Тег: BPN

OMP is ineffective? Debunking the myth of Boris Boyarshinov and his supporters.

Column Bitarkh

It turns out there is a fairly large “sect” of supporters of Boris Boyarshinov, who denies the danger of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He constantly repeats a “mantra” of sorts about the uselessness of nuclear weapons (NW). His background is in physics, so most of his arguments concern NW specifically, but he sometimes says something similar about viruses (I remember Mikhail Svetov asked Boyarshinov directly about the idea of viral WMD, and Boris answered in roughly the same spirit as he did about NW).

The main point of his theory is that none of the currently existing WMDs are capable of destroying humanity or even a specific geographical region. He claims that the scale of destruction from a nuclear explosion grows as the cube root of the charge’s power (i.e., as the number of “megatons” in a bomb increases, the destruction increases very, very slowly), that nuclear winter is a calculation error and will not happen in reality, and that viruses can be contained by a vaccine and are inconvenient to store in a ready-to-use state.

Now, Boyarshinov and his supporters do not understand the very essence of deterrence theory and confuse doomsday weapons (DDW) with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The latter are sometimes called strategic deterrence weapons.

DDW, in the literal sense, is a device capable of completely destroying all of humanity or making the planet uninhabitable.

WMD is a deterrence weapon that operates on a game-theory model of costs and benefits. None of the supporters of nuclear/viral deterrence ever claim that WMD must kill all of humanity in the literal sense, as is understood in the case of DDW. Even at the peak of the Cold War, when the USSR and USA had tens of thousands of thermonuclear charges, experts spoke of inflicting “unacceptable damage,” but never the total destruction of the planet. The concept of M.A.D. (“Mutual Assured Destruction”) is deceptive in its name—it is not total mutual annihilation, as many think, but merely the infliction of unacceptable damage.

Nevertheless, for deterring an aggressor in the form of a state, WMD is entirely sufficient. The example of North Korea’s Kim demonstrates this perfectly; even the most powerful state in the world—the USA—is afraid to attack him. There is no need to even discuss the destructive power of North Korean missiles—as experts say, in the best case, only 1-2 missiles with a simple nuclear warhead would arrive, which would blow up a few blocks of dense housing in a city like New York. There are opposite examples—Gaddafi and Hussein had no WMD, and we all know perfectly well what happened to them.

From animal ethology, we know how the dominance hierarchy is structured in animal species that form them (the very fact that such a hierarchy forms is an evolutionary error [local extremum] arising from a disruption in the uniform balance of violence potential [in animals, this is a lack of innate weaponry]). In such a hierarchy, the dominant (“alpha”) can apply violence to submissive individuals (“omegas”), and the latter are in no way capable of inflicting retaliatory damage. If they are capable, a dominance hierarchy does not arise.

Generally speaking, all states, in relation to both their own citizens and other, weaker states, are capable of applying violence without the risk of receiving retaliatory damage. In making the decision to attack Hussein, the US government considered the risks of a retaliatory strike and, understanding that the most Saddam Hussein was capable of was killing some soldiers sent there voluntarily and ready for the risk, easily decided on aggression.

The situation with North Korea’s Kim is completely different—taking even a weak bomb to New York is unacceptable damage; voters would not understand this, and the US political system would risk spiraling out of control, which the authorities cannot allow.

Now let’s consider the confrontation between a stationary bandit and an individual. As you think—you can even apply this to yourself personally—would society agree to sit in quarantine for 2 weeks to allow the state to apply violence even to the person most unpleasant to you, such as a pedophile maniac? Want to execute one maniac—welcome to a two-week quarantine! I highly doubt you would agree to that.

A state can coerce through violence only when there is no even minimal retaliatory strike using WMD, otherwise “voters will not understand.” Thus, for deterring a modern state, nuclear weapons or Level 4 danger viruses are even excessive. A weak flu virus is enough, which can literally be multiplied “in a garage” using simple, easily accessible materials such as chicken eggs and an incubator, and the virus sample for multiplication can be easily obtained from any hospital. The main thing is the inevitability of a retaliatory strike using such WMD in the event of “impaling” [brutal repression], which can be implemented as a “dead hand system” or an “assassination market.” After a couple of such episodes, the country will quickly return to a state of separate pre-state societies, where the most that could be done to a criminal was ostracism. On this point, the philosopher Steven Pinker said it well: “Revenge is a risky business because if the enemy is dangerous enough to have harmed you, he is unlikely to accept punishment without resistance.” In matters of coercion to obey the orders (“laws”) of a stationary bandit, it is the same (we talked about this in the video “The Non-violent State”). The possession of even the simplest WMD by a potential victim of the state makes the initiation of violence “political suicide” for the authorities. It will come to the point where society, tired of continuous quarantines and overcrowded hospitals, will pressure the state using its own forces to root out aggressive violence (it may be hard to believe now, but life will force it).

Violence and Non-violence: The Revival of Statehood

Voluntarist

Certain forms of violence are often legitimized as a tool necessary for maintaining public order. This is especially true regarding the pursuit of people who have previously committed acts of violence or have simply violated certain agreements through non-violent means, and the forced application of power measures for restitution and punishment. In the first article of this cycle, we already examined how the issue of restitution and the punishment of criminals can be resolved without resorting to force. However, some people, including supporters of a free stateless society, may still consider violence to be a necessary or, at least, permissible tool in certain situations. One of the arguments that can be countered with is that the use of power measures leads to the rebirth of a violent hierarchy of dominance in the form of a state with uncontested and monopolistic power. This is another negative externality of violence.

To implement power measures against people, there must exist bodies or entities that have the ability to apply violence to them without hindrance (or with minimal obstacles). In effect, someone must have the right and the ability to violate the Balance of Violence Potential (BVP) — an important component of a free society, without which its stable and long-term existence is fundamentally impossible.

Insufficient equalization of the BVP in a free society may be caused by the fact that the majority of society’s members do not wish to defend themselves against acts of violence; that is, they are fundamentally unconcerned with the issue of security, are willing to tolerate aggressors, and voluntarily submit to them. In such a case, there is little to be done other than distributing means of self-defense and popularizing the idea of the need to protect oneself. However, if a free society is achieved based on the current state of affairs, such a scenario is unlikely, as equalizing the BVP by these methods is one of the key components of this process. And by achieving a free society through the equalization of the BVP, we will create conditions under which the existence of bodies with the right to the unhindered use of force should not be possible in principle.

However, it is possible to assume that a state of insufficient BVP equalization has nonetheless occurred. For example, we have eliminated violent monopolistic power, but decided not to get rid of the use of power measures, but instead to transfer this function to various independent agents, providing them with certain advantages over everyone else, which would allow them to engage in such activities without hindrance. In this case, I have only one question: what would stop such agents from one moment deciding to stop fulfilling their obligations under agreements and begin applying violence to pursue their own goals, including the establishment of their own coercive and monopolistic power over people and entities who lack the ability to defend themselves?

Obviously, nothing would stop them. Thus, violent and monopolistic political power will be created anew. This is precisely why supporters of a free society cannot be consistent in their views if they adhere to the legitimization and permissibility of certain forms of violence for various purposes, including the pursuit of forceful punishment and the extraction of compensation, since this, again, would require the existence of bodies or entities with a greater potential for violence than everyone else, and thus capable of establishing their own power at any moment.

The Limits of Violence

Bitarch, Voluntarist

Supporters of etatism and the use of force generally divide violence into illegitimate violence—that is, “bad” violence, which must be fought against—and supposedly “legitimate” violence, which is considered beneficial and may be, or even must be, applied. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of achieving certain goals which, according to etatists, are worth treating people as nothing more than a soulless resource in the hands of a “wise” government. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of revenge and the forceful punishment of those who committed an act of violence in the past, or even those who simply violated some agreement through non-violent means; this is supposedly a necessary measure in the fight against crime, and generally allows for a kind of “social revenge,” letting people blow off steam on those who have done something wrong.

Of course, based on different ethical models and views on social organization, one can attempt to legitimize any form of violence. They can even be legitimized based on certain practical considerations, but only in a very limited sense, by avoiding a full consideration of the final results. However, if one stops engaging in purely subjective theorizing and fully examines the results of violent practices, it becomes evident that violence only leads to catastrophe, regardless of whether it is called legitimate or not.

To understand what the issue is, let us imagine a situation. A specific person has been accused of committing some crime; the court has found them guilty and ordered them to pay compensation or submit to other measures (for example, go to prison). However, they refuse to do so. Of course, a number of non-forceful methods of pressure can be used, especially various reputational and financial tools. But this does not satisfy you, and you want to achieve your goal by force? Then let us see how far you are willing to go, especially considering that we live in a modern high-tech world in which the destructive potential of a single individual grows every day.

1) Using one or another weapon of self-defense, the convicted person destroys the agents who came to their home and are forcing them to comply through threats of violence.

2) Using explosives previously planted in an apartment building or a crowded place, the convicted person demands to be left alone; otherwise, they will have no choice but to detonate them (or fail to prevent a detonation via a pre-set timer, if they have already been caught and are not being released), thereby killing many people.

3) Using a previously planted container with a non-dangerous virus (for example, flu or coronavirus), the convicted person follows the same scheme to infect several people in the city, thereby forcing the authorities to impose a strict two-week quarantine throughout the city (assume that you personally would be forbidden from leaving your home during this quarantine).

4) Using a previously planted “dirty bomb,” they turn a large city into a second Pripyat; the population is completely evacuated, and many die from cancer. All real estate and some of the movable property of the city’s residents are lost forever (becoming unusable due to radioactive contamination).

5) Using a previously planted container with a very dangerous virus obtained or synthesized earlier (which, with technical progress, will also cease to be a major problem), the convicted person launches a pandemic that leads to a large-scale quarantine across the entire country for a long period, a high number of victims, and the collapse of the economy.

6) Using thermonuclear missiles (the convicted person being wealthy enough to produce them) or ultra-high-capacity energy sources (which, like virus synthesizers, could become quite accessible, even common everyday tools), they turn the entire planet into a scorched desert barely fit for life and destroy civilization in the form it currently exists. A small portion of survivors reverts to the Stone Age.

I think the maximum risk you would be willing to take is what is described in the first point; otherwise, the consequences would be catastrophic. And in the event that the Balance of Violence Potential is achieved (meaning universal armament), this option will inevitably end with the liquidation of enforcement agents, which will make forced coercion fundamentally impossible!

Do you really advocate for the killing of all attackers?

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.

Voluntarist

Balance of Violence Potential

Balance of Violence Potential (BVP), or more accurately, the uniform distribution of violence potential, is a certain state in society where any person is capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on another in a local clash. For simplicity, BVP can be viewed as maximum universal armament in society, where absolutely every resident of a given territory possesses a weapon for personal self-defense, for example, a pistol or even such ersatz weaponry as a blinding laser or a poison dart, preferably several units, so that it would be impossible to disarm anyone. It is assumed that residents of this territory have the opportunity (or rather an obligation in the form of a cultural norm) to possess weapons based on their physiological capabilities without any legal barriers (for example, age, citizenship, “criminal records” for activities undesirable from the state’s point of view) and financial need (volunteers and high-tech corporations will help the poor obtain weapons for free, just as vaccination is currently helped in poor countries, since this is profitable for them as well).

Why is BVP needed? To eradicate physical violence from society. This will allow for a significant increase in the quality of life and welfare of the population, eliminate tyranny of both the stationary bandit (the state) and the criminal mafia and touring bandits, and allow scientific and technical progress to develop peacefully, without fearing a global catastrophe.

By what means will BVP reduce/eradicate violence? In a multitude of different ways:

1) Classical deterrence doctrine (“deterrence by punishment”) against rational aggressors. Knowing that the victim of violence can inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor, including even killing them, the aggressor will think carefully and decide that the benefit from violence will be less than the costs and will ultimately renounce violence.

There is a good example of such a model in the wild — porcupines. Cheetahs also frequently live in porcupine habitats, and they are hundreds of times superior in physical strength. But here is the surprising part: a cheetah can theoretically maul and eat a porcupine, but practically never does. There are occasional stupid individuals who decide to do so, but as a result, they either die or sustain such injuries that they never dare to try again.

2) Deterrence through denial (“deterrence by denial”) against invader states. The authorities of such a state set a specific goal — to conquer a territory and subjugate its residents. An aggressor can, of course, drop a nuclear bomb, but radioactive land without residents is worth absolutely nothing. As for the political elite of the aggressor, this is the end, because their own population will tear them to pieces for such an act. It would also create a dangerous precedent for the permissibility of using WMDs against civilians and legitimize the creation of strategic deterrent weapons by everyone capable of doing so (even now, a biohacker student is capable of multiplying a deadly virus and does not do so only for moral reasons).

3) The impossibility of creating and maintaining a violently hierarchical structure in a society with BVP. In such a society, the use of violence locally between people becomes unprofitable; accordingly, it is impossible to create and maintain a larger hierarchy of dominance (for example, a state) through the sequential accumulation of resources in the format of a “military hegemon.”

For example, an aggressor Vasya, having only a pistol, attacks Petya to use his resources to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle. With it, he can attack Sasha with doubled force, buying a tank with the resources taken from him. Using this tank, he can attack billionaire Vanya with tripled force, who can even afford serious security, and use the obtained resources to hire a large army to conquer the entire country. But in the case of universal armament (uniform BVP), Vasya would be destroyed at the very beginning of his bloody path.

Imagine what would have happened if “little aliens” in the 1960s had arranged a “rain of pistols” over St. Petersburg? A teenager Pynya, who was prone to violence from birth, would with a probability close to 100% have died in a clash the next day, and the question of how to deal with him now would simply not be on the agenda.

4) Forcing natural selection that removes those prone to violence from the population. Analyzing many different species, biologist Konrad Lorenz found an interesting pattern — in animal species with strong innate armament (for example, hedgehogs, poisonous snakes, and insects) that allows them to very effectively inflict unacceptable damage on any opponent in a clash, an innate intra-species morality of non-aggression developed (more precisely — an instinct of aversion to initiating physical violence against a member of their own species), because otherwise the survival of the species would be under threat. This happened as a result of the most violence-prone individuals being destroyed during acts of aggression and thus failing to produce offspring. In humans, such a morality of non-aggression did not develop because humans are not a naturally heavily armed species; the mortality of fights with bare fists without the use of any additional means is very low, therefore there was no pressure from natural selection to develop this trait. More precisely, such a neurobiological mechanism also exists in the species homo sapiens, but in a very weak form. But if BVP is leveled in society, the pressure of natural selection will strengthen it in homo sapiens to the level of heavily armed species, since carriers of gene variants that cause less aversion to the initiation of violence in humans will be removed from the population before they even have a chance to pass them to the next generation.

Bitarch

Balance of Violence. A new video from Libertarian Band.

Libertarian Band has released the fourth video from the series on the balance of violence potential. Since the video is titled Balance of Violence, it is not hard to guess that it occupies a central position in the series.

The key idea in the video is that the balance of violence potential is ensured not only by possibly equal armament—this is unattainable, as players with more resources will easily win an arms race. The factor of solidarity is far more important. The willingness to not allow violence to be used not only against oneself, but also against others—if one can speak of a silver bullet regarding the construction of a non-violent society—then this is the closest candidate.

Of course, the video is not reduced to this single thought; I won’t retell it in full, watch it for yourself. The technical quality of the video continues to grow, but don’t forget to feed the studio with your donations. A critical dependence on one large sponsor strongly disrupts the balance of the potential for independence in decisions, if one may put it that way.

An argument for BPN from evolutionary theory

Bitark’s Column

An interesting study by biologist Konrad Lorenz shows how natural “armament” in animals leads to the emergence of morality against aggressive violence. Similarly, restoring the balance of violence potential (BVP) in human society will lead to the adoption of the non-aggression principle (NAP).

There are many species whose armament is so devastating and whose methods of application are so lightning-fast that a real combat clash between rivals would end with the death of one of them, or even both. Take, for example, venomous insects and snakes. Therefore, it is not surprising that natural selection develops a prohibition against using weapons in intra-species clashes for such species. Ethologists, following Lorenz, call this system of instinctive prohibitions that limit animal behavior “natural morality.” It is stronger the more powerfully the animal is armed by nature. During a territorial clash, venomous snakes exaggerate their size by stretching out to see who can stand taller, swaying, and pushing each other, but they never bite, nor do they even demonstrate their weapons. Some species even threaten each other with their heads turned away. It is no wonder that not only ordinary people but also many zoologists mistook the tournament battles of snakes for mating dances.

Well-armed animals can threaten each other for a long time, and when one of them grows tired, it abruptly changes posture, exposing its most vulnerable spot to the opponent for a decisive combat strike. The moral prohibition acts on the winner like an electric shock: all their angry fervor evaporates, they turn away from the opponent and hide their weapon. Similarly, a proud boy, feeling that he will lose a fight, suddenly puts his hands behind his back, lifts his face to the victor and shouts: “Go on, hit me!” Unlike a wolf or a snake, a human may actually strike in response.

After analyzing many species, Lorenz reached a conclusion of stunning simplicity more than 50 years ago: a strong animal has strong morality, while a weak one has weak morality. In terms of its natural history, a human is a very poorly armed animal; unlike monkeys, humans cannot even bite properly. Therefore, humans initially have weak instinctive prohibitions and weak natural morality. An unarmed man cannot cause significant damage to another in a clash: one will tire of hitting, and the other can always run away. Innate prohibitions in humans correspond to this. But subsequently, humans began to create and improve weapons and became the most armed species on Earth. Morality, however, has hardly changed.

Shareholder Viktor Rafaelevich
“Ethological Excursions to the Forbidden Gardens of the Humanities”

Give the enemy a weapon

Bitarch posted reflections on his VKontakte page regarding the idea that instead of bombs, weapons and ammunition should have been dropped on the Third Reich. As justification, he cites the same Hirschleifer model in the form presented by Auzan — with conclusions that the stable existence of an anarchic society requires maintaining a balance of the potential for violence. If so, the artificial equalization of the BPN (Balance of Potential for Violence) in Germany during WWII would have led to the fall of totalitarianism and, consequently, to a swift end to the war.

One thing can be said for sure: if small arms and equipment were dropped on concentration camps, it would indeed have immediately led to an armed uprising, followed by attempts to leave the Reich or seize a certain area for the subsequent effective deterrence of punitive units.

To what extent the same tactic would have led to an armed uprising against the regime throughout the rest of the Reich’s territory depends solely on the degree to which that remaining territory resembled a concentration camp. Conversely, the more complacency toward power existed in a given social stratum, the more likely it is that the weapons gifted from the skies would have been disciplinedly handed over to the authorities for subsequent shipment to the front.

These obvious considerations follow directly from the Hirschleifer model as well: the higher the bitterness parameter and the lower the overall level of resources, the greater the probability that a battle for hegemony until total victory will occur in the system instead of peaceful anarchy. Conversely, the lower the bitterness and the higher the relative prosperity, the fewer efforts the parties are inclined to spend on fighting each other, and the more they leave for production.

The greater the legitimacy of the regime, the less likely it is that the artificial equalization of the potential for violence through the distribution of firearms will lead to any problems for the regime. The reason is quite simple: under conditions of low bitterness between parties, firearms simply will not be used for political struggle. It doesn’t matter if I have a gun if I express my dissatisfaction with the regime in the form of a solo picket and signatures on open letters, and the state politely takes my dissatisfaction into account without hindering me in any way. Having a gun begins to play a role when I encounter direct illegitimate violence and realize that I have a chance to solve the problem with counter-violence.

So, overall, the idea of artificial BPN equalization is good as a thought experiment, but it should not be taken literally: today, peaceful public discontent far more often becomes a weapon against the state, and to evoke it, I would likely need not a gun, but a boost to my info-resources. And here, of course, a humanitarian bombing in the form of, for example, a retweet of me by Mr. Trump could indeed produce a significant effect.