Of course they can. The most vivid example of this is the British East India Company. Therefore, the question one must actually answer is “how to prevent corporations from doing this?”
Political philosophers have long been chewing over a related question about how to prevent a government from descending into tyranny. The proposed solutions can be divided into two categories. The first is technological. These are various schemes for the separation of powers and other types of institution-building. The second is ideological. This is the promotion of a readiness to resist any attempts to slide into tyranny.
It is roughly the same with corporations. One can build schemes for exactly how conflicts will be resolved in a distributed mode under ancap. For example, I am quite fond of the Friedmanite, or the related Molinieu scheme. Or one can simply postulate that, firstly, it is always the individual who decides whether to abide by a particular contract or leave it, and secondly, that man is the measure of all things, and if he believes he sees an injustice, it is up to him to decide whether to help eliminate it. There is no magic non-aggression pact that is mandatory for universal compliance; there are only private notions of what is right. Has a corporation crossed the line? The corporation should be punished.
Anarchy is not viable without the constant readiness of people to take direct action to uphold justice. Certain structures, such as dispute resolution organizations, simply allow for the division of labor. A small and tight-knit corporation of evil is capable of terrorizing a small territory and squeezing it dry. But under conditions of anarchy, it has little chance of building on that success and expanding beyond a certain limit: the accumulation of a critical mass of coordinated adversaries will drain all the corporation’s strength into containing them.
So, if I wished to assert myself under ancap through coercion and the seizure of others’ property, I would do so with a small group, anonymously, and vanish into the night as soon as the opponent regained their senses. In a developed information world, this would most likely mean hacking attacks—it is harder to cover one’s tracks after raids on physical objects. Yes, this kind of criminality is entirely possible and even viable under ancap. But all those speculative cases in the vein of “your grandfather installed a pirated version of Windows half a century ago, interest on the penalty has accrued since then, and therefore by the decision of our pocket court, you are consigned to contract slavery for thirty years”—these are attempts to imagine an anarchy in which everyone remains afflicted by statist brain rot. As long as they are afflicted, there will simply be no anarchy, and once the disease is overcome, such cases will become impossible.
I was contacted by the owner of a small Telegram channel Neo-Anarchism who asked me to take a look at his article on neo-reaction and promote it if possible. Perhaps he will even be so kind as to donate some “non-money” for this)))
In principle, the article provides a sufficiently balanced representation of the subject for those who are not particularly familiar with it (for me, for example). The author concludes that neo-reaction is an eclectic complex of views that emerged as a result of disappointment in democratic institutions, while maintaining strong approval of market institutions. Moreover, since the movement originated in the USA, conservative cultural views inevitably attached themselves to the market, but not very firmly, hence the eclecticism. And while ancap suggests a transition to decentralized systems of social coordination, neo-reaction rather expresses a belief in authoritarian models.
In my view, the only worthy application of this ideology is to feed it to existing authoritarian leaders so that, standing at the crossroads between Putin and Lee Kuan Yew, they would have more arguments in favor of preferring the latter. But since it is easier to be Putin, and few people think about the long-term consequences of this decision at the start of a dictator’s career, the expected effect is doubtful.
Besides the article on neo-reaction, other useful things appear in the channel from time to time; the author of the channel himself, having firmly decided on his anarchic worldview, is apparently still thoughtfully looking around, glancing sometimes to the left, towards communes, and sometimes to the right, towards nimble entrepreneurs. All the better, then, as we can expect the appearance of materials dedicated to the comparison of different directions of anarchism.
I listened to the latest Navalny today, and I am very glad. By all appearances, he does intend to remain abroad, because it is much more convenient for him to throw a wrench in the regime’s works from there. Here he has the GDR archives, or wherever he is digging through the excavations of Putin’s German past. Here he has a Bulgarian colleague from Bellingcat. Here he has quick access to the EU establishment. As for the fieldwork in Russia, there are people to handle that. So, Alexei will live on.
For those who, for some reason, are still not aware of what this is about: Navalny pulled off a cool prank. Almost immediately after publishing his video investigation into the poisoning, he started calling the subjects of the investigation, introducing himself as an advisor to the Secretary of the Security Council and shaking them down for materials for a briefing note addressed to the first person. Only one operative fell for the trick, but what was heard perfectly complements the investigation materials, and now Navalny’s evidence is becoming absolutely ironclad.
Now we should expect obvious movement at the international level. If it is possible to file a lawsuit in one international court or another—good. If we have to settle for some situationally issued sanctions against Putin—well, that will also do. But it is far more interesting to watch the reaction in Russia.
To be more specific, I am talking about dormant institutions. During the transformation of hybrid regimes, they have a tendency to wake up and suddenly start working; there is a chance that this will happen in our case as well. We have already seen an appeal from several Tomsk municipal deputies demanding the opening of a criminal case regarding the poisoning. They were joined by colleagues from several other regions. But our state has too many nannies, which is why it’s always running around like a blind foal. So, besides a deputy’s appeal to the Investigative Committee, one could imagine the possibility of raising the issue of a parliamentary investigation at the State Duma level, some movements from the prosecutor’s office, or finally, an impeachment attempt. Of course, this will not get the support of the majority, but the news hook is loud, and there will surely be public politicians who find it possible to use this for PR.
It seems to me that a flash mob involving writing letters to one’s deputies, as well as to the heads of Duma factions, could work well right now. Something along the lines of: “I have received information from open sources regarding the illegal activities of the FSB. The explanations given by the president during the press conference are clearly insufficient. Could you initiate a parliamentary investigation into this matter, which has already gained significant international resonance and therefore should not be hushed up in the State Duma.”
I won’t provide precise wording; I am not very competent in that. I hope Ekaterina Mikhailovna will formulate a plan of action more clearly in her program tomorrow, with a specific link on where to search and where to write. Something in the final days of 2020 has triggered such a flurry of activity that I’ve completely rebranded myself as a political scientist—ugh, I shouldn’t do that, that’s not why you read me. But it’s also impossible not to share this funny prank, please bear with me)
Supporters of state intervention in social life to prohibit certain actions (the sale and use of drugs, speeding, overtaking on a solid line, organizing certain types of businesses like gambling) justify the existence of “victimless crime” laws by the reduction of the risk of significant harm. Their logic is roughly as follows: when you drive at 200 km/h, you are not killing anyone, of course, but you increase the probability of fatal consequences. It is similar with drug prohibitions—etatists believe that prohibitions are necessary to reduce the likelihood of children “getting hooked on the needle,” as they are less likely to try drugs (and harm their own health) if their sale is prohibited.
Unfortunately, etatists lack the intellect and knowledge to understand one simple thing—by threatening violence (which is what any “law”-command from a stationary bandit actually is), you will never reduce the number of deaths or health impairments. The threat of violence only creates a market incentive to create super-destructive deterrence weapons, including doomsday weapons, so that violence against you becomes unprofitable for the aggressor (in this case, the state). The example of North Korea’s Kim demonstrates this perfectly (he would not have created WMDs if the US authorities had not given him the corresponding incentive through the exemplary execution of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi).
Do you think a state ban on the sale of “weed” will save thousands of lives? It might save some, but the ratio of benefits to costs must be calculated. Let’s say the weed dealer is not just some random Joe, but someone well-versed in deterrence theory. He robs the Vector storage facility in Novosibirsk, and when the state tries to “put him on a stake,” he threatens to release the stolen viruses. Suppose that instead of recognizing the inadmissibility of violence in any form (as should be done), the authorities send special forces to put a bullet in his head. But he proved to be prudent, hiding the viruses disguised as drug “stashes” and creating an analogue of the “dead hand” system. After his death, these stashes were automatically put up for sale as ordinary drugs, someone bought them, opened them… and found natural smallpox inside. A few days later, a global pandemic began, resulting in the death of a third of the population. That was the “price” of saving drug addicts’ lives through the threat of state violence!
I suggest that etatists be consistent. Do you want the prohibition of victimless “crimes” through state violence? Fine, just prohibit not only drugs and gambling, but everything that increases the risk of causing harm. First and foremost, this is the creation of market incentives for obtaining WMDs as a means of deterrence. One could even add an article to the criminal code: “Incitement to the development and production of weapons of mass destruction.” I only fear that you personally will be the first defendants in a criminal case under it!
A little over two weeks ago, Bitcoin came very close to its historical all-time highs in US dollars. It reached the mark on some exchanges and began to hesitate near the peak. And today, it has finally confidently captured this height. So, we can officially congratulate each other on the end of the three-year decline. To everyone holding bitcoins, you have my respect. To everyone who isn’t, you have my pity. To everyone trying to halt its adoption, you have my disdain.
The team I previously had the honor of representing has released their latest video, partially based on my script, which in turn was based on Bitarch’s article of the same name. On boosty, I posted a whole series of iterations showing how the script evolved. The next video is already terra incognita; my work is not involved there, and I am curious to see what they come up with. If it turns out well, who knows, perhaps I will be able to hand over my main text channel to someone over time.
Readers are wondering why Bitarch’s share on my channel has grown so sharply. It’s quite simple: he purchased a subscription for such publications for 5,000 rubles per month. These terms turned out to be more convenient for me than pondering every time whether or not to post a particular piece of material he suggested for free. Similarly, I guaranteed to answer questions accompanied by donations, while all others will be answered as I can.
By the way, speaking of questions. I want to test a certain model. I have created a separate subscription level on boosty for 50 rubles a month. Subscribers will see all the questions I receive and will be able to mark in the comments which ones they would be interested in seeing answered. In this way, even if a question was not accompanied by a donation, a paid subscriber can promote it (Of course, subscribers of more expensive plans will also have this capability). As we know from economic theory, it is through the pricing structure that real human needs are determined. Let’s see how this works in our case.
The idea of universal armament and unlimited self-defense is often criticized from the position that it will lead to an increase in the number of unjustified killings. In this matter, the following formulation is often used: “Do you really advocate for the ability to use a weapon against a person and thereby threaten their priceless life simply because they attacked you with their fists, started approaching with threats, or broke into your home? Most likely, the attacker only wishes to simply hit, beat, or rob you. But injuries can almost always be healed, and material values are not even close to being worth it.” Let us examine this issue in more detail.
People who allow themselves to engage in violent behavior, even if it is not lethal, are still aggressors. Violent tendencies are a part of their personality that they should realize as early as possible and make every effort to overcome. But if a person is satisfied with their violence, if they do not intend to do anything about it and refuse any offers of help, then they represent only a greater threat to other people, introducing multiple negative externalities into their lives.
Some might think that according to my logic, one should specifically seek out all people prone to aggressive violence to take preventive measures. However, this is not the case. It is impossible to know for certain if a person is truly a violent offender until they manifest their violence in practice. But even if a person has committed an act of violence previously but is not manifesting it now, they should not be attacked for any purpose (punishment, extorting compensation, forced coercion into psychotherapy). In the end, by attacking them, we ourselves become aggressors wishing to forcibly subject other people to our orders, which would also introduce negative externalities into our lives and the lives of everyone else.
However, if a person decides to attack you here and now, it is an unconditional fact that they are an aggressor and a violent offender threatening your life and the lives of other people. Furthermore, through their violence, they show that they are not averse to using force to impose their own orders, which is already a very dangerous tendency. To destroy them is to get rid of the threat arising from it. Imagine that through their acts of aggression, they can accumulate a potential for violence. Then they will gain power and turn everyone around them into their own slaves. Can you really consider the life of a person valuable who does not consider life valuable themselves and, at the first opportunity, will organize slavery or even genocide for the people around them?
I personally cannot. Of course, I will not attack such a person myself, because by doing so, I would be no better than they are. But if they attack me, I will rid myself of them, thereby making my life and the lives of other people safer. And if all aggressors are destroyed during their attacks, then non-violence in people will be reinforced purely evolutionarily, since only people who do not manifest or who control aggression will be able to continue their lineage both biologically—since aggressive tendencies can be genetically determined—and in terms of upbringing, as good parents have far greater chances of raising good children than aggressor parents.
I read with great interest Navalny’s publication about the investigation into his poisoning conducted by Bellingcat. It is also available in video format; it’s roughly the same as the text, just slightly more detailed and interspersed with memes. It’s better to open it directly on YouTube rather than in the embedded player, so you can leave a like.
It seems to me that Navalny is mistaken in thinking there will be hysteria across all channels now. Rather, the opposite: they will ignore him, like some Hunter Biden. But, of course, a purely Russian quirk will be added—the reverse cargo cult glorified by Ekaterina Schulmann. The cult servants will snicker sardonically and wonder why we think all other planes in the world aren’t made of twigs and actually know how to fly. Naturally, all intelligence agencies of all countries in the world that have any ambitions at all poison or otherwise deal with those they dislike; everything is under control everywhere. And the fact that the dealings of specifically Russian intelligence agencies are so well-known is not because they are so reckless, but only because an info-war is being waged against them.
And, for the most part, these guys are right. Indeed, any state is a systemic aggressor. Indeed, any state, if its hand is not slapped, quickly senses impunity and begins to create total chaos. And those who try to slap its hand and expose it face various absurd misfortunes all over the world, like some Assange.
What will happen next? Next, Navalny will return to Russia, and then he will finally be killed, only this time bluntly and without artistry. The man just doesn’t get the hints, mocks in every way, makes them look ridiculous, and what then—will the old man give up and decide to leave him alone? What is there to be shy about? Will people really take to the streets? Well, let them come out once a year, on the anniversary of his death, like they did for Nemtsov. Let them leave flowers and light candles; that’s a problem for the municipal workers. Or is someone counting on a Maidan? And who will call people to the barricades? Kira Yarmysh or Yulia Navalnaya? Perhaps Leonid Volkov or Vladimir Milov? Alas, we can count on the Belarusian scenario at most, with peaceful unauthorized strolls that will be either ignored or brutally dispersed, with endless fines slapped on the participants.
At the current stage, the best thing Navalny is capable of doing, he is already doing. He is gaining publicity from the assassination attempt and trying to squeeze the harshest possible personal sanctions against Putin and his inner circle from other states. So he should stay in Europe for now, especially since there are two excellent, very compelling reasons. First, the rehabilitation period after poisoning can be extended indefinitely—there is no clinical practice, no one will check. Second, he can focus on searching for the foreign assets of Putin’s circle and striving for their seizure. Let them go to the Yukos shareholders; that’s still better than paying 57 billion from our taxes.
Who even cares where a popular blogger is physically located if he regularly produces quality content? But Navalny will go to Russia because he believes that is where he belongs. This will end tragically; I am very sorry.
Supporters of authoritarian-right (conservative) ideas should consider whether the financial and economic freedom they so praise is even compatible with the persistence of physical violence in society.
Those who believe that free economic relations can be ensured in a society where violent activity is permissible—and where a strong centralized organ of violence exists—are making a fairly significant mistake. Let us correct this error.
Let us first note that the problem is much broader than state violence, meaning that the mere destruction of the “stationary bandit” will not solve it. The problem lies in aggressive violence as such, regardless of its source. The public will only continue to support states in strengthening financial control as long as the threat of financing violent activity, such as terrorism, exists. And even in a stateless society, people, fearing they will become victims of violence, will continue to pressure free and independent financial structures to control the flow of finances as strictly as possible. Moreover, the structures themselves are interested in control, as violence threatens them as well.
Perhaps you have heard of cases where some European banks voluntarily blocked the accounts of cryptocurrency traders due to suspicion of financing terrorism, even though the traders provided all legally required documents within the AML/KYC procedure. The state did not compel the banks to do this, but they nevertheless decided to forego a portion of their profits to reduce potential reputational damage (if the cryptocurrency was indeed obtained for jihadism or contract killings and this later surfaced, clients concerned with their own reputation would not want to do business with these banks, even if the banks had done everything correctly from the perspective of state law).
Also, do not forget that in a society with an unresolved problem of violence, financial control will inevitably grow with scientific and technical progress, as potential violent actors will have more opportunities to cause significant harm—for example, by using high-capacity energy sources, new types of explosives, or even biological threats in the form of intentional viral infection (DNA synthesizers are becoming more accessible every year).
Where will all this lead? To the fact that many market agents, driven by fear, will most thoroughly verify the origin of funds of any subjects entering into transactions with them. After all, who would want to conduct a transaction with a person who earns their money by selling explosives to terrorists, thereby putting their own life at risk?
As a result, transaction costs will only increase, and any inaccuracies or suspicions will lead to the blocking of bank accounts and the seizure of funds from a suspicious person, just to ensure that violence is avoided. Many may be caught in the crossfire for no reason (the problem of “false positives” remains). This will clearly slow down the economy, making it quite inefficient, which will ultimately lead to a sharp decline in people’s well-being and the stagnation of progress. Even the use of uncontrollable financial instruments, such as cryptocurrencies, will not help, as they will be useless if the majority of agents in the economy refuse to accept them, again, fearing a violent origin.
Conservatives may object—that this is exactly why a strong state is needed: to deter violence. They believe that if it is properly organized within constitutional frameworks that limit its growth, it is possible to ensure both economic freedom, so people can earn money and engage in entrepreneurial activity without hindrance, and a low level of violence.
However, a strong state cannot exist without financial control; for its existence, it needs enormous funds, which can only be obtained by levying high taxes on people and enterprises, as well as by using monopoly privileges in a significant portion of economic spheres. A strong state is incompatible with a free economy. And even a weak, minimal state is also incompatible, as it always degenerates into a strong state; politicians cannot be stopped from expanding their powers, as we have clearly observed throughout the history of states. Even the most seemingly liberal states, such as Switzerland, strengthen economic control over their citizens every day.
Moreover, politicians have interested groups of people supporting them and many justifications for increasing control—be it the expansion of state social programs, the increase of defense capabilities, or the supposed development of the economy. The latter is the most absurd thing one could imagine—how can the violent extraction of funds from the economy through the taxation of its participants, as well as the strict limitation of their activities in certain economic spheres, help it develop? Nonsense! Yet some interested groups follow even such nonsense.
I think it should now be clear that the fight against violence as a phenomenon in general is critically important for achieving financial freedom and all its accompanying positive aspects. And social models that permit the initiation of violence—whether it be state-monopolized and centralized, or private and independent—clearly contradict financial freedom.
In the modern world, the fight against the phenomenon of violence plays a critically important role, as we could very well face the use of weaponry of an extremely destructive scale. And I am far from talking about nuclear weapons. Even the most powerful nuclear warhead would only be enough to destroy and radioactively contaminate a small city and its surroundings, and even the multiple use of nuclear charges, in the worst case, would only destroy a part of humanity, increase the rate of oncological diseases, lower the quality of life, and temporarily halt technological progress, but many people would survive such an event and would have a chance to deal with the resulting situation.
One should not think that weaponry truly capable of destroying humanity is merely a future prospect that is still far off. Usually, such weaponry is envisioned as a very powerful energy source, such as antimatter, of which even a small amount would be enough to completely destroy the biosphere of an entire planet. Of course, violent tendencies in people should be fought against for the sake of ensuring there are no psychopaths in the future capable of arranging such a thing, although with such advanced technologies, there will likely be no problem with conducting genetic therapy and modifying embryos aimed at combating violent tendencies as a congenital disease, which is impossible at the current level of progress. Nevertheless, this is also necessary against the threat that exists right now.
But what is this threat? A fairly obvious, yet widely underestimated threat: the viral destruction of humanity. Look at what is happening now. Even a relatively weak coronavirus, whose level of infectivity and lethality does not come close to values capable of putting human civilization face-to-face with catastrophic losses, let alone its destruction, was still enough to cause quite a stir and demonstrate people’s inability to deal with a viral threat effectively enough. Furthermore, let us not forget that the production of a vaccine is generally a matter very demanding of time and resources.
However, what do people’s violent tendencies have to do with this? The fact that in modern conditions, arranging an artificial pandemic, even one much more serious than the coronavirus, is not difficult at all. Research laboratories store various samples of viruses, including quite dangerous ones. Additionally, they have the capabilities to create artificial (synthetic) viruses that are more infectious and deadly than those that arose in the natural environment.
Now let us imagine several scenarios capable of leading to an irreparable catastrophe. For example, an employee of one of such laboratories, possessing aggressive tendencies, realizes the power available to them, seizes virus samples, hides them in different places, and threatens to release them if humanity does not make concessions to them. Or, the laboratory could be seized by a group of people who also have an interest in subordinating everyone to their conditions, or, worse, fulfilling some fanatic’s prophetic scenario of an apocalypse. And there is no need to say that this problem will be solved as soon as governments realize the full danger of such scenarios and decide to significantly strengthen the security of such facilities. The mobilization of force would only demonstrate to all interested parties and individuals with aggressive tendencies where they can obtain the power to realize their plans; likewise, strengthening control would increase the level of stress among the population and the facility’s workers, which would only intensify such a risk. Let us also not forget that governments can experience crises, and someone might take advantage of weakened control and the turmoil during one of them. Also, someone might attempt to collect a set of pathogens slowly but surely, in different places and in different convenient situations, storing them for a long time until the necessary quantity is gathered.
From there, the matter is not particularly complicated—a psychopath who has seized virus samples either achieves, effectively, universal slavery before their power and the establishment of totalitarian violent orders, or releases them into the wild. If the pathogens are not particularly dangerous individually, but there are many of them and they are released in different places, people will have to fight all of them simultaneously. Now imagine how difficult this is, given that the struggle against even one coronavirus required numerous efforts and, nonetheless, was not effective enough to get rid of it even to some extent over nearly ten months since the start of the pandemic.
Furthermore, a psychopath might release only one virus, but one that is laboratory-developed. Imagine, for instance, a laboratory modification of HIV capable of surviving outside the human body, and thus being transmitted through touch, shared use of items, and airborne droplets. Considering that such a virus, like HIV, would have a fairly long incubation period, a lot of time could pass before it is noticed; however, due to the efficient routes of spread, it would already be too late—almost everyone would already be infected.
One should not rely on the mobilization of resources for the development of a vaccine and effective treatment either. In the case of fighting a large number of viruses simultaneously, one would have to conduct many research and development projects at once using the same resource base, which would greatly reduce the efficiency of each individual study. And a scenario involving a single artificially engineered dangerous virus could be catastrophic due to the very nature of the virus, which is difficult to research and treat. Let us not forget that the nature of HIV itself has made it impossible to invent a vaccine against it for decades, since it attacks the immune cells that, in the case of other viruses, are used to fight them, but cannot resist HIV due to their own infection. The only case of cure occurred during a bone marrow transplant from a person with a congenital mutation that prevents HIV from attaching to immune cells. However, such people are very few, and the material obtained from them cannot be used for mass treatment. Therefore, the scenario from many pandemic movies, in which antibodies developed in the organism of a “patient zero” are used to cure everyone after they are found, will not work either, as, again, the amount of material is very, very limited, while the virus meanwhile kills thousands of infected and is transmitted to thousands and millions more.
In a very rapid and destructive pandemic, the impossibility of resisting it is further caused by the fact that under such conditions, the infrastructure for the production and delivery of necessary means would be severely damaged, or even completely destroyed. Even if the scientists in the laboratory and those guarding them do not scatter in fear and panic, they will have difficulties obtaining the materials necessary for conducting research and development; they might even face a shortage of basic goods, such as food, which would make the further pursuit of their activities impossible.
I think there should be no more doubts about how real and catastrophic the threat of viral destruction of humanity is. If any of the scenarios I have listed occurs, then 99% of people face extinction, and the remaining 1%—those who hid well or have innate protection—will unlikely be able to revive human civilization; even if these people survive, they will have to start their journey from absolute zero, and moreover in a world where remnants of pathogens lie everywhere.
That is precisely why it is necessary to fight violence as a phenomenon in general, the result of which will be the eradication of violent tendencies in all of humanity. It is important to promote the idea of the viral destruction of humanity so that people understand the seriousness of the situation now and can begin to act. Perhaps it will be possible to get rid of violent tendencies with the help of biological technologies, such as the same genetic therapy aimed at eradicating violent tendencies just as vaccination is aimed at protecting against viral infection. However, this method is doubtful due to the insufficient level of technical progress at this moment. Therefore, the most realistic scenario would be the equalization of the Balance of Violence Potential—achieving a state in which different subjects have approximately equal opportunities to inflict unacceptable (including lethal) damage on each other. Under such conditions, people who do not have strong violent tendencies will be able to continue their lives, and they will have fewer incentives to lean toward acts of violence. And those who cannot live without violence will, through their own attacks on other people, run headlong into danger, be liquidated, and leave no offspring. This scenario is based on a scheme derived by ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which you can read about in detail here.
In closing, I will not forget to say that the achievement of freedom from violent tendencies must happen before the idea of using laboratory viruses for one’s own purposes occurs to someone who has access to them or the ability to seize them. Otherwise, catastrophe is inevitable.
“Revenge is a risky business because, if the enemy is dangerous enough to have harmed you, it is unlikely he will accept punishment without resistance.” Steven Pinker.
Bitarch and Voluntarist after consultation with a professional biologist
