Shame as a Weapon: What Libertarians Should Learn from Progressives?

There is one technique that progressive activists have mastered to virtuosity—the imposition of collective guilt. Look at modern Britons: half the country walks with their heads bowed because their great-great-grandfather once drank tea in Bombay. The result? A non-white migrant there today is almost a sacred cow. Deporting them is harder than convincing a cat to take a bath. The police shyly look away from “cultural peculiarities.” Courts acquit migrants in cases where a native Briton would have long since been sent behind bars. Meanwhile, for some white engineer from Poland, obtaining a visa is a bureaucratic hell of blood and sweat.

Whether you like it or not—the method works! Shame is a nuclear weapon in the information war. And while libertarians are writing another clever post about the Austrian School and the Laffer curve, our opponents have long since rewritten the moral code of society. So it’s time to take the tool in hand, not to lie, but to finally call things by their real names. Let’s look at a few examples of what statisticians can be shamed for.

Shame : It is YOUR fault that grandma is working until she’s 70.

Heard that the retirement age was raised? Crowds of migrants brought in? The demographic pit has turned into a demographic canyon? Congratulations, statist—this is your doing!

Any zoo worker will tell you: animals do not breed in captivity. Stress, a cramped cage, the inability to lead a natural way of life. Now look at your country—the very one where you demanded to “restore order,” “ban this,” “regulate that,” and “there should be a fine for this one.” Where every sneeze is a potential “victimless crime.” Where a person wakes up and the first thing they think about is whether they messed up yesterday according to point 87 of some regulation.

You built a zoo. And now you’re surprised that the population isn’t recovering. But now your pension will be paid by Abdullah, who had to be brought in because the locals stopped giving birth. Enjoy it, because you deserved this—in the most literal sense.

Shame : Your “good law” is someone else’s pain.

Do you know what you and a guy with a bat demanding money from a neighbor for a “good cause” have in common? The method. When you write a petition to “ban X,” lobby to “oblige everyone to Y,” or vote to “introduce liability for Z”—you are not participating in democracy. You are hiring a stationary bandit to go and beat up those who want to live differently.

“But I didn’t do it myself, the state did!” Sure, a hitman doesn’t kill by himself either—he just pulls the trigger. And the client is completely innocent; he only handed over the money. Every time you say “there should be a law that…”—you are literally demanding that people with weapons come to another living human being. If they don’t comply—they get fined. If they don’t pay—they get imprisoned. If they resist—they might be killed. This is the finale of any state norm. It’s just that usually, it doesn’t reach the finale; people surrender before the state decides to kill them. So next time you want to “force everyone”—look in the mirror. There stands a person ready to pay for their own comfort with someone else’s blood.

Shame : A ballot is not a civic duty, but complicity.

“I just voted, what’s the big deal?” Well, let’s break it down. You went to the polling station and checked a box for someone who promises to “restore order in sphere N.” This “order” means new bans, fines, inspections, and imprisonments. Against people who did nothing to you personally and just wanted to live their own way. You didn’t “express an opinion”; you signed a delegation for the use of violence. You signed the ledger: “Yes, I am for these people to be squeezed, those to be taxed, and those over there to be put behind bars.”

Statists should look at the British once more. They have learned to be ashamed of things they have no personal connection to—the actions of ancestors in the century before last. Therefore, let them not think that they cannot be made ashamed of what they are committing right now. With their own hands, voices, and “wants.” And this is not radicalism, but elementary honesty with oneself. Freedom begins not with a rally, but from the moment you stop wanting to command someone else’s life!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Only Road

Suppose road is the only one leading from point A to point B. Accordingly, a monopoly arises, and entrepreneur raises the price to an enormous value. In theory, some entrepreneur should appear who will break the monopoly and build their own road ; let’s assume that is what happens. After this, the owner of road simply lowers the price to the market rate, and entrepreneurs 1 and 2 compete. So what is the benefit for entrepreneur to break the first one’s monopoly if they get no advantage from it?

The situation modeled in this question does not correspond to the processes that actually occur in the market. Following this logic, after a certain business appears in a specific location, no one else would open a similar business there because it would be unprofitable. However, we observe something entirely different. On one street, you can almost always see several grocery stores; in one shopping center, several restaurants; in one building, several offices of different insurance companies, etc. A new business opens as long as any acceptable profit can be made from it, because that too is profitable.

Furthermore, let’s consider the specific case of roads. Even a monopoly owner of a road on a certain straight line between two points is unable to excessively inflate the toll cost simply because they are not actually a real monopolist. If people feel that this “monopolist” is hiking prices too high, they will decide that it is more profitable, for example, to take a detour that goes through point “C” between points “A” and “B,” or to use some alternative mode of transport (rail or air), or, in the extreme case, to travel off-road entirely. Therefore, even without direct competition, the monopolist cannot set the toll significantly above the market rate, as such a decision would bankrupt them. Nevertheless, it is still profitable for them to own the road, as they are still capable of generating an acceptable profit from it. Similarly, it will be profitable for any agent who decides to build another road parallel to it.

Vitaliy Tizun