some “Russian people.” But the right of nations to self-determination is not about some outsider labeling a particular community of people as a “nation” and allocating a piece of land for them. It is about people defining themselves as a nation, beginning to behave as a nation, and achieving their recognition as a nation. People have such a right—to self-determine as nations.
The people of Montelibero, for example, have already self-determined. Any person can affiliate themselves with our people, ensure that the people recognize them as one of their own, and in time decide on an “aliya”—physically relocating to the home of their people. If they are truly ours in spirit, a warm welcome awaits them.
Mark Feigin, with his dreams of a Russian Taiwan, unexpectedly turned out to be closer to us in spirit than Mikhail Svetov with his dreams of a kind Moscow master. But Mikhail possesses a very valuable ability to pique people’s interest in libertarianism, even if they previously had no clue about it. Later they will figure out the subject and gradually move away from Mikhail’s position, but as an appetizer, Svetov is good.
Therefore, we are very glad that Mikhail Svetov is planning to visit us at the end of September for the Montelibero festival (the website has just been created, please bear with us, it will be updated). And since he is coming, he will, of course, give a presentation. The topic has not been decided yet.
I will also be speaking, providing a brief overview of what the people of Montelibero have managed to achieve in a little over two years, and what still lies ahead for them.
But such presentations are only a small part of the program; after all, it’s not a conference, but a festival. Let’s have some fun—it motivates one to live.
In world history, a situation has arisen where Europe, or the so-called “West,” became a more developed and progressive region than the rest of the world. Even the “East,” which seemingly also had many achievements, was unable to achieve the same level of wealth and development. One could reflect on this topic for a long time and provide various arguments, but now we will examine this issue from the perspective of the concept of a culture of compromise, introducing some reflections regarding violence in human relationships. This post will be a brief summary and commentary on a video on this topic by Savromat.
How did the history of the West differ from the history of the East? One can look at China, the leading power of the East, which constantly collapsed and reunified, and this entire process was accompanied by one side destroying all others—the sole winner took everything. This is an example of a zero-sum game, where wealth is not created but redistributed, or even lost due to the costs of conducting conflicts. A completely different situation arose in Europe, where there was no single winner who destroyed everyone and took everything. In many European conflicts, instead of destroying the defeated, the winner merely forced them into submission, while recognizing their right to life, property, and even political rights. Recall the medieval free cities and religious orders, which, although formally under a king, nevertheless maintained autonomous jurisdiction. Such a culture of compromise was clearly established by the beginning of the second millennium and for a long time contributed to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth.
Many reasons can be named for why this happened. But the essence is as follows—brutal violence is certainly not a strategy that could lead to enrichment and development. Societies prone to the total destruction of opponents condemn themselves to the non-observance of the most basic rights and the squandering of wealth. Societies prone to seeking compromise and establishing agreements multiply wealth.
One presumptive factor contributing to the development of a culture of compromise in Europe could have been biological—a lower percentage of violent individuals with a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism, and especially cruel psychopathic personalities. Even if this were true only for a part of European society, it might have been enough to develop and spread such a cultural norm. Of course, psychopathic personalities are inclined toward power and conquest in any case, but if some of them were not absolutely unfeeling clinical psychopaths, it increased the chance that they would be predisposed to have mercy on the defeated and thereby not destroy the wealth of society as a whole.
Of course, in any society, the overwhelming majority of the population is quite non-violent, and extremely cruel psychopathic individuals are a tiny minority, but even a small difference in what exactly that minority percentage constitutes can have a radically different impact on society. And apparently, a higher percentage of such individuals creates a greater risk of societal impoverishment due to the total non-observance of basic rights to life and property.
It is quite difficult to add anything original to the explosion of all sorts of analytics and meme-making that has occurred over the last couple of days regarding the tank getting stuck in the circus gates.
The most realistic version of what happened seems to me to be the one proposed by Alexei Shustov, (who, by the way, recently released a new edition of his book After the State, I still can’t find the time to read it and post a review), so I am now spared the need to provide my own version.
The most balanced suggestion, in my view, on how this incident should have been utilized, was encountered with Roman Popkov. In short: it was an excellent demonstration for reasonable skeptics that the Putin regime can indeed be realistically overthrown by direct violence; for this, it is sufficient to have a small army. I remember when I spoke with Peter Young from the Free Private Cities fund, I mentioned that I consider Zelensky’s biggest mistake in this war to be the refusal to recruit a full-fledged contract army from Russian citizens.
I will add, however, that generals always prepare for past wars, and now Putin will almost certainly remove from the front those couple of divisions that are theoretically supposed to protect Moscow. Thus, repeating the Prigozhin maneuver will now require far more substantial forces. Therefore, something else will likely need to be invented. Well, at least this will slightly weaken the RF at the front, which is something.
If Ukraine still does not start ramping up the rhetoric about the need for international support for the collapse of the RF, then I simply do not know what other signs its leadership needs. Not that I have a high opinion of it, but the move seems completely obvious today. Simply announce that Ukraine will immediately recognize the statehood of any subject of the RF that secedes from it. It is not so important whether Ukraine can guarantee the protection of each such new state. It is important that this becomes a routine part of political rhetoric, a common place for any decent politician. Does a subject of the RF have the right to separate from the RF? Of course it does, because the Moscow regime is criminal and illegitimate. Period. Nothing more to discuss.
Only I fear that nothing will change in the Ukrainian fucking circus either. They will simply continue to grind down the Russian army in the designated corner and beg the West for equipment; no other lines were written for them.
