#freeLegkodymov

Yesterday, security forces from the USA, France, Spain, Portugal, and Cyprus carried out a loud act of terror, destroying Bitzlato, a bitcoin-to-ruble exchange service that had been operating successfully since 2016 (the turnover of other crypto and fiat constituted a very modest part of the total turnover), and arresting its founder, Anatoly Legkodymov. These terrorists issued a boastful press release, promising to continue pursuing the cryptocurrency business worldwide, regardless of the formal boundaries of jurisdictions.

Anatoly is accused of neglecting the state-imposed identity verification of users, collaborating with darknet markets, and performing other actions that are completely legitimate for any libertarian, while consistently satisfying his clients. In other words, he was arrested for making our lives better. Now he faces five years of imprisonment, and, of course, his business will be destroyed, and our money, which was kept in the company’s wallets for operational needs, will be seized by the state.

I had to say goodbye to a certain amount of bitcoin, as well as remove all recommendations for using the destroyed service from my website. I hope the next generation of crypto exchangers will already be using Lightning, and there will be no question of storing funds in third-party accounts. For now, the most reliable way to exchange cryptocurrency for fiat was and remains exchange through trusted acquaintances.

The well-known statist Leonid Volkov, in his channel, approves of the actions of the American authorities, after which he finally ceases to exist as a personality and begins to exist as a faggot. His beloved Navalny, whom he so touchingly demands be released, personally went to surrender to the Russian authorities, ignoring the shouts of “don’t go in – it’ll kill you.” At the time, the man diligently distanced himself from the USA, indulging the whims of the local legislation as much as possible—but he had the imprudence to physically appear on the territory of this terrorist state, for which he paid the price.

What do I propose?

First, of course, no donations to the FBK—they are our enemies, even if they stand against Putin. Unsubscribe and ignore.

Second, if possible, avoid the USA (I realize this sounds something like “do not overindulge in black caviar”).

Third, we see that storing money in centralized services is fraught not only with scams from these very services, but, on the contrary, with the confiscation of your money by the state, if these services do their job truly well. So, no matter how attractive online wallets on various exchanges may be, let’s maintain hygiene and keep money only under our own direct control.

I am not well-versed in the intricacies of legal squabbles, so I will not undertake to call for any actions in this field in attempts to recover my pennies. But I hope that everyone who approves of this act of terror will thereby ruin their reputation in the eyes of the widest possible circle of people, and preferably specifically those they depend on.

How violent personalities evaluate themselves and what to do about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Understanding the pathology of violent behavior may face the problem that a person who, due to a dysfunctional violence inhibitor, is capable of easily committing it, is unlikely to evaluate themselves as an unhealthy personality. Many disorders lead to negative symptoms clearly felt by the person, such as anxiety, mood deterioration, depression, suicidal thoughts, and others. But the matter is more complex when the disorder itself does not cause suffering. The ability to commit violence as a result of a person’s lack of a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people belongs precisely to such disorders. Let’s examine this problem in more detail and find out what it is important for us to understand about violent personalities in view of this.

A good option would be to look at people with psychopathic predispositions, since psychopathy is a direct result of the impairment of the violence inhibitor’s function. As Robert Hare, who developed the well-known PCL checklist for assessing psychopathic traits, writes, psychopaths have a narcissistic and extremely inflated view of their self-esteem and importance, a truly astounding egocentrism and sense of self-worth; they consider themselves the center of the universe, superior beings who have the right to live by their own rules. He also considered the issue of treating psychopaths. According to him, the term “treatment” implies that there is something to treat: a disease, subjective distress, inadequate behavior, etc. But, as far as we can determine, psychopaths are quite satisfied with themselves and see no need for treatment, at least in the traditional sense of the word.

Certainly, psychopaths have an inflated view of themselves. They consider themselves important and worthy. They often feel entitled to live by their own rules and think that laws do not apply to them. They tend to have grandiose ideas about their potential. They believe they deserve to be the CEO of a company, or are convinced that they are the best in all matters.

Such personality characteristics of violent individuals are not surprising. From early childhood, they experience no negative feelings when causing harm to others and, accordingly, consider this normal. Manifestations of empathy, compassion, and the inability to commit violent attacks, which are inherent in the average and healthy individual, are perceived by them as weakness. Perhaps this is precisely what predisposes them to place themselves above others.

All this, of course, hinders the eradication of violence from society, since the perpetrators themselves often do not consider themselves abnormal or sick. They should always be reminded of this, referring to the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism and the pathology of their condition according to medical definitions. In particular, one can recall Wakefield’s criteria for disorder, which a condition meets if it arises as a result of the inability of some internal mechanism to perform its biological function (in our case, this concerns the violence inhibitor) and leads to the causing of harm.

But the most effective method would be to exert strong social pressure on them. A person with a dysfunction of the violence inhibitor must understand that no one will risk having any dealings with them until they agree to therapy that restores inhibitory control. Such people are more dangerous even than those suffering from infectious diseases, whom hardly anyone would now take for study, work, or risk starting a family with without undergoing treatment. If a significant part of society understands this, and if an effective therapy against violence is developed, then violent people will seek treatment based on rational considerations. Of course, there will be those who will not do so even under social pressure. They must be monitored closely, and one must be ready for self-defense, which may also include the use of therapeutic drugs on the attacker.

What should libertarians who observe the NAP do in such cases?

Montenegrin fishermen are complaining about Albanians, who blocked the Bojana River with an iron net and are catching almost all the fish.

In this situation, we see a typical case of state interference in the market, which inevitably leads to the most unpleasant consequences. As can be understood from the article, it is not just some random Albanian fishermen who blocked the river, but a very specific entrepreneur to whom the Albanian state granted a fishing concession.

Elinor Ostrom explains in detail in her book Governing the Commons how such problems are solved without state intervention. In short, the community of resource users gradually develops rules for use that minimize conflicts surrounding the trade, and this usually looks like a kind of sliding schedule of who can fish where and when, so as not to elbow each other and to ensure there is enough for everyone.

In this case, the state has left only options such as enduring it and catching the scraps from the master’s table in the lower reaches of the river, or fighting—for example, by carrying out sabotage against that very net, or against the concessionaire, or against the officials who patronize him.

Another option, for the peace-loving but persistent, is to bring the problem to a higher level, which is essentially an appeal to some external arbitrator. This is likely what the Montenegrin fishing association is currently doing. I wish them success; I love eels.

How should the poor, who cannot afford private police or buy weapons, defend themselves under ancap?

Is there perhaps a benefit for the rich in protecting the poor? And what if there are no rich people somewhere, but only gangs providing “protection” to neighborhoods under threat of violence? Or will such a “ghetto” eventually heal itself over time?

Anonymous question

Today, the weapons market is extremely regulated and largely stigmatized, as a result of which the demand for weapons is predictably lower than it would be in a completely free market. Therefore, there are every reason to believe that due to the expansion of the market under ancap, weapons will be more accessible in terms of both variety and price, not to mention the absence of any arbitrary restrictions. And if even now certain types of self-defense weapons, such as pepper sprays, cost mere pennies and are available even to those with the most modest incomes, then under a free market, things will be quite good in this regard.

What should people do who do not want to pay some security organizations to maintain order in the area where they live? Naturally, do it themselves. After all, we maintain order in the house if we don’t want to pay cleaning services. Similarly, there is no problem in sticking a barrel out the window upon a neighbor’s alarm signal and ensuring that everyone in the line of fire has calmed down and returned to peaceful activities.

In essence, the only thing for which professional help is more likely to be needed under ancap in terms of maintaining order is searching for stolen goods, since theft is a clandestine misappropriation, and a pistol in the pocket does not protect against it by default. Well, here either insurance works, or a simple desire for revenge, corrected by economic expediency. Either way, the victim either searches for the missing item themselves, hires detectives, or the insurance company hires detectives wishing to recoup the cost of paying the insurance premium.

Can gangs that forcibly hold a particular territory under their “protection” exist stably under ancap? Actually, such gangs are called states, and the only thing that keeps them from being destroyed is the consent of those under their protection to put up with such a state of affairs. This will also determine the stability of criminal ghettos under ancap. An additional factor of instability for them is complete freedom of migration. Overly active thugs will simply discover one fine day that everyone has fled their territory. This can be easily observed in criminal enclaves such as certain US cities managed by overzealous Democrats: people simply move away to quieter places. So there are indeed incentives for such ghettos to eventually heal themselves or disappear, and the only thing that can prolong their existence is stupid, irrational submission. It is precisely to eliminate this that ancaps like me conduct their propaganda)))

Now give the purse back to the girl and get the hell out of here!

Aggression and Testosterone

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Aggression in male animals and men is very often linked to the sex hormone testosterone. Thus, a decrease in testosterone levels should be followed by a decrease in aggressiveness, and an increase in its levels — by extremely high aggressiveness. Of course, aggression is linked to testosterone, but it cannot be reduced exclusively to the action of a single hormone in isolation from all other neurophysiology. Otherwise, one might arrive at certain misconceptions, for example, that if a high level of testosterone in some men is natural, then violent behavior is also absolutely natural. Additionally, such a view contradicts the concept of the violence inhibitor, according to which many species and even humans possess innate restraints on intraspecific aggression.

To begin, let us recall that the violence inhibitor is linked to the serotonergic system, and the activation of certain serotonin receptors (1A and 1B) can suppress attacking aggression without affecting defensive aggression and other forms of behavior. But how can testosterone affect this effect? As one study shows, there is simply no such influence. Testosterone-driven activation of aggression and serotonin-driven inhibition of aggression work independently of each other; that is, the pro-aggressive effect of testosterone does not consist of suppressing serotonin function. And the influence of serotonin on testosterone-induced aggression is apparently carried out via a parallel inhibitory pathway. It is presumed that this influence occurs in brain regions such as the medial amygdala, hypothalamus, prefrontal cortex, and the septum (septal area), where both sex hormone receptors and serotonergic nerve endings are simultaneously located.

Such an influence of serotonin is necessary to restrain aggression so that it does not cease to be adaptive and functional behavior. This aligns with the violence inhibitor theory, according to which certain internal restraints on aggression prevent it from escalating into violence that causes harm to members of one’s own species. And since testosterone does not disrupt the operation of these restraints, it cannot be the cause of uninhibited aggression. Of course, testosterone increases aggressiveness, but normally only within natural inhibiting limits.

Pre-New Year address and year-end results

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Although 2022 was marked by a surge of violence in one of its most terrible forms—armed conflict—within the framework of our work on studying violence in human relationships and society, it was not without achievements in the opposite, better direction, aimed against violence. Previously, when arguing that violence should be called a deviation and a pathology rather than a natural social phenomenon, we relied only on individual facts and observations that did not demonstrate the full picture of what was happening. This could have caused distrust in such assertions given the brutal events still observed in human society.

But now everything has changed. We can confidently call the existence of a violence inhibition mechanism not just a hypothesis and a theory, but an indisputable fact. Evolutionary, archaeological, anthropological, military, psychological, neurophysiological, genetic, and many other pieces of evidence—demonstrating the same conclusions and forming a complete system that explains everything regarding violence—only confirm this. Violence is undoubtedly a pathological form of behavior, the result of a breakdown of a person’s internal inhibitors of aggression, due to which they stop experiencing a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people. And the reason we observe so much violence in society is only because it exerts an enormous influence—even one violent person in certain circumstances is capable of causing harm to thousands of other, peaceful people.

All the evidence against the position that justifies and normalizes violence has been successfully gathered in one place—on the website Antiviolence.io. The main material of the site begins with definitions of the concepts of aggression, violence, and self-defense. Then we move to archaeological and anthropological evidence, examine cases of genocides, debunk various myths about violence, and confirm that in any war, even the most brutal one, never more than 2% of soldiers with psychopathic predispositions experience no resistance to committing murder, and in general, the overwhelming majority of people never kill or attempt to kill anyone. Further, we examine the evolutionary reasons for the emergence of the violence inhibitor in animals and humans, and become acquainted with a model that explains in detail how this mechanism functions.

Based on neurophysiological and genetic evidence, we conclude that people capable of easily committing violence should be treated as mentally ill and pathological personalities in need of therapy to restore the function of the violence inhibitor. Such therapy could contribute to the complete eradication of the pathology of violence from human relationships and society.

We have also not ignored many other questions about violence, which you can explore on the same website or in the materials of this channel. Of course, we will have to examine many more topics and problems, as it is impossible to answer all questions at once. But we have at least already created a solid foundation for the continuation of our activities without encountering serious controversial points.

I would like to congratulate you all on the upcoming New Year! In the coming year, we must definitely advance even further in understanding the problem of violence and how this phenomenon can be eradicated. And of course, how to popularize this understanding among an even greater number of people, which will undoubtedly only bring us closer to achieving a free, non-violent society. Stay with us in the coming year so as not to miss this!

2022, results

It is a bit funny now to reread with what enthusiasm I looked forward to the new year 2022. Nevertheless, this enthusiasm was largely justified.

The Montelibero project is developing successfully, and while a year ago we all gathered to celebrate in one house, now such an opportunity is not even close; there are over a hundred of us in Montenegro. At the MTLcity site, the construction of the first two houses is nearing completion, the third has been laid, plus a geodesic dome has been erected, where seasonal residency can be tested. In Bar, the libertarian club is flourishing, where people regularly gather to hang out, drink delicious coffee, attend lectures, play board games, participate in podcast recordings, and so on. The capital of the MTL investment fund already exceeds 170 thousand tokens, and the token price has grown from 1 euro to slightly over 3. The fund has more than 600 shareholders. There are already so many tokens of all sorts and colors circulating around the Montelibero project that I have lost count, and each corresponds to some activity that, at one point or another, required tokenization. In short, things are very lively on this front, and so far it is not apparent that we are hitting any ceiling.

On the other hand, the activity around my channel did find its ceiling. The number of subscribers decreased by a hundred over the year, and the number of publications also dropped noticeably. The voice-over for the text Mechanics of Freedom was completed and my own book on ancap was finished, while translations of several other books are moving along quite smoothly. No significant community ever formed around the channel, and now it is no longer required, since there is Montelibero. By the way, they also recently summarized the year’s results there and, in particular, compiled a list of the most significant personalities for the project. And while in the first year I would clearly have been in the top three, now I am only in the second five, which, however, seems to me a completely objective assessment.

The strangest direction of my channel management was a series of anti-Russian posts where I allowed myself to give recommendations on what to do with Russia. Calls to burn military recruitment offices were successful; all others—not so much. Russia has not collapsed yet, but it is heading that way. However, it is not so important what happens to this state, but what happens to Russians, and for them, I maintain my previous wish. I would like Russians to scatter across the world as widely as possible, settle in as comfortably as possible, preserve and develop their great Russian culture, and forget the Russian state like a bad dream, or, demonstrating their historical responsibility, businesslike-ly invest in its dismantling.

Overall, I am satisfied with the past year. In the coming year, I still want to complete all current prolonged translations, record an audio version of the book on ancap, and, of course, continue to cover the construction of our libertarian utopia in sunny Montenegro. Happy New Year to everyone!

The Andor series and a little bit about tactics

I watched Andor. Very interesting, unexpectedly mature for this franchise, and quite timely.

Naturally, while examining Emperor Palpatine’s regime, I couldn’t help but think of another dictator starting with P, from our own galaxy. Of course, there are many differences between them. The Empire has no external enemies; it simply has temporarily uncontrollable outskirts, periodically rebellious provinces, and so on. In short, it’s not the RF, but rather something like medieval China. On the other hand, the RF has no parliamentary opposition. In the Empire, the rebel movement is funded by local aristocracy and consists primarily of individual entrepreneurs. In the RF, the core of the protest is also made up of freelancers and other remote workers, and it is funded by crowdfunding. Big business in both cases has completely merged with the state. In general, there are many interesting parallels.

Now I would like to see what the series tells us about the methods of the rebel movement.

A great deal of attention is paid to conspiracy. To the point that operatives can easily be sacrificed, and even eliminated by their own, if there is a threat of exposing key coordinating figures. It’s not like that in the RF, because the protest can be coordinated from abroad, even without hiding, while remaining sufficiently safe, whereas no state borders can protect one from the Empire.

The idea of funding rebels through the expropriation of imperial property is not new and is deeply rooted, among other things, in the Russian Empire. Against this backdrop, the Russian opposition’s emphasis on exposing the corruption schemes of the imperial elite looks completely counterproductive.

The theme of tits “militant wing vs. moderate wing” is not sufficiently explored. Although the rebels seemingly have sympathizers in the Senate, nowhere from a high podium does one hear: “See, this is what your local excesses lead to; why escalate? Let’s not push desperate people toward extremist actions, since the war ended long ago—isn’t it time to loosen the screws?” Instead, the parliamentary opposition is guided by an agenda that does not correlate with the militant actions, which weakens its rhetorical power. And soon, as is well known, the Senate will be completely dissolved.

I was very pleased by the character who, in the pauses between preparing for a combat operation, wrote a book about ancap Resistance manifesto. I truly felt a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, there are no social networks or even Telegram channels in the Empire to promote such manifestos, which heavily centralizes any organizational activity.

The series captures a pattern noted by James Scott: it is precisely the peoples oppressed by the empire that manifest their ethnicity and various unique cultures, while people digested by the empire become unified and lose the traits of any ethnicity. At the same time, in essence, ethnicity can easily be created from scratch based on any traditions extracted from dusty closets—or stylized as such. Alex Rozov writes about the same in the Meganesian cycle, and any community opposing an empire, even libertarians, for example, can reproduce the same if they wish to strengthen their identity. For instance, we are not just some arrived Russes, but already quite proper Monteliberians.

The reader might find my selection of series features for review strange. But I shouldn’t just rave about its artistic merits. They exist, and if it weren’t for them, there would be no point in digging deeper.

The Russian hinterland is well portrayed in the series…

A few words about scientific and technical progress and modern civilization

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a position based on the idea that scientific and technical progress and modern civilization are an evil capable only of making humans unhappy. Of course, this position is not very popular and is unlikely to ever gain significant support, but I would like to say a few words about how untenable it actually is.

The conversation can begin with the fact that the opponents of progress themselves have survived largely because of it, rather than having a high probability of dying from hunger, cold, or disease in early childhood. Moreover, the drastic increase in human survival rates and the accessibility of benefits is an obvious consequence of progress. However, it is sometimes less obvious that only thanks to progress does humanity have any chance at all of surviving in the long term.

Some may argue that progress has created means capable of severely harming all of humanity (by destroying the environment or even serving as weapons of mass destruction). However, it is pointless to argue against the fact that it is the lack of progress that could harm humanity the most. In such a case, it would be 100% unable to leave the boundaries of its home planet and would perish during the next planetary-scale catastrophe. The Earth is not eternal; furthermore, some catastrophe could happen very soon, rather than hundreds of millions of years from now. It turns out that opposing progress means advocating for the complete annihilation of humanity in the future. Is any of the critics of progress ready to openly support such an idea?

Another argument against progress is the alleged suffering of people in an urban environment that is unnatural for them. Instead, a life close to nature is proposed, to which the human psyche is best adapted, and for the sake of human happiness, the possibility of preserving humanity in the future can be sacrificed now. Of course, in reality, prehistoric people suffered greatly; archaeological evidence often shows traces of prolonged physiological stress from hunger and disease on their remains. The transition to primitive agriculture also did not fully solve this problem; just a few centuries ago, crop failure (for example, due to climatic factors) was a common cause of famine, and peasants of the past regularly suffered from food deficiency and monotony. An average resident of a modern city, who is constantly fed, kept warm, and fairly healthy, will clearly be happier. But this is not even the point; the point is that, according to the opponents of progress, the human living environment must be frozen in time.

One of the most natural processes for all living things is adaptation to changing environmental conditions. And modern urban civilization, like any form of potential future civilization, can easily be called a new living environment to which one simply needs to adapt. Moreover, humans also gain an advantage—they control how the new environment will be structured, which makes adaptation easier. Without progress, the change in the environment would still happen due to inevitable climatic changes, but people would have to do without such an advantage, facing an increased chance of premature extinction instead of adaptation.

An opponent of progress is ready to appeal to the naturalness of a certain living environment for humans. But why then does he deny such a natural process as adaptation? Why does one kind of naturalness satisfy him, while the other does not?

Finally, it should be said that opponents of progress simply have no chance of turning their ideas into reality. They will not be able to convince everyone, and their only way out is to forcibly compel others to renounce progress. But without progress, there simply will not be significant means to carry out such compulsion, especially on a global scale. And groups of people promoting progress will always have an advantage in terms of the means allowing them to protect themselves from such violent coercion. Thus, any ideas against progress are simply stillborn.

Tell me everything about inheritance under ancap

How will the order of inheritance be distributed without a will? What if there are no heirs? And if my debts exceed the inheritance and there is no guarantor/insurance, will they pass to someone else?

Neprizivnoy

Ancap implies the decentralization of dispute resolution procedures, which automatically means the absence of rigid rules imposed from above regulating the issue of inheritance. Therefore, I cannot say exactly how a particular piece of property or debts will be divided, but I can speculate on how this issue will be resolved locally in substance.

Rights are claims that have been accepted. Upon the death of a person who owned certain property, various people may raise claims to that property. Who eventually gets the property and in what shares depends primarily on who accepts the corresponding claims and how easily. In the most obvious cases, for example, if the deceased had a bitcoin wallet and their household members also had access to the keys, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to contest their claims to own the bitcoins. Similarly, if the deceased lived in their own house, their household members automatically become the factual owners of the house after their death, and contesting their rights to this inheritance would mean putting forward a claim to evict them, which requires extremely strong grounds. It is likely that relatives or friends of the deceased living separately would find it difficult to justify their rights to any share in something where other people were already factual co-owners with the benefactor.

But what about property that the deceased owned solely and to which their cohabitants have no direct access? For example, they owned a company. The keys to the company office are held by the cleaning lady, but it is unlikely that her claims to seize the office based on factual access to the premises would be taken seriously by anyone. Nevertheless, if none of the deceased’s relatives took a direct part in the business and no instructions regarding the property were left by the deceased, it would not be surprising if the company were stripped by its employees or misappropriated by someone in management — either individually or in cooperation with some colleagues. This would simply mean that the property rights to this business were poorly established. Of course, the more established the surrounding market, the less likely such a situation is, and most likely the ownership of the company has long been tokenized, and the rules for the transfer of tokens to other hands were described, including taking into account the possible death of the owner. For instance, the Montelibero Foundation and the entire tokenomics developed around it are only a year and a half old, and we already have such possibilities fixed in certain agreements — after all, predictability of rules is a very important element of the investment climate.

Finally, let’s talk about debts. Of course, a creditor’s claim for the return of a debt is quite strong. Therefore, it is clear that in conditions of a developed market and properly recorded obligations, it will not be difficult for the creditor to recover a share of the deceased’s property toward the debt. If the amount of debts clearly exceeds the amount of divisible assets, then we have a bankruptcy case. In this situation, all claimants to the property will have to agree on who gets how much, and if an amicable agreement cannot be reached, then recourse to a court will be inevitable — they cannot exactly go to war, after all.

In general, I want to note that ancap is not only anarchy, but also capitalism, meaning developed market relations. All existing legal findings, especially from the sphere of common law, will not disappear, and in various disputed cases, they will certainly be appealed to. Foolish litigation, reducing to a competition of whose lawyer is more expensive and who paid the judge more, is unlikely under ancap due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement. But the desire to assert one’s rights itself will not disappear, which means that work for lawyers will not vanish.