Тег: Business

Why Psychopaths Are Not Needed by the Market

In popular culture (and in some business publications) for years an image of the “business shark” has been cultivated – a cold, calculating cynic in an expensive suit who steps on people’s heads, breaks rules, but brings super profits to shareholders. Sort of like Gordon Gecko or Patrick Bateman. Of course, many libertarians (and we among them) value rationality and the ability to disconnect unnecessary emotions when it comes to figures. But there is a fine line between rationality and pathology. And a new meta-study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, clearly highlights this line.

What is it about? Psychologists Lenke Roth and Ute-Kristine Klecke analyzed data from almost 50,000 people. Their results knock the Hollywood myth flat: psychopathic traits lead to terrible work performance! We’ve been used to thinking that a psychopath is such a brilliant manipulator who outsmarted everyone. In reality, statistics show something different.

Firstly, individuals with psychopathic traits simply have low productivity; they work worse than others. They also provide no help to colleagues. In a healthy private company, success is the sum of efforts. A psychopath won’t lend a shoulder, even if it depends on the fate of the project. Moreover, such people are prone to counterproductive behavior, which is the most interesting thing. Sabotage, bullying, theft, delaying deadlines – this is about them. From the perspective of a free market, an employee concludes a contract: time and skills in exchange for money. A psychopath de facto violates this contract. Instead of creating value, he engages in destroying the company’s social capital.

Individuals with so-called secondary psychopathy also “stood out” – they are impulsive, hostile, and unable to control their emotions. They are delayed-action bombs that explode the office from within.

What should employers do? Your business is your private property. You have full rights (and even an obligation before your wallet) to filter those you allow on your doorstep. Don’t be fooled by charisma and ostentatious self-confidence during interviews. HR screening, personality tests, and thorough reference checks are not bureaucracy but protection of your investments. One such “wolf from Wall Street” can scare half your productive department (high employee turnover is a typical result of psychopathic personalities among managers), and you’ll spend years clearing up the losses from a toxic atmosphere.

And now, seriously – if, reading the description of psychopathic traits (the absence of empathy and guilt for harming people, manipulative behavior, impulsivity), you suddenly recognized yourself… then there are news for you. You aren’t an “alpha-predator.” You are an inefficient economic agent. The market harshly punishes inadequacy. Your inability to fit into cooperation and work towards results makes you poorer in the long term. Being toxic is economically disadvantageous.

Libertarianism is built on the principle of non-aggression and voluntary collaboration. Psychopathy often pushes people to violate both. As long as you don’t initiate violence, no one should force you into treatment – your body, your business. But rational egoism suggests: if your “hardware” malfunctions and prevents you from earning, maybe it’s time to take some medication and fix the system? Consent to therapy is not weakness, but an investment in your human capital. Psychopathic individuals should think about this before they simply stop hiring them even as pizza delivery guys. Because the further along we go, the more widespread understanding will become that a psychopath is not a profitable employee, but a risk and source of damage.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Suppressing supporters of violence using the methods that successfully crushed homophobes in the West

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?

To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.

A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.

One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.

Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!

How to be an agorist and engage in ordinary business with the minimum possible payment of taxes?

For example, I want to open a cafe. Opening a cafe in the city center, I run a high risk of losing money to the state. How can I avoid this, and is it even worth risking opening an illegal business in modern Russia with a physical space and people inside? It feels like agorism right now is only about selling substances, but I don’t want to sell substances on Tor; I want to run, for example, a cafe, and there is absolutely not that kind of anonymity—you need people to know about it, and it needs to be out in the open. That is completely different from the substances market, for instance, where you can do business via Tor. Furthermore, if some problems with the authorities arise, the courts and law enforcement are monopolized, and no one will protect me from the arbitrary actions of tax officials. What should I do? Wait until avoiding taxes becomes the norm? Grease palms with bribes? Then the money will go to government officials and increase their interest in creating problems (so there would be more bribes). It’s some kind of vicious circle.

The question is accompanied by a donation in the amount of 0.0001985 btc

Agorist practices always imply a certain solidarity between counterparties against the state; this is what you should focus on when figuring out how to build your shadow business. For instance, if you set up a tax-free establishment in an open square in the city center, you have only one chance to avoid repressive pressure from the state: if, in response to such attempts, your customers immediately shoot the state representatives to hell, and the state knows this in advance. Outside the Chechen Republic, you cannot count on this, so let’s move on.

Since we are talking about the catering sector, I would suggest a different business model. Find a business center that isn’t too posh, with a lax access regime, visit every office, and present your simple commercial proposal—that every working day during the lunch break, you are ready to deliver a hot set meal at a fixed low price, with payment in cash. Here is a link to a Telegram bot; every morning until 11:00, an order can be placed by choosing one of three set meals, and from 13:45 to 14:15, the order will be delivered to the office. That, essentially, is the whole model. You will need to rent a kitchen space as a private individual, hire staff under the table—and get to work. You don’t even have to introduce yourself by any name; your name is the Telegram bot. Oh, and you’ll also need to spend some money on writing the bot. Alternatively, the bot can be replaced by a website, but that depends only on how widespread Telegram is in your city.

By the way, to avoid walking around with your advertisements in vain, when you promote your hot lunch service, bring some tasty pastries with you; they’ll go down great in offices whether it’s closer to lunch or closer to five o’clock. Then you won’t just be “some guy who came by with brochures,” but “those people with the buns who can also bring hot lunches.”

Of course, this model works better when there is some life in the offices, so the period of total self-isolation is not the best time to start such a business. On the other hand, right now you can organize free meals for doctors in hospitals, funded by donations. Some NGOs are already doing this; nothing stops you from starting to hone your organizational skills right now. Any charitable organization spends part of the collected funds on its own needs, so, as long as you aren’t greedy, you will at least be able to provide a minimal income for yourself and your employees, plus earn a reputation and visibility, and the object of charity will be grateful to you and, if necessary, will provide a ventilator out of turn.

Of course, this idea is not new, but there will be space for agorism in this sphere for a long time, especially outside the capitals