What will happen if the mechanisms restraining violence are disabled?

Bitarch, Voluntarist

The development of biotechnology is bringing us closer to a moment when it will be possible to create gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this comes the risk of the emergence of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed specifically at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, since if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it may be found among some psychopaths, maniacs, and people who overly value their violent nature, consider it the meaning of their life, and are unwilling to part with it because of some dart with a drug fired at them during another attack. Additionally, some groups of people (supporters of authoritarian power) may consider it important to achieve certain goals by force, meaning that the security personnel executing these orders must be protected from the risk of losing their capacity for violence.

Of course, the vast majority of scientists are against violence, and it is unlikely that any of them would engage in such developments. But what will happen if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through it step by step:

1) There is a possibility of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the entire world will sink into violence and wars, and the survival of humanity will become impossible (practically repeating a typical scenario from a zombie movie).

2) This risk will lead to the necessity of creating updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to ensure that a person dies from an attempt to remove their own restrictions on violent behavior. Allowing the survival of people striving for violence in such a situation is simply impossible; otherwise, the previously mentioned scenario will occur.

3) After this, a fairly rapid equalization of the balance of violent potential will occur, and absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clear to every average person that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained by the fact that a minority of sadists will be afraid to deactivate the Lorenz mechanism to attack the majority of non-violent people, who are capable of destroying them at the first attempt to initiate violence.

4) The stationary bandit (the state) will survive neither the appearance of gene therapy against violence, as it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker for the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it would receive Molotov cocktails, bottles of sulfuric acid, infectious agents, bursts of automatic gunfire, etc., instead of peaceful protests, from the very people who removed their restrictions on violence and will manifest it toward everyone, including them. Zombie movies, although pure fiction, nevertheless quite accurately convey what would happen to the state in such a scenario.

As a result, it turns out that creating a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and force-based measures love so much and consider the best mechanism for achieving any goals. They do not understand this, but even worse, they do not understand the catastrophic scenario that the creation of such a drug would lead to if gene therapy against violence is not updated in time according to the parameters in the second point, or at least if the balance of violent potential is not equalized so that all resulting rapists/violent offenders can be liquidated during their attack.

Why do transhumanists follow ancaps?

The mysterious organization Civil Society, about which I am only vaguely aware of the activities of the panarchist faction, does not consist solely of it. It seems to contain anarchy-balls of all sorts and colors; in particular, yesterday I was contacted by a representative of the transhumanist faction. And if you expected me to be offered an article on gene therapy, then no, not in this country. In this country, the agenda includes a ban on enlightenment, which a community oriented toward human upgrading cannot help but be worried about.

The transhumanists suggest that the passed law banning enlightenment activities can still be tweaked at the Federation Council level, and thereafter they will continue to closely monitor the adoption of various government acts, without which the new law is a mere empty shell.

Subscribe to the faction’s channel if you are interested in learning from time to time how you can contribute to scientific and technical progress.

This was, as usual, an advertisement.

Free Navalny Project

Leonid Volkov, Navalny’s deputy for political technology, has announced something unprecedented that he is preparing to save his boss many times, and now, he has published it. In effect, he has invented a Free State Project. There, a roll call of those wishing to join the project was conducted first, and only after twenty thousand people wishing to move to the promised land were gathered did the relocation begin. It is the same in our case. Everyone who intends to join the prayer ritual for Navalny’s release from captivity is suggested to first sign up on the website, and only when half a million such people are gathered will the date of the ritual and other details be set.

They say the site crashed almost immediately from the influx of interested people, but by the time I reached it, the only thing indicating the high load was a non-functioning counter. So, the order of magnitude could only be estimated by the circles on the map (however, a report arrived—the 200,000 application mark has been passed). To register, you need to specify your address (you can simply click a point on the map) and a valid email. After the email is verified, the voice of the applicant is counted—at least, the number next to my house on the map increased by one.

There are no options to withdraw a vote, so if the date for taking to the streets turns out to be later than the date of my departure to Montenegro, I will not be able to inform the organizers that I cannot attend.

What can I say about the prospects of the campaign? If the goal were specifically the release of Navalny, one would have to take some Katerina Tikhonova hostage and demand Alexei’s immediate release, threatening this woman with death. As for the chosen toolkit, it is primarily suitable for rocking the boat. Well, okay, let’s rock it, even though it’s already become tiring. This will not help Navalny in any way, but he is a grown boy and knew what he was getting into.

A Fairy Tale About Mice and the Doctrine of Deterrence

You all know that old story about the little mice whom anyone could bully and devour as they pleased. So the mice went to the wise eagle owl and asked him what they should do so that they would no longer be bullied.

– Mice, – said the wise eagle owl, – become hedgehogs. Hedgehogs have needles; no one bullies them.

The mice were overjoyed, but then they thought it over and asked:

– How exactly do we become hedgehogs?

– Leave me alone, that’s tactics, and I deal with strategy, – the wise eagle owl answered them.

But no one has told you until now what happened next. Well, listen up.

So the owl told them about strategy, hooted mockingly, swallowed one mouse whole, and flew off to his hollow, while the mice rushed home in terror. Later they calmed down a bit and reasoned: after all, it’s true, hedgehogs have needles, and no one bullies them. Let’s go to the hedgehog.

The mice came to the hedgehog and said:

– Hedgehog, we are little mice, everyone bullies us. But you are something else, with your needles, no one touches you; take us as your wives.

The hedgehog snorted and replied:

– I’m a hedgehog, a proud bird. You can’t screw a hedgehog for shit. I have no need for this social burden of yours. I don’t touch you, and you don’t touch me! Am I making myself clear?

The mice waved their paws, twitched their whiskers and squeaked:

– Hedgehog, don’t think we’re freeloaders, we’ll keep things honest. Maybe you need something too? We can bring you seeds.

– Pffft to you and your carbohydrate diet, – the hedgehog grumbled, – now a worm, I could really devour a worm.

Then the mice huddled together, whispered, rustled their tails, and then turned around and solemnly announced:

– Hedgehog! You’ll have your worms! And grasshoppers, and all sorts of other flies. We don’t eat those, but we’ll get them for you. And in return, don’t let anyone bully us. Deal?

The hedgehog wasn’t a fool himself and would have liked to snack on a mouse if the occasion arose, but then he thought: that’s it, no more tedious night hunting, food delivered to the door—just imagine how much leisure time will open up!

– Deal, – he said.

And so, one day a fox came out to scavenge. He found a burrow, smelled mice, got excited, and thought he’d dig it up right now. But from inside, the hedgehog sharpened his needles and gave him a real wallop!

The fox started yapping: his nose hurt, his paws hurt, and there was nothing he could do. He yapped and yapped, and then limped away to find himself easier, more defenseless prey. And the mice remained to live and prosper with the hedgehog.

And that is the end of the fairy tale, but that’s where the history begins. Word spread through the forest, and other animals also began to help each other protect themselves from predators. Before, they used to hide or scatter, a predator would catch one for dinner, and be satisfied with that. But now they stopped letting such robbery slide.

Some predators fled the forest forever, others adapted somehow and switched to a more modest diet. One thing led to another: private property, division of labor, freedom of trade, and the doctrine of deterrence. Living together became convenient, profitable, and safe. That is how we gradually built our Zootopia.

Non-forceful measures and the logic of proponents of violent coercion

Voluntarist

As you know, proponents of voluntarism and ideas of non-violence actively advocate for non-violent measures for damage compensation, as well as punishments for those who violate agreements and criminals, such as ostracism, financial sanctions, deposits, transaction insurance, etc. The use of force is permissible only for the purpose of self-defense against a direct attack; in other cases, violence is absolutely unacceptable. There are many reasons why such a behavioral model is most optimal, which I have already discussed extensively in my previous materials. Now, we will examine one very common argument aimed at discrediting non-violent measures.

So, I am talking about reputational institutions and ostracism, about how a person who violates agreements or has committed an act of violence in the past can be blacklisted and denied future transactions. And do you know what argument often follows? “This looks like the social credit system in China, you are actually inhuman totalitarians! This is the ‘cancel culture’ currently practiced in the West; you just want to cruelly torture people and deprive them of the right to a normal life!”

Now I want to ask a question to those who express such criticism. What alternative do you propose? Let me guess: should everyone who has erred be beaten with clubs, dragged through courts in handcuffs, or perhaps locked behind bars for many years? Nothing else can be proposed; there is only one alternative to our non-violent measures—violent measures. So, how does it work: we, with our ostracism and financial sanctions, are inhuman totalitarians, but your clubs and prisons are humane and extremely civil tools? If anyone believes this, they are simply a complete idiot!

And, by the way, we do not propose a lifelong “cancellation” of the offending person, which some also mention. In fact, it can be avoided entirely: if a person immediately admits their guilt and willingness to compensate for the damage, no ostracism or blacklists threaten them. In the end, everyone benefits if the perpetrator works off the damage they caused at their own pace and in conditions where they can work with maximum productivity. Also, to put a person behind bars, you will need to forcibly take a portion of peaceful people’s funds (i.e., forcibly tax them) to maintain the prison infrastructure and the prisoner himself. Of course, if someone doesn’t mind paying for this—let them pay, and let them offer criminals their own measure for lifting ostracism in the form of voluntary imprisonment. But I do not want to pay for this. What will you do, beat me with a club too? Then you are a violent aggressor, absolutely no better than any other!

Furthermore, one should not say that non-violent measures won’t work because a criminal can bypass them simply by committing further acts of violence and stealing for their own sustenance. Even in such a case, their life would be extremely unpleasant, since a whole range of goods and services cannot simply be taken and stolen, and if a criminal decides to attack, they can be stopped by means of self-defense. Do not forget that we advocate for general armament and have nothing against self-defense during a direct attack!

Could you criticize Stasik Ay Kak Prosto in this video?

https://youtu.be/ymVOQpFkQSY

The video contains several assertions.

  1. From the perspective of world-systems theory, civilization constantly goes through the same cycles: a new center of global business activity rises, money flows to money, a huge bubble inflates, and soon any production at the center of the bubble becomes unprofitable, and money begins to be made directly from money, through the turnover of various securities. Eventually, the bubble bursts, and soon a new one begins to inflate around a new center. The US will burst as the global hegemon, and China will take the stage.
  2. Any attempts to imitate the global hegemon can no longer be successful: it is pointless to try to increase one’s investment attractiveness, open markets, reduce tariffs, and build institutions—it is impossible to break out of the status of the periphery during the inflation stage of a financial bubble.
  3. Cryptocurrencies have become exactly the same overvalued financial asset, and when the bubble bursts, they will similarly lose the lion’s share of their value.
  4. The shortage of graphics cards caused by increased demand from miners cannot be covered by expanding production because the era of globalization is ending, trade wars are beginning, and the local Chinese market does not need that many graphics cards; fear, honest gamers, you will be stuck with five-year-old junk.

I will answer briefly by points.

  1. As strange as it may sound, stocks are not just numbers in brokerage accounts. These are investments that go to the companies that issued the shares, and they, in turn, by no means spend everything on management bonuses and buybacks—some is indeed invested in production, specifically in the periphery, where it is cheaper. At this moment, it is important for peripheral countries to be attractive for these very investments.
  2. If it is pointless to imitate the hegemon, then how will a new hegemon emerge? If world-systems theory reflects real processes adequately enough, then someone must launch a new cycle with themselves at the center. This means there is a mechanism for leaving the periphery. And it is logical to assume that for this purpose, one really should not simply imitate the hegemon. One should not imitate the hegemon in its current dying state, but rather look back to the time when it was young and healthy—while, of course, adapting to current technological realities.
  3. What does a burst bubble mean? Many companies suddenly lose value and find themselves unable to find a buyer for their goods. Demand is mainly for consumer goods, which become more expensive relative to capital goods. The proud owner of crypto, who previously invested in mining, begins to invest in potatoes, selling first the miners (and they become cheaper), and then the crypto itself (its price also falls). The market becomes saturated with cheap used graphics cards, demand for new ones decreases, it becomes unprofitable to invest in their production, and no trade wars are even needed—gamers are stuck with five-year-old junk. I will only note that miners and crypto will get cheaper relative to conventional potatoes during the deflation stage of the bubble, but relative to a conventional dollar—that is far from certain; it might enter a tailspin of hyperinflation.
  4. Will globalization end as a result? For adherents of world-systems theory, it is somewhat strange to discuss this. Where will a new global hegemon come from if there is no globalization? Without it, hegemons will be local. So, since everything goes in circles for you, global trade turnover will not disappear anywhere.

I am not attempting to judge here how correct the theory itself is. The theory is relatively young, more or less explains the observed facts, and makes verifiable predictions. As it becomes clear which predictions turned out to be false, they will either be patched, or this line of thought will be considered a dead end, and a theory based on completely different premises will be used—why not.

A couple of lectures on crypto

Ekaterina Schulmann in her program introduces a distinction between news, meaning that which attracts attention, and events, meaning that which has consequences. For example, when I announced the debates between Litreev and Milov, it was news, but the debates never took place because Navalny returned to Russia, and everyone stopped caring about trifles.

A bit later, I announced a doublet of lectures by Alexei Nefedov and Alexander Kotov as part of the Ural libertarian lecture series. There was no broadcast of the lectures on the day they were held, and I soon conveniently forgot about them. But this event had consequences: after a considerable amount of time, the Ural libertarians channel quietly uploaded the recordings of the lectures, and I finally watched them.

1. Alexei Nefedov. Bitcoin and the Theory of Money.

The lecture first analyzed why money appears in human collectives at all, what function it serves, which types of money achieve wider distribution, and which rely solely on state coercion. Then it briefly described how Bitcoin is designed and why this construction ensures its wide adoption and price growth. Finally, it explained why Bitcoin never actually became money, but instead turned into a defensive financial asset.

The parts about economics were clear and interesting enough for me. Where it concerned technology, I didn’t dive too deep, trying not to be intimidated by phrases like “quantum superposition.” I learned some specific new details, such as how the rules for the Bitcoin network’s operation are changed, or how the price forecast was built based on the stock-to-flow model.

It seemed to me that it would have made sense to expand the topic of altcoins a bit more, but Alexei is a Bitcoin maximalist and apparently believes that if you don’t talk about them, they will disappear on their own.

2. Alexander Kotov. Technological Solutions to Social Problems.

I hoped to hear ready-made recipes in the lecture, but it turned out to be more philosophical than practical. Interestingly, Alexander believes that state actions are not the cause of problems such as, for example, censorship in social networks, but that these are purely social problems. It seems to me that in the absence of a state, these problems would at least be less acute, because attempts to silence opponents are linked precisely to the task of political dominance, which is nonetheless a state phenomenon. Nevertheless, several interesting recipes were mentioned in the lecture, for example, regarding moderation in large social networks that would significantly reduce social tension—through subscriptions to rating agencies that would act independently of the social network’s administration and provide services directly to its clients.

The lecture turned out to be quite sobering; it became much clearer to me why there is such low mass adoption of decentralized social networks, and now I am not entirely sure that I want to bother with it myself—at least as long as centralized solutions provide some room for maneuver.

At the end, Alexander demonstrated how a hardware wallet works; it was curious but not very clear, however, it is evident that it is a fairly paranoid piece of hardware that is unlikely to allow the user to lose their money in a very stupid way. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough money to be that obsessed with security, but it was interesting to watch.

Preventing rapists from procreating

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is one very effective method for eradicating violence that few people usually think about. It is quite obvious — violence can be eliminated by preventing people with violent tendencies from procreating. The violent tendencies of some people may be genetically determined, so it is obvious that their children are also most likely to inherit this violence. Furthermore, abusers provide very poor upbringing for their children and raise them in an unstable environment, which pushes them to become abusers themselves in the future.

But how can this be achieved? We cannot use force to compel such people not to reproduce, as we would then be no better than them, and by applying violence, we would be introducing negative externalities of our own. However, this can be done by resorting to a series of non-violent measures.

First and foremost, reputational institutions must be used. People who have committed acts of violence should be exposed and ostracized, thereby lowering their well-being. It is also very important to discredit them among their close circle, such as relatives, friends, and neighbors. It is entirely acceptable to exert pressure on people in this circle, for example, by threatening to ostracize those who cooperate with the abuser. In principle, this is logical, as ostracism is not an effective tool if the people cooperating with the criminal are not also declared criminals to whom corresponding sanctions can be applied, because otherwise these people will have fewer incentives not to cooperate with him, meaning ostracism will not be applied sufficiently.

Thus, the abuser’s environment can quite well renounce him or, at the very least, begin to exert pressure on him from their side. And a person with a ruined reputation, a low level of well-being, who poses risks in any relationship, and who is additionally under pressure from those subjects who still cannot give up cooperation with him, has very low chances of finding a partner and starting a family.

In addition to reputational methods, other tools can be used, one of which we will consider now. There are agencies that, for a certain fee, are capable of arranging a series of events that are highly likely to lead to the deterioration of relationships between people, for example, to the divorce of a married couple. In our case, this can be applied against people with violent tendencies who are in relationships or marriages. Funds to pay for the services of such agencies can be collected through donations from concerned people, for example, by announcing a crowdfunding initiative to eradicate violence.

It is especially important to prevent those people from procreating who work for a stationary gangster and carry out his instructions to use force, that is, the security forces. They are most often people with violent tendencies, for who else would go to protect a violent power and, on its instructions, commit acts of violence against innocent people—for example, beating them at rallies or breaking into their homes for a “wrong” post on social networks.

And, which is very important for us, they receive a giant bonus to reproduction. Security forces have many benefits; they can count on free housing, discounted public transport, recreation and treatment in health resorts, they have education benefits, an early retirement age, and large pension payments. Thus, security forces receive very favorable conditions for reproduction, at least more favorable than ordinary people. Unfortunately, I have not found statistics on the number of children among security forces, but I venture to suggest that, on average, the fertility level in their families is much higher than in ordinary families. This only increases the number of people prone to violence. This state of affairs must be destroyed as soon as possible; then the problem of violence will begin to be solved even without the physical removal of aggressors from the population.

Violence Prevention (no, this is not a Bitarkh article)

One of the central ideas of ancap is that all arising problems and disputes should be resolved ex post facto—through a court (assuming that courts under ancap work perfectly fine, no questions there). But real problems are easier to prevent than to “clear the rubble,” and this may require prohibitions. What do you have to say about this? Suing for compensation and a pile of penalties is all well and good, but doesn’t this resemble the famous phrase “come back once they’ve been killed”? Perhaps, if only for the possibility of preventive measures (but not those that infringe upon reasonable rights and freedoms!), it is worth having at least a minimal “protection” state?

Minarchist

The central idea of ancap is more that the problems whose resolution has been usurped by the state today should be solved privately, and only when there is a market demand for their resolution. This means that the same problem may be solved differently at different times, in different places, and in different situations. In one case, a condominium finances the work of police patrols; in another, an insurance company compensates the victim for the costs of an attack; in a third case, people rely on the success of self-defense and do not intend to spend money on insurance or security. Each time, the situation is based on a multitude of individual choices, and generally, it doesn’t matter whether economic calculation, religious prejudices, or ethical preferences were behind them.

There is nothing terrible about a certain community providing solutions to a number of typical tasks for itself using a “protection” state. What is terrible is if this state provides protection forcibly, based on territorial criteria. But as long as state services are provided within the framework of individual contracts that imply free exit from them—then by all means.

Moreover, if someone’s culture implies a number of prohibitions, the observance of which is expected from everyone, including outsiders, then it will be quite natural for the carriers of such a culture to conduct prevention privately. An example is in the image below.

It is another matter that under ancap, the role of prisons differs somewhat, but that is a completely different story

Online Anonymity: Recipes from Libertarian Band

Libertarian Band has released the second video in their series on agorism, and since I am no longer involved in production, I am personally very curious to see what they’ve put together this time.

It’s about methods for ensuring anonymity. Judging by the thoroughness of the presentation, Bitarch acted as the consultant. The set of recipes looks even more hardcore than in Svetov’s video on a similar topic.

In my view, the video feels like a “how to assemble a class five body armor” guide, with a hint that the real pros actually build tanks, but this will do for a start. In other words, it’s clear that if you want to, you can secure yourself very effectively, but it’s not very clear how to actually walk around town with all that. Perhaps it would have been better to structure the material differently: here are the possible threat levels, and here are the recommended protections for each threat, what the consequences of ignoring the recommendations are, and what the probability of getting caught is.

In this regard, from a purely screenwriting perspective, Svetov acted more competently, because he didn’t talk about abstract online anonymity, but tied it to a specific case involving a Chechen who beat up some “cosmonauts” at a rally. Perhaps in this case it would have made sense to tie it to the case of Bitarch himself. Like, if you want to be unrestrained in your expressions while communicating on VK and not have anything happen to you for it—here is a set of tools to satisfy this urgent need.

And so it goes: all it took was to look at the material of a favorite channel from the outside, and instead of an advertisement, it turned into a critical review.