One of the methods of fighting rapists and violent offenders is the strategy of provocation, a “masquerade” against violence. For those who are not yet aware, this concept suggests provoking people prone to violence into attacking and applying self-defense against them, including the use of lethal weapons. This will allow for the identification of many hidden violent offenders, or even their destruction during the act of violence (initiating violence from our side toward anyone is not required; we only defend ourselves against violence). Moreover, the provocation does not suggest anything intrusive—it could be as simple as walking in expensive clothes through a dark alley or wearing LGBT symbols in a city square. If someone wants to attack a person with physical violence solely because of this, then they are a violent offender, against whom self-defense is entirely justified.
However, criticism of this concept can be heard from those who believe that force is an acceptable method for achieving goals and maintaining certain orders. In their opinion, even the smallest provocation, which involves no active actions at all, is still one of the worst and most immoral things one could possibly devise. Yet, beating someone up or even killing them for such a provocation is considered perfectly normal. I think certain conclusions can already be drawn about this position, given its violent nature.
I, of course, agree with the expression “don’t bring your own rules to someone else’s monastery”; in certain cases, it applies to this criticism (for example, if an LGBT supporter wanders into a conservative neighborhood). But if someone does venture in, must they be immediately attacked with fists? This is a non-violent violation, and therefore it can be resolved by non-violent methods. The threat of reputational sanctions would be particularly appropriate. And if someone cannot restrain themselves from attacking, then they are, again, a violent offender.
This strategy is also accused of being violent itself, since its practitioners calculate in advance that they will commit violence. But they are calculating only on defense, not on attack. Anyone who goes out into the street with means of self-defense calculates that there is a certain probability they will be attacked; otherwise, they would not take those means. So now, is everyone who wants to protect themselves a violent offender?
I remind you once again: any non-violent violation of order can be dealt with in a non-violent manner, using reputational and financial sanctions. And any initiation of violence indicates that the person who committed it is a violent offender. That is all one needs to understand to dismantle any criticism of this kind.
We all know well how the history of punishments for offenses has evolved. In the distant past, the death penalty was an acceptable, if not mandatory, measure in the event of violations of various social orders. Usually, this concerned religious norms and traditional life principles. Burning, hanging, or stoning could occur for some kind of “witchcraft,” for treason, for non-traditional sexual relations, for theft, or even simply for words that contradicted the dominant opinion in society. And this was considered absolutely normal; violence bothered few people—on the contrary, crowds of onlookers often gathered to watch such a spectacle.
Over time, the scope of the application of the death penalty has steadily shrunk. This punishment was abolished for non-violent crimes; it remained only as a supreme measure against particularly distinguished brutal rapists. But even this did not last long; in most developed countries, this measure was soon completely abandoned and replaced by imprisonment. And punishments for non-violent crimes became even more lenient.
But even this cannot be called a desirable state of affairs. Of course, many are still at the very beginning of the path of humanism, and in some countries, one can still be stoned for treason, theft, or an improper lifestyle. But at the same time, some societies have already surpassed everyone else in the development of humanism. A good example is Norway, where even the most hardened rapist, Anders Breivik, was placed, effectively, in luxury quarters with all amenities. Of course, he was deprived of his liberty—this is still a coercive measure—but the punishment ends there; besides the loss of liberty, nothing bad awaits the prisoner. In general, the Norwegian law enforcement system is one of the most humane in the world; several prisons are closed annually due to a lack of prisoners, and those who do end up in incarceration have many benefits and considerable freedom (including movement) within the prison institution. To some, it may seem extremely surprising that prisoners can freely, solely of their own will, go to the football field, the library, or the kitchen, and in the latter, kitchen knives may even be at their disposal. But for some societies, this is already a reality.
Now I want to make a small note regarding why we should be humane at all. This may seem completely unfair in the case of certain categories of criminals. But the answer is quite simple and obvious: to carry out violent punishments, we need people prone to violence. If no one can pull the trigger at the sight of an unarmed person, then a death sentence cannot be carried out. However, if someone is capable of doing this, nothing will stop them from killing not only to execute the “supreme measure,” but also to punish insignificant and non-violent offenses, or even to pursue personal goals or satisfy their violent nature.
By making violence a normal phenomenon, even as a measure of punishment, we contribute to the negative selection of the species Homo sapiens in favor of people more prone to violence. Without this, there would be no executioners, who are necessary for a legal system based on force. But an executioner can always become a rapist, and by fostering executioners, we cannot help but foster rapists in general. And it will be impossible to restrain this phenomenon. If a person is not prone to initiating violence, they will not commit it regardless of what views they hold. If a person has such inclinations, then with a change in views, only the circle of victims of their violence will change, but in general, there will always be victims. They will also always initiate violence in situations that provoke it, for example, in conflicts, quarrels, when raising children, and in many other cases. Violence in society will only increase, and the problems of violence will worsen.
In some societies, executioners have almost disappeared; there are only people capable of limiting the freedom of others by force, and even then, not fully. But this is not the end of the development of humanism, because according to the scenario we described, by fostering even such minimal agents of force, we will quite possibly get people who, while perhaps not as dangerous, are still capable of initiating violence. This, among other things, will be enough to maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (the current state system). Likewise, the development of scientific and technical progress will be impossible due to the probability of catastrophic consequences for all mankind if (or rather, when) dangerous technologies fall into the hands of a person prone to violence. Therefore, we need to take one more step in the development of humanism.
This step is the complete renunciation of the initiation of violence, including for the execution of punishments. The only scenario in which violence may be permissible is defense against a direct attack. This is defensive violence; people capable only of such violence pose no problem, as they cannot initiate violent actions themselves for any reason whatsoever, including the fact that they cannot create and maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance, as it requires precisely the initiation of violence in the form of forcing people into submission. Such a behavioral model is evolutionarily optimal for all highly armed species in nature, one of which is Homo sapiens thanks to the ability to manufacture weapons. In all other cases, non-forceful measures of pressure and punishment must be used against criminals and violators of order. These can be various reputational and financial instruments.
This step is a natural continuation of the process of making society more humane, which has already lasted for many centuries and has currently led us from the permissibility of widespread killing to punishments that, while still forceful, are quite lenient and involve only the restriction of freedom without depriving one of the benefits necessary for leading a normal life. This step is needed to further suppress, and in perspective, eradicate violence as a phenomenon as a whole. This is the next stage in the evolution of man and human society. Let us contribute to this process, rather than hindering it and sliding back into violent barbarism!
Won’t all the other states crush it with all sorts of sanctions, like they did with Belarus—banning all firms from flying here, all ships from sailing here, all banks from transferring money here, all goods from being delivered here… or will the black market and smuggling ultimately win?
Orlik
The fears are not unfounded. One recalls, for example, the initiative to unify tax rates worldwide and pressure countries where taxes are too low—to discourage them from poaching capital from welfare economies.
Or we don’t even have to go that far; we can simply remember that customs require the country of origin of the goods to be specified. If the state (recognized by that specific customs office) does not exist, the declaration cannot be filled out. This wouldn’t even be due to anyone’s malicious intent. Simply put, the ancap case does not fit into existing state regulations, and even the most well-meaning official will just shrug their shoulders, saying they can’t help.
Of course, the market will provide some kind of crutches. The most obvious solution is not to abolish the state on paper. Let other states interact with the ancap zone through an emulator. In the cheapest version, I see it roughly like this: there is a nominal head of state, elected by lot from everyone who expressed a desire to participate in a drawing held every, say, four years, who has one single power, which is also a duty: to issue any documents upon request to anyone within a specified timeframe on behalf of the state “let’s say, Ukraine,” in whatever format the client requires—without taking any fee for the transaction into their own pocket, but placing all costs for preparing the documents on the customer. The very first refusal to sign or a delay in delivery leads to immediate resignation and the start of a new drawing. That’s it.
Need a package of documents for trade with “let’s say, Germany”? Draw them up, bring them for signature to the head of state of “let’s say, Ukraine,” and he is obliged to sign. A troll wants permission to eat small children? Let him draw up the permission and bring it for signature. The state doesn’t care; it will sign. The state emulator simply has absolutely no authority to enforce any directive. And if some other state gets the emulator to sign a request to introduce a peacekeeping contingent into the territory of “let’s say, Ukraine” to prevent the genocide of mice by frogs—this will in no way increase the legitimacy of its actions should it begin to fulfill that request.
But let’s return to the actions of other states against “let’s say, Ukraine,” dictated by malicious intent. It might feel as though, without active interstate diplomacy, businesses in the ancap territory are unable to defend their interests, which would worsen the territory’s investment climate. However, on the other hand, this territory is completely free from protectionist norms and places no obstacles in the way of international investors. This means that any influential corporation will be interested in ensuring that its home state does not hinder its operations in a stateless territory. In other words, foreign business will begin to play the role of its own diplomats. So, the market has tools to resolve things here as well. Yes, certain rigid states will easily ban any business working with the ancap zone—fortunately, there are enough states that it would be difficult for them to consistently violate the interests of the businesses that feed them. Seriously significant sanctions require consolidated public opinion to support them—even sponsors of terrorism are not always met with a serious response, and a peaceful stateless society is even less likely to agitate the global public enough for serious economic sanctions against it to be introduced, and once introduced, maintained for long.
An article was published on the website of the Libertarian Party of Russia by Karl Franco, known for the sharpness of his views, concerning children. The author is a member of the LPR and the lead of the Telegram channel No Compromises, a name that already quite well characterizes this thinker inclined toward dogmatism. In short, he claims to outline how libertarians should approach the issue of dealing with children based on strictly libertarian principles of law, namely the principle of self-ownership, which every child possesses from the moment of conception.
I have also had to write repeatedly on the subject of children, which can be seen via the “children” tag, so you likely have an idea of my position on many specific issues related to children, and perhaps in general. In short, I view law as a spontaneous order for resolving conflicts (and morality as a spontaneous order for entering conflicts), and I consider the principle of self-ownership to be nothing more than a characteristic of a libertarian society, showing that the right to dispose of oneself is respected significantly more than a claimant to self-ownership could achieve by force, but it is still not elevated to an absolute, just as many other useful principles, such as regular tooth brushing, are not elevated to an absolute.
But today we are not talking about my position, but about the position of the article. Its key premise is the assertion that by the very act of conceiving a child, parents commit a tort against the child, because the consequence of conception is the plunging of a self-owning subject of law into a state of complete helplessness. From this, parental duties, principles of upbringing, and other such beauties are derived. And they are derived, of course, completely incorrectly, because such a rigid premise leads to conclusions entirely different from those Karl makes.
You have been raped. This is a tort committed by the rapist against you. The judge obliges the rapist, as restitution for damages, to live with you and care for you for a certain fixed term. Would you not tell such a judge to get lost with such sentences? The first and most important thing you need is to be completely out of reach of the rapist, and only then can you think about the amount of compensation. If conceiving a child is a tort against the child, then the first thing that must be done after birth is to take the child away from the criminals and give the child to truly worthy people who have certainly never encroached upon the birth of any children. Ideally, they should even be incapable of it. For example, those who have undergone sterilization. After all, people get vaccinated to prevent accidental torts against uninvolved bystanders whom they might infect. The same principle applies here: get sterilized, and you will protect children from the danger of being conceived.
From time to time, people are hit by cars on the road. These are tragedies that stir the public, and the public seeks ways to reduce accident mortality, ideally to zero. Additionally, people from time to time conceive children. If conception is a tort, then such tragedies should also stir the public, and then the public should seek ways to reduce the birth rate, ideally to zero. At least accidental conceptions. Again, whose behavior is more responsible: a driver who was driving in their lane while observing the speed limit, but a pedestrian who suddenly jumped under the wheels gave them no chance to avoid the collision—or a driver who consciously rams a pedestrian on the sidewalk? The same goes for childbearing: if conception is a tort, then the behavior of those who manage to get pregnant despite all efforts at contraception should be recognized as more responsible and perhaps even exempt them from paying serious compensation to the child for this accident. And those who consciously practice unprotected sex, pursuing the criminal intent to conceive a child, should be recognized as malicious thugs and punished exemplarily more severely, should they not?
Why did Karl Franco enter into a conspiracy with a girl and cohabit with her without first undergoing a vasectomy? Was it not with the aim of plunging a self-owning being into a state of helplessness by conceiving them into the world? Should we not lynch this hypocrite, who discourses on torts while himself craftily making preparations for one?
Of course, all of this is nonsense. When we live to see the invention of fully autonomous, self-developing embryos, within the framework of a creative free search, downloading info from the internet and self-modifying their bodies, assimilating necessary resources from a dispersed state—then we can talk about archaic procreation being a terrible tort. For now, humanity proceeds from different premises, and the acceptance of the notion of conception as a tort (real acceptance, not hypocritical intellectual constructs that have no connection to reality) makes the systematic extinction of humanity a moral duty, until the last happy childless old man leaves this former abode of sin.
Don’t twist things, Karl. It won’t help children’s rights, Karl.
Patry Friedman tweeted about our project, and may he truly be worthy of his great ancestors, which is no easy feat. People from all sorts of places, such as Iceland or Catalonia, have started joining the project chats.
Documents have been submitted for the registration of the company that will own the land being purchased as part of the project. So, I will soon be officially appointed as director, and it will be possible to apply for a boravak (the melodic local term for a residence permit).
The attempt to bring the surveyor mentioned in the previous issue to the site was only partially successful: the plot and even the access paths are so densely overgrown with bushes that we managed to break through to only one of the three areas.
Dead end, you can’t get any further to the plot — or, locally, velika šuma
One can make their way to part of the territory via the seasonal stream bed
Roughly a third of all the land is relatively cleared; there was an olive grove here
So, equipment for dealing with the underbrush was purchased, and starting tomorrow, Alexey from Tomsk and I will begin destroying it.
Asking the local expert where the trigger is on this barrel
When photos of all these “man toys” appeared in the project chats, the Tom Sawyer effect immediately occurred: people began to envy us and express a desire to immediately leave their stuffy offices and come to our sunny tourist paradise to paint a fence. Most likely, you won’t make it in time for the clearing stage, but then the road construction will begin, followed by building — processes that are no less fascinating. So, if you haven’t yet acquired a piece of Montenegro to build your own libertarian nest on — check out montelibero.org, or better yet, go straight to the main project chat — and join us.
A significant portion of the population consists of so-called “budgetniki”—employees of government structures and corporations. According to various estimates, about 30% of the working-age population in Russia are budget employees. A very reasonable question may arise: what happens to them in the event of achieving a free society? After all, they are accustomed to working according to state standards, which often lag behind the requirements of the private sector. For example, the professionalism of government teachers or medics is very often inferior to that of private workers. If the state ceases to exist, these people will not be able to realize themselves in a private environment, as it is unlikely that anyone will need them given their relatively low qualifications, and thus their poor ability to attract clients and generate income for an organization. Moreover, undergoing additional qualification is a rather difficult task for people who have been working at the same pace for many years without any changes.
Will all budget employees find themselves on the street in an instant? But that would lead to a catastrophe, as they constitute too large a part of the population. Most likely, they would demand the return of the monopolistic and coercive power they are used to, because under it they at least had no problems with survival; the state provided them with funds even if they brought relatively little benefit to other people. According to Hirschleifer’s criteria, a stable free society requires that there be no people driven beyond the edge of survival, because having nothing to lose, they will do anything, including acts of violence; the more such people there are, the more violence there will be, potentially reaching scales that threaten the preservation of a non-violent social order.
Besides budget employees, we must also remember the people who receive assistance from the state without which they simply cannot survive. The disabled, pensioners, orphans—can they really be deprived of the benefits they receive for survival, thereby condemning them to a short, impoverished life on handouts or death altogether?
However, there are at least two solutions to this issue, which, of course, cannot cover absolutely all the problems of civil servants and social assistance recipients, but should handle the vast majority of them.
The first solution will arise on its own in the process of practicing agorism. The creation of alternative social institutions to the state while the state’s monopolistic power still exists is very important so that people are not left with nothing, but have the opportunity to switch at a pace convenient for them from state work to work in similar independent organizations. This mitigates the problem, as budget employees will not be put in a position where only immediate dismissal and the need to find an alternative right away await them. No, they will be able to seek alternatives while having the ability to continue their accustomed life for some time, without worrying about their own survival.
Also, in the process of practicing agorism, various interest-based communities will emerge, and budget employees can use them to organize mutual aid systems. This same answer applies to socially vulnerable layers of the population; they too can find a place in such systems.
If this answer seems unconvincing to you, then there is another option. Achieving a free society does not consist of eliminating the state as an organization; no, this process is aimed only at destroying its power structure, which allows it to impose a monopolistic order on everyone through the threat of violence, and at equalizing the Balance of Violence Potential among all subjects of society, so that no one can simply recreate power by force. This is also called the non-violent state scenario. In this way, we only achieve the appearance of alternatives to the state organization, which anyone wishing can use, but not its complete destruction.
Naturally, many people accustomed to the state will remain. Even without coercion, they will pay it for the services provided to them. Many people are simply used to state schools, clinics, and other institutions, so they will continue to use them even under conditions of freedom. This means budget employees will not lose their jobs. Likewise, the socially vulnerable layers of the population will not lose their social payments.
Of course, for a non-violent state to survive in conditions of freedom, it will have to become an efficient and competitive organization. It can be expected that the officials managing it will succeed, as they will now have the necessary market tools to evaluate the effectiveness of their activities, since it will make sense to compare income with expenses (currently such a comparison is pointless, as any expenses can be covered by taxation and the use of monopoly privileges). Moreover, they will have to work honestly, without deception, corruption, or theft; otherwise, the state-organization will go bankrupt, and they will find themselves on the street in poverty and debt. It is also quite expected that the leadership of the state, once it becomes a competitive organization, will quickly be replenished by people who know how to work in a market environment, as, again, this is also a very good way to avoid bankruptcy.
But even if the state does not become efficient in conditions of freedom, it will still be able to hold on for some time thanks to the people who are accustomed to it. An analogy can be drawn with the fear of progress. Some people fear that new technologies will lead to crowds of displaced workers who have become obsolete. However, it doesn’t work that way; if, for example, a sufficiently good autopilot is invented that can replace human taxi drivers, it will still take many years, if not decades, for its widespread implementation. The taxi driver profession will disappear gradually, allowing current taxi drivers to work out their careers; there simply won’t be a demand for new taxi drivers, and people currently choosing their professional path will simply look at other, more relevant options.
The same applies here. If the state, having become a private organization, gradually falls apart, then current budget employees and social assistance recipients will be able to live their lives as they planned; it is simply that new employees and needy people will seek work and receive help from alternative organizations. In the non-violent state scenario, that day when everything collapses in an instant is unlikely to occur.
In Issue 1, I mentioned the start of a project for the joint purchase of a plot of land in the south of Montenegro. Fundraising was initiated for this, and to confirm the share of participation in the project, 80,000 MTL tokens were issued on the Stellar blockchain, which were then offered for purchase to anyone interested. As far as I can tell from the token page on the Stellar website, today the token already has 67 holders (you can find the current figure at the moment you are reading the article by looking at the funded trustlines line).
However, buying land is not the only possible direction for investment in Montelibero. Therefore, the project initiators decided to complicate the tokenomics a bit. Now you can invest directly in the MTLCITY land token, or you can stay in MTL tokens, with the exchange rate of both tokens being exactly 1 euro. The logic is as follows. The number of MTLCITY tokens is exactly equal to the sum in euros that makes up the costs of acquiring and registering the land, constructing the mandatory infrastructure, and other expenditures on public goods approved by current holders. At the same time, each token grants the right of ownership to a piece of land equal to the total land area divided by the total token issuance. If a new expenditure needs to be funded, an additional issuance of land tokens takes place, and current holders have the right of first refusal to buy the additional issuance proportionally to their existing share—thus, the area of land assigned to them will not decrease. But if this right is not exercised, the tokens will be bought by someone else, and the previous holder’s share will decrease. So far, MTLCITY has 6 holders; many prefer to own land indirectly, through the MTL fund, rather than planning the allocation of a physical plot for their direct use.
As for the MTL tokens, they can be used not only for land investments but also for other business projects, for example, the purchase of a crypto ATM or something else equally inspiring and ancap-friendly.
I tried to explain this as clearly as possible; if I didn’t succeed, I apologize, you will have to ask for clarification in the project chat.
Now I will move from the intangible to offline news. A third family has moved to Montenegro as part of the Montelibero project, as a result of which the diaspora now consists of six people. Budva is currently serving as a transit base for all settlers, and later, both I and the newly arrived family from Tomsk moved to the city of Bar, which is cheaper and closer to the land being purchased.
Next week, the payment of a deposit and the reservation of the land plot are expected. Then, within a month, we will have to register a company, which will then take ownership of the land. In this company, I will perform the functions of director, meaning I will directly manage the process of land development—of course, according to the instructions of the company’s shareholders. For now, I am looking for a geodesist (they are archaically called geometers here) to transfer the plot boundaries from the cadastral plan to the terrain, after which we can begin clearing the plot of underbrush and building a road to it.
I would say that so far, despite being much less well-known, our project is developing faster than Liberland and Liberstad (the latter is particularly disappointing, as it is very close to us in concept, but so far looks more like a scam). I hope we will continue to meet expectations, despite Montenegro’s reputation as an extremely slow-paced country.
As you know, we promote certain methods of combating violence: the use of reputational and financial tools to exert non-violent but quite effective influence on criminals of various kinds; universal armament (a balance of violence potential) to ensure everyone has the ability to defend themselves during a direct attack; and gene therapy as a means of eradicating violent tendencies in people prone to them. These methods are often criticized. Most often, this criticism stems from a lack of understanding—the critic has merely learned of the existence of the idea, dislikes it, and without even bothering to study it in detail, immediately begins to criticize it. But even if you have sufficiently grounded criticism of these ideas, there is no need to try to actively destroy them. This will only make things worse, and I will now explain why.
I will begin by stating that none of these ideas are promoted on a compulsory basis. Reputational and financial tools do not involve violent influence at all. Self-defense is justified, as it is a necessary response of a victim to the direct initiation of violence against them. The main point is to never initiate violence yourself. Gene therapy against violence is also not promoted as a forcibly imposed measure—it should be used only as an additional tool for protection against violent offenders during a direct attack (moreover, it is more humane; putting a bullet in the forehead is certainly worse than injecting a drug that suppresses violent tendencies). Additionally, people prone to violence can be pressured via reputational and financial methods so that they begin to seek treatment for their violent nature. As you can see, we are not proposing that anything be imposed on people by force. Our methods are either entirely non-violent or are implemented within the framework of self-defense during a direct attack.
If someone does not like our methods, simply do not apply them to yourself. After all, from our side, they will not affect you in any way unless you commit violence against us. Develop and promote your own methods of fighting violence, if you have any. Collectively, we will achieve a better result if each of us fights violence in their own way, rather than trying to sink those who are on the same side. Of course, any ideas are worth discussing—this is necessary for their development. But if those fighting violence spend their time actively “destroying” one another instead of developing their ideas, it will only play into the hands of the violent and nothing will change in the end. And I think you do not want your own actions to help violent people and support the existence of a social system whose order is based on the threat of applying violent measures, do you?
After these words, it is hardly possible to reasonably criticize any methods of fighting violence that do not involve forced imposition. Of course, the critic themselves may not be against violence but may be a supporter of violent methods of implementation. Well, in that case, they should first admit that they are, in fact, a supporter of violence, or perhaps a violent person themselves, so as not to mislead anyone. After all, the following rule applies in any case: if you support violent methods, then you are a supporter of violence; if you initiate violence against someone, then you are a violent person. And if someone speaks out against violence but simultaneously supports violent methods, then that person clearly has an issue with logic—one cannot be simultaneously for and against violence. In such a case, one must either think carefully about this contradiction or stop deceiving others and finally admit the violent nature of their position.
In February, I reposted an announcement about a short story competition regarding free private cities. I never actually managed to produce a story for the contest myself. I had an idea to compose something in the spirit of an Icelandic saga, but about the colonization of Mars: there lived a man named Elon, who was the son of X Æ A-Xii, son of Elon, son of Errol — and so on. But instead of focusing on the plot, I got bogged down in trivialities, such as studying whether Bitcoin mining would be possible on Mars, given the finite speed of light, or if there would be their own corporate currencies — and in the end, I just gave up. However, Wed Neuman, from whose channel I made the repost, did not give up. His competition entry was recently published, and I have read it.
You can feel that the author is more comfortable with a larger form, and he would have gladly expanded the plot to roughly twice the volume. I have always envied this ability; I personally run out of steam quickly when writing long texts, and if I do it in pieces, I first need to reread the previous fragments before writing the next one.
To be honest, the plot seemed rather strained to me; the emphasis was clearly on the world rather than the story. Nevertheless, the plot has its own charm, and the work as a whole is quite an easy read. The world looks like a kind of benevolent version of cyberpunk, where shady corporations also handle some incomprehensible business beyond the reach of mere mortals, but without the grim brutalism. In short, it is worth reading.
Libertarian Band has launched a new section called “Question to Bitarch,” where the channel host answers on behalf of Bitarch. Naturally, all answers concern only the topic of fighting violence, which is being actively developed by Bitarch, and this is a respectable level of determination.
For my part, I should note that I am not particularly fond of Lorenz’s concept of aggression, which treats it as a kind of tension that accumulates and eventually bursts. I still prefer the version that aggression is one of the types of reaction to a stimulus (the desire to destroy the source of irritation), along with flight (the desire to avoid the stimulus) and patience (the desire to adapt to the stimulus while minimizing costs). If we proceed from the version of aggression as tension, then widespread armament can only contain this tension for a short time until it accumulates and breaks out in a bloodbath, so it is somewhat strange to me that Bitarch adopts this idea so uncritically.
As for the ways to eradicate violence, I am closer to the approach of Alexander Elesev from the Dobroum channel, who argues that there will be far fewer prerequisites for violence if people do not have experience with violence in the family. Not that everything works so straightforwardly, but it would be an important component of success. And the second component of success in eliminating systematic violence is the cultivation of intolerance toward it. Someone who steps in to break up a fight is always a good person, regardless of whether they might get hit by both sides; they are within their rights. If you want to fight, surround this ritual with rules, conduct it in the presence of witnesses, determine the criteria for victory, accept defeat if the rules require it, and fulfill the conditions you committed to in case of defeat. If you are not ready for such complexities, do not pick a fight.
I understand that these theses seem very raw, but this is not my field of expertise. I am glad that Bitarch continues to systematize his ideas while receiving feedback from readers. Perhaps I will receive some response from him regarding the considerations outlined above.
