Тег: Authoritarianism

“The Game Is Over” for Tyranny: Science Confirms the Inevitable Drift to Freedom

We often hear complaints about how the world is plunging into a chasm, the state is tightening its screws, and people are only dreaming of a strong hand. However, the current situation is not as bleak as it’s commonly perceived, and libertarians have reason to be pleased – recent research by psychologists and sociologists says otherwise. If you look at the long term, authoritarianism (both left and right) simply has no evolutionary chances. Therefore, let’s examine two fascinating scientific papers that explain why the “market of ideas” will inevitably resolve in favor of freedom.

The first Swedish study uncovered a mechanism that works as a one-way valve of history. It revealed that the language of freedom is universal. Arguments based on care (do no harm) and justice (honesty, one rule for all) work with everyone. Everyone is willing to change their mind if you can prove that prohibitions or high taxes are unfair or harmful to people. But the language of coercion is more localized. Arguments based on loyalty, authority, and sacredness (“this is what our ancestors bequeathed us,” “respect power,” “this is for the greater good”), only work with conservatives, while those with more liberal views simply brush this noise aside.

What does this mean for us? In public debates, authoritarian conservatives have a broken “transmitter.” They can only persuade their own supporters. But arguments for freedom of personality – based on not interfering with other people’s lives – are able to attract people from both camps. Over time, this creates a “progressive drift.” Society is slowly but surely moving towards reducing violence and recognizing the rights of individuals simply because these arguments are understandable to everyone, while arguments against (based on tradition or power) cease to work for new generations.

The second study from Portugal dug even deeper. Scientists didn’t just look at what values people have, but how they prioritize when making choices. It turned out that the key difference is not that conservatives are “evil” and liberals are “good.” The difference lies in compromises: the progressive part of society places the well-being of the individual above the interests of the group, while the conservative part is willing to sacrifice the individual for preserving the group, hierarchy, and traditions.

But the most encouraging thing researchers found within the right-wing camp. It turns out that the right are far from monolithic. There are both “high moralists” – those very religious fanatics and shoe-lovers with skyrocketing loyalty and obedience to authority, but also “low moralists” – people who vote for the right (usually for economic reasons) but don’t give a damn about “creeps,” authority, and traditions. And this is precisely the split that we, libertarians, should be exploiting. “Secular conservatives,” who don’t need a Tsar but just want them to butt out, are good allies. And the old conservative model, which held up on authority, religion, and obedience, is only losing its base.

In a Portuguese study there’s another amusing detail – scientists frankly admitted: “We forgot to include the freedom scale in the study.” They measured care, justice, loyalty, purity… but forgot about Liberty. That’s where the treasure is buried! Libertarianism is unique because we take a universal basis (the principle of non-aggression (NAP) = care/justice), which is understandable to everyone, and discard all the rubbish about “duty to one’s homeland” and “sacrosanctness of power.”

Why is the future for libertarians?! If you put these two pieces together, the picture becomes clear. The old world, built on arguments like “you must, because I’m the boss” or “that’s how it’s done,” is slowly dying. This language simply stops being perceived by people. Conversely, the language of personal rights, honesty, and minimizing harm – this is the language of the future.

Voluntary, Bitarch

Collective Stockholm Syndrome or How Authoritarian Authorities Psychologically Traumatize Citizens into Complete Loyalty

You’ve all probably heard about this phenomenon – Stockholm syndrome – when a victim of abuse starts forming a strong emotional connection with the abuser, acquiring sympathy and complete loyalty to him. It got its name from one incident that occurred in Stockholm, where after an attempted bank robbery, hostages began justifying the captor’s actions, hiring him a lawyer and even sending him admiring letters. This kind of reaction is extremely dangerous because it forces the victim to act against her own interests, sometimes even defending the abuser at the cost of her life.

But why does it actually occur? Of course, it’s all about neurobiology. When someone is under chronic stress, periodic abuse and manipulation, a biochemical cocktail of cortisol, dopamine, and oxytocin is released. A traumatic attachment forms in which the abuser becomes both a source of fear and a perceived source of safety. In this case, the victim follows the abuser’s mood, behavior, and expectations and begins to prioritize his needs over her own, in order to maintain the relationship and avoid further harm.

This kind of attachment relies on a convergence of factors such as an imbalance of power, periodic cruel treatment, manipulation, as well as the emergence of a situation where escape seems unimaginable. But what’s also important is that its flourishing requires an environment of narcissistic abuse. The presence of “dark traits” in the abuser is particularly important: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Being around such a person, the victim is forced to rationalize his behavior and suppress her awareness of the situation in order to simply survive.

Of course, this phenomenon doesn’t necessarily limit itself to interpersonal relationships – it can also be observed at the sociopolitical level. When society is full of betrayal, intimidation and false assurances, citizens become attached to an abusive or narcissistic political leader who manipulates their existential fears, while offering periodic psychological rewards such as national pride, economic promises, or symbolic protection from exaggerated threats.

As a result, people begin to justify authoritarian abuses in order to cope with their helplessness and avoid cognitive dissonance. A collective Stockholm syndrome emerges, manifested at the cultural level. The political leader becomes simultaneously both a protector and a punisher, providing a sense of belonging while threatening rejection, promising prosperity while simultaneously inciting fear. Like in personal and cultural traumatic bonds, people are inclined to minimize harm, discredit critics, and remain emotionally connected with those who undermine their rights and well-being.

Resistance to the cultural traumatic bond requires understanding this phenomenon. We know that, depending on their psychological traits, different people are prone to forming it to varying degrees. Moreover, there exist emotional methods of strengthening acceptance of authoritarian leadership, such as creating a “we versus they” dynamic, exaggerating existential threats, and presenting oneself as the sole solution to social problems. Finally, authoritarianism thrives in conditions of disorientation, offering a sense of certainty and identity in exchange for obedience. All of this is important to take into account when developing strategies for destroying the traumatic bond.

People who have experienced interpersonal trauma need support, recognition, and education so that they can be freed. Citizens who have experienced cultural trauma also need this to free themselves from authoritarianism. Among other things, it’s important to expose disinformation and teach critical thinking. It is also necessary to restore voluntary and trusting relationships between people, return them a sense of dignity and collective strength. In this case, they will be able to heal from the trauma and become capable of acting against politicians who destroy trust between them.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How psychopathic predispositions are linked to authoritarian views and what can potentially be done about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It would be quite obvious to suggest that among supporters of authoritarian views and violent methods of achieving goals, the number of psychopathically predisposed individuals is higher than among supporters of libertarian and non-violent views. This assumption stems from the simple fact that a person who feels no internal resistance to causing harm to others and is even ready to commit a violent attack under certain circumstances is far more likely to end up in the first camp than in the second. But what can various studies examining people with both right-wing and left-wing authoritarian views say about this?

Most often, such studies are focused on the study of supporters of authoritarian-right views. For example, one of them showed that right-wing authoritarianism, a tendency toward prejudice, and an orientation toward social dominance (a preference for a society in which group hierarchy and inequality exist) are linked to psychopathic factors such as the interpersonal (a tendency to manipulate others and consider oneself superior to everyone) and the affective (a lack of empathy and guilt). It should be noted that the manifestation of these specific psychopathic factors in an individual is most closely linked to a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, which makes a person capable of causing harm to people without experiencing any repulsion.

The issue of authoritarian-left views is studied much less frequently; even the existing tools for this purpose are quite new. However, existing research shows that a tendency toward left-wing authoritarianism, and especially its component such as the permissibility of carrying out a violent revolution against the established social system, is strongly linked to psychopathy and antagonistic narcissism (the tendency to believe that the world is a highly competitive place in which one must achieve their own dominance over others). At the same time, neither a tendency toward altruism nor a tendency toward social justice were linked to left-wing authoritarianism. This may indicate that some left-wing politicians are not concerned with social justice and equality, but merely use them to justify violence against other people to satisfy their own egocentric needs.

Interesting results were demonstrated by a pilot study on the influence of psilocybin on a person’s tendency toward more authoritarian or libertarian views. After two sessions of taking the substance, authoritarian predispositions in the subjects decreased significantly, and this effect was maintained to a sufficient extent even after 7-12 months. It is very important to note here that psychedelic substances have long been studied for anti-aggressive and empathic effects. They affect the operation of the serotonin system, which plays a key role in the regulation of aggression and is responsible for the violence inhibitor function—more precisely, they are agonists of its 2A receptors (leading to their activation). However, there are studies suggesting that the empathic effect of psychedelics may be linked to the activation of 1A receptors, for which they are often partial agonists.

Serotonin 1A receptor agonists have demonstrated in a number of studies to be some of the potentially most effective anti-aggressive agents, without leading to the suppression of defensive behavior and other side effects characteristic of many agents, including psychedelics. Since the study of therapy for disorders in the regulation of aggression and dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism is oriented precisely toward these agents, their influence on a person’s tendency toward authoritarianism should also be tested. Perhaps, as a result of such therapy, a violent and psychopathic individual will not only stop throwing punches and manipulating other people to their detriment, but will also be inclined to stop supporting fellow sufferers of the mental disorder in society and politics, leaning toward more libertarian positions.