Тег: Children

“God suffered and told us to do the same”: how traditional families breed ideal slaves for the state

You have probably heard the popular fable in our circles: if you want to defeat the Leviathan, go to the forests, have ten children, homeschool them using sacred books to bypass state schools, and you will have your freedom. Many libertarians, especially those of a conservative bent, view religion, and Christianity in particular, with great sympathy. At first glance, the logic here seems ironclad. Historically, the Church has built magnificent parallel institutions. It is capable of snatching children from the gripping clutches of the state education system, where they are hammered with etatism and the belief that “taxes are the price of civilization” from the cradle. To some, this may seem like the ideal shield against totalitarianism.

But even the sun has spots, and in closed communities, these spots sometimes turn into actual black holes. We are talking about violence against children, elegantly masked as “divine plan.”

A large-scale psychological study was recently conducted, and the figures were quite gruesome. It turns out that if a child is beaten for no reason (which is disgusting in itself), that is one thing. But if they are beaten with a belt while being told, “You are a sinner, God will punish you,” or forced to stay silent about the abuse for the “honor of the community,” the trauma is multiplied a hundredfold. Guilt simply burns out the psyche from the inside.

And this is where the hope of a considerable number of libertarians crashes down. Many of us fantasize that proud freethinkers will emerge from closed traditional communities—little John Galts who will give the stationary bandit the middle finger. But in reality, this produces broken, beaten people with skyrocketing levels of anxiety and depression. A child who was “broken” from childhood in the name of higher powers will not go out to shake the state, because they simply do not have the strength for it. They will grow up as a person accustomed to obeying an authority that hits them on the head with a boot or a sacred book. They will find themselves a new master, and the state loves such people.

Now to the main point—the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Violence against a child is a direct and gross violation of the NAP. Children are not the property of parents, like a chair or a crypto wallet. They have rights. And if a father sets up a branch of the Inquisition at home because a child prayed incorrectly or asked an inconvenient question, this is not “freedom of religion,” but banal, blatant aggression.

At this point, many true anarchists might cringe, but libertarians need to monitor as closely as possible what happens behind the high fences of “parallel institutions.” If we see overt physical or cruel psychological violence against children, there is absolutely nothing shameful about unleashing child protective services on such parents.

Yes, some may strongly dislike the idea of calling the state for help. But let’s stay in reality. We do not yet have private detective agencies for the protection of children’s rights that offer them shelter and a proper foster family, and provide aggressors with a dose of a drug to strengthen their violence inhibitor. Saving a victim from an NAP violation in the moment is more important than theoretical purity. If a domestic tyrant is ruining the life of a defenseless person, using the existing protection mechanism (even if it is state-run) is normal and morally justified. This is the protection of the basic right to life and inviolability. You do not become an etatist by saving a child from beatings. You become a human being.

Decentralization and freedom from the state are wonderful. But tyrants must not be allowed to hide behind the Bible or anything else, turning their families into sovereign totalitarian sects. True freedom begins not with our refusal to pay taxes, but with the recognition of every person’s right—even the smallest—to a life without violence.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is not smartphones and tablets that maim children, but adults

Now in the news, you can see yet another official or important “uncle” in a white coat, with a tragic face, preaching about a lost generation, bad smartphones that turn children into depressed zombies, and the need to ban them. This, of course, is nothing new. In the 1950s, politicians accused comic books of increasing juvenile delinquency with equal fervor. In the 80s, the game “Dungeons & Dragons” supposedly turned children into satanists. In the 90s, video games were to blame for everything. And now, the era of the holy war against smartphones has arrived.

But as it turns out, such panic has no basis. Recently, psychologist Christopher Ferguson conducted a monumental study. He analyzed data from more than 80,000 young people. The goal was simple: to find out how the age at which a child received their first smartphone or tablet affects their psyche in adulthood. It turned out that this parameter does not correlate at all with depression, anxiety, or other mental problems in their 20s or 30s.

An alarmed public might point to the emergence of smartphones as the most obvious reason for how widespread mental health problems are among the younger generation today. However, the study did not confirm this. It found that the single greatest predictor of a broken psyche is what scientists call ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences). To put it simply, the problem is not that a child watches Peppa Pig on YouTube, but what happens around them when the screen goes dark.

If psychological or, even worse, physical abuse is practiced in the family, if parents scream at each other like victims in a tragedy, if no one cares about the child emotionally—that is when the psyche begins to crack. And it doesn’t matter if that child was on TikTok or gathering pinecones in the forest. Trauma is trauma, and the gadget, being merely a tool, has nothing to do with it. But why then do we hear so much hysteria specifically regarding screens? Who benefits from this panic?

Firstly, it is needed by politicians and bureaucrats. Solving real, difficult social problems is slow, expensive, and does not bring quick political points. You cannot simply pass a law forbidding parents from being jerks, because the state is fundamentally unable to enter every single family and “fix” love and mutual respect there. On the other hand, the state loves to simulate frantic activity! Ban gadgets in schools. Fine the Meta or Apple corporations for “harmful algorithms.” Introduce internet censorship under the slogan “Think of the children!”. As a result, the bureaucratic apparatus swells, budgets are siphoned off, and politicians earn a reputation as saviors of the nation. Meanwhile, children in truly toxic families continue to suffer just as they did before.

Secondly, it is incredibly convenient for some parents. Admitting that your child became anxious because of your outbursts at them, that you completely failed as a parent—that is painful. It is much easier and more pleasant to say: “It’s all because of that damned phone and the Chinese algorithms!”. An artificial enemy is found, and the conscience is cleared.

No one is arguing that balance is needed in everything. Of course, it is beneficial for children to breathe fresh air, play ball, experiment, and read paper books. Endless screen time, where eyes become square, cannot be defended. But one must also not fall for this cheap trick. The panic surrounding smartphones is a smokescreen that shifts the focus of public attention away from the only thing that truly matters: individual responsibility. The responsibility of adults for the atmosphere they create in their home.

Neither Mark Zuckerberg nor Steve Jobs can inflict a trauma on a child as great as their own parents can. Children need to be loved, spoken to, respected as free individuals, and provided with a safe haven at home. And then no tablet or smartphone will harm them!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Machiavelli in Diapers: How Overprotection Creates Bureaucrats

Have you ever wondered where all these officials come from, the ones who couldn’t care less about our rights and freedoms? Where is the factory that produces dictators, fans of “state regulation,” and those who love sticking their hands in other people’s pockets? Of course, they don’t teleport into leather chairs from other galaxies; they grow up in ordinary children’s rooms where parents, without even realizing it, install the wrong program in their heads.

Of course, all parents can make mistakes in upbringing. But a recent study published in Current Psychology provides a stunning hint as to what exactly should not be done. Psychologists analyzed the “dark triad” (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and found exactly how our parenting style influences whether a child grows up to be a supporter of freedom or becomes a small domestic (and later, state) tyrant. So, let’s take a closer look at what they discovered.

Many think that villains only grow up where they are beaten and humiliated. This is partially true, but it doesn’t always happen only that way. The study showed that one of the main triggers for the development of psychopathic impulsivity and narcissism is excessive indulgence. Imagine the scene: a child falls to the floor in a store, demanding their one hundred and fifth toy, and the parent obediently pulls out their wallet. There are no boundaries and no refusals; all desires are satisfied at the snap of a finger.

Does this remind you of anything? It is the ideal model of a welfare state. When we raise a child with the mindset that “everyone owes you simply by virtue of your existence,” we break the basic principle of cause and effect. Growing up, such a person sincerely does not understand why they cannot take what belongs to others (through taxes, lobbying, or direct violence). They have no brakes, because they are used to resources coming from a bedside table and that restrictions exist only for losers.

Another nail in the coffin of a healthy personality is the restriction of autonomy. These are the “helicopter parents” who decide who the child should be friends with, how to tie their laces, and what to think. When you deprive a person of the right to make mistakes and violate their personal boundaries (even with the best intentions), you foster hostility and dependence on authority. From infancy, the child learns: my choice doesn’t matter; the one who is stronger controls everything. First, it’s an overprotective mother, and later—Big Brother. People grow up who are panicky about freedom and beg a stationary thug to introduce new laws and regulations, not understanding how to deal with problems any other way.

But how do you raise a free person? The study gives a clear answer: the secret lies in adequate praise and the recognition of the child’s intrinsic value. First and foremost, independence should be encouraged, and praise should be given for effort, not for status. One should say, “You did great solving this difficult problem yourself,” rather than “You are the best, beat them all at the Olympiad at any cost!”.

It is also necessary to teach a child the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) while they are still in the sandbox. The motivation “don’t hit Petya, or I will punish you” is authoritarian morality. Whereas the motivation “we don’t hit Petya and we don’t take his shovel because it is his shovel, and you wouldn’t want yours to be taken” is libertarian ethics.

And finally, do not be afraid of frustration: the word “no” does not traumatize a child forever. It may be unpleasant for them, but it teaches them to respect reality, other people’s property, and other people’s boundaries.

Think about this: libertarianism doesn’t start with reading the works of Mises or Rothbard, but with our attitude toward children. And the state becomes merely a reflection of the people who compose it. If we raise children in an atmosphere of respect for the individual, without overprotection, but with a clear understanding of personal responsibility and others’ boundaries, we will simply cut off the oxygen to authoritarianism. After all, where will the thief-officials and manipulator-politicians come from if self-sufficient, empathetic people grow up in society, valuing their own autonomy and not demanding that someone else pay for their whims?!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Hardening of character or a lifelong trauma?

There is a traditional opinion: a boy needs to “harden” his character to grow into a full-fledged man and be ready for life. Following this position, or simply using it as a justification for violence, some abusive fathers deliberately harm their sons. Victims encounter this form of violence at a very early age, which makes it important to examine.

At the core of such an approach is the belief that a boy must grow up to be tough, insensitive, aggressive, and dominant, and that any manifestations of vulnerability, emotionality, and softness allegedly make him weak and unable to survive in society. However, a recent article published on the Psychology Today website correctly notes how such “upbringing” actually only causes serious damage to the child’s mental and emotional development.

The methods used for such “hardening” include physical “punishments,” psychological pressure, humiliation, and intimidation. A child may be forced to participate in aggressive or painful activities, or encouraged to fight or engage in excessively harsh sports such as boxing, martial arts, and even American football. Simultaneously, he is required to suppress his emotions—especially fear, sadness, and affection. The boy is taught not to cry, not to complain, and not to show weakness, forming an internal belief that sensitivity is something shameful. These practices may be accompanied by direct instructions on what a “real man” should be.

It is important to understand: such actions cannot be justified by “good intentions,” partly because in practice they are often used by the abuser purely for personal interests, as a method of control and dominance over family members. A son may be used as a tool—for example, to strengthen the father’s power, exert pressure on the mother, or pass on the same beliefs and behavioral models to the next generation, making violence an inherent trait of the family. Abusive fathers also tend to destroy the bond between the son and mother, which is crucial for psychological development and a sense of security.

The consequences of such actions for the child’s emotional development are very profound. The constant suppression of feelings leads to the child stopping the recognition of his own emotions and the emotions of other people. His capacity for empathy decreases, and difficulties with self-regulation and the expression of experiences arise. In the future, this may manifest as emotional detachment, an inability to build close relationships, and outbursts of uncontrollable aggression.

Ultimately, the boy may begin to identify with the aggressor and adopt his model of behavior. He is deprived of the ability to build healthy relationships, becomes cruel himself, and passes this cruelty on to future generations, forming a closed cycle of violence and traumatic experience. Alternatively, he may suppress himself, leading to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Often, both outcomes blend to some extent. This only decreases, rather than increases, the child’s social adaptability.

Beyond psychological harm, such treatment can lead to physical consequences—injuries, chronic stress, and related health problems. And even if the child is not a direct victim of physical violence, the mere observation of aggression in the family already has a destructive effect on his psyche and health.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: “hardening” through violence has nothing to do with care or upbringing. It is a form of abuse of power by a domestic tyrant, which destroys the child’s personality and even exacerbates the problem of violence at the societal level. Such practices are simply incompatible with a free, non-violent society, and they must be completely replaced by models of upbringing based on respect, empathy, and the development of emotional resilience not through the suppression of feelings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why parents should be interested in treating psychopathy in their children

Considering various approaches to solving the problem of violence using biomedical technologies, such as strengthening the violence inhibition mechanism and bio-enhancing morality, one can quite quickly conclude that the most appropriate and effective approach would be to perform such procedures as early as possible. Moreover, signs of psychopathic traits, which are the strongest predictors of violent behavior and indicate dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, can be detected as early as childhood, even at the age of 2-4 years, as demonstrated by research.

It is important to understand that if an individual with a risk of developing a violent and psychopathic personality undergoes morality bio-enhancement very early, they will essentially not even have a chance to be such a personality for even a short time. Furthermore, the nervous system at this age is still developing, which makes it possible to achieve an effective result even with gentle intervention. Widespread practice in detecting and correcting violence inhibitor dysfunction could solve the problem of violence in society long before it even arises.

This should already be enough to convey to many parents how important it is to carefully monitor a child’s behavior and emotional reactions (for example, empathy and whether they have an aversion to causing harm to someone), and to intervene in a timely manner upon detecting any anomalies. However, if some parents are suddenly not very concerned about what kind of personality their child will grow into, or if they see no problem with violence at all, then it is worth reminding them of another very strong motivation to consider this issue—personal well-being and the preservation of their own nerves.

Research on violence and psychopathy is often focused on the person with such a condition—their behavior, the risks to society, and criminal manifestations. Some of it discusses the role parents may play in the development of psychopathic traits in a child. At the same time, the opposite problem remains in the shadow—when parents become the very first victims of heartlessness, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, and even cruelty on the part of their own child.

Of course, it is not customary to label children as psychopaths, but they may demonstrate early signs of this condition or so-called callous-unemotional traits—emotional numbness, lack of guilt, and an inability to empathize. Such signs indicate that the child does not simply have a “difficult character”; we are talking about deep-seated personality characteristics which, among other problems, can seriously destroy family dynamics.

For parents, such a child becomes a severe psychological trial. Parenthood brings them no pleasure, only daily problems. They find themselves in a trap: on one hand, the social expectation to love and support their child, and on the other, constant stress, fear, and a sense of helplessness. Often, such families face a lack of understanding from others and even accusations of poor parenting, which only increases their sense of isolation and guilt. Parents may also face very serious problems if their child begins to behave antisocially in society, as they will have to bear responsibility for their actions.

All this being said, it must be understood that good upbringing and a favorable environment alone may not be enough to prevent a child from developing a psychopathic personality (although this is, of course, also important for reducing the risk). Therefore, all parents have an interest in detecting early signs of this condition and resorting to therapeutic intervention if they are present. This will certainly help them preserve their own family, and with widespread practice, it will also lead to a reduction in the level of violence throughout society, and over time—to the complete eradication of this problem!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Childhood violence – traumas for a lifetime

Let’s be honest: cruel upbringing is not just a bad idea, but a real crime against a child’s freedom and happiness. Of course, some might claim that “the belt builds character.” But let’s face it—the belt builds psychological trauma, not strength of spirit.

We have said before that physical punishment does not work. And these are not just words—they are the results of a massive analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children. The result is simple and sad: the belt does not make children obedient; it makes them miserable. Such children later have worse memory, lower IQ, and higher aggression. But if you think this is old news—wait, it gets even more interesting.

A recent study by the University of Michigan, conducted on 6,500 Americans, proves that childhood traumas haunt us for our entire lives. Imagine, even at nearly 80 years old, people continue to experience depression, loneliness, and physical pain due to the violence they suffered in childhood. Such trauma is not a scratch that will heal, but a deep scar that only hurts more over time.

Another striking discovery: it turns out that parental cruelty turns children into “evil geniuses.” A study by the University of Texas on 524 students showed that abusive upbringing develops malicious creativity. Instead of creating peaceful and responsible citizens, parents literally train cunning manipulators, professional liars, and masters of petty mischief, possessing low conscientiousness. And that, to put it mildly, is not what makes society better.

Why does this happen? It’s all about the brain. Research shows that in children who were systematically traumatized by their parents, the development of key brain areas such as the amygdala and hippocampus, which are responsible for emotions and memory, is impaired. Imagine the brain as a computer that constantly crashes and slows down because of viruses introduced by violence. It is also interesting to note that even in monkeys subjected to violence in childhood, disruptions in the serotonin and dopamine systems of the brain were observed. These are very serious disorders affecting happiness and even the will to live.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The long-term consequences of such “upbringing” include an increased likelihood of developing alcohol and drug addiction, difficulties in establishing stable relationships, and even a propensity for crime. After all, a person who grew up in an atmosphere of fear and violence often considers aggression to be the norm of behavior and carries it into their adult life. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by a radical change in approaches to upbringing.

There are more effective and far more humane methods of upbringing that do not deprive a child of dignity and freedom. Science confirms that empathy, love, and understanding promote the development of a strong and resilient personality. This is how we can help children become not just successful, but happy people, capable of creation and independence. Children deserve respect, and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Parents should be mentors, not overseers, allowing children to make their own choices and take responsibility for them.

Parental cruelty is incompatible with the ideals of individual freedom. We must resolutely reject abusive “upbringing.” Because, in all fairness, you either raise a free person, or it is better not to raise anyone at all. So let us be free not only in words, but in action—starting with respect for the freedom of children!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why physical “punishments” of children are absolutely unacceptable

Voluntarist, Bitarch

So-called physical (corporal) “punishments” or spanking are a barbaric practice of applying violence to children in order to change their behavior. Unfortunately, there are still parents who consider such a practice acceptable, or even absolutely normal. It is also supported by some public figures with ultra-conservative and authoritarian views, such as the American psychologist James Dobson. He believes that gentle parenting methods alone are not enough—they must be mixed with inflicting pain on children for disobedience and challenging parental authority, as this is the best method for preventing bad behavior. Furthermore, in his opinion, authoritarian upbringing should contribute to the maintenance of public order and the prevention of social unrest similar to those that occurred in the USA in the 1960s. Most people will surely find Dobson’s position extremely cruel, misleading, barbaric, inadequate, or even completely delusional. Nevertheless, we will examine the specific arguments against the use of violence toward children.

First and foremost, it must be noted that corporal “punishments” simply do not work. We intentionally use quotation marks because abusive parents use the word “punishment” to mask their violence, to avoid accusations that they openly support causing harm to children. Thus, instead of establishing parental authority, spanking only demonstrates parental weakness and an emotional breakdown. Additionally, an analysis of 75 studies conducted on 161 thousand children demonstrates that physical “punishments” do not eliminate undesirable behavior, but instead lead to 14 significant negative consequences:

– Impairment of the ability for moral reasoning;
– Increased childhood aggressiveness;
– Increased antisocial behavior;
– Increase in destructive or harmful behavior directed toward other people or objects;
– Increase in symptoms of anxiety or depression;
– Child mental health problems;
– Worsening of the relationship between parents and the child;
– Decline in cognitive abilities and worsening academic performance;
– Lower self-esteem;
– Greater likelihood of becoming a victim of physical violence;
– Antisocial behavior in adulthood;
– Mental health problems in adulthood;
– Problems with alcohol or drug abuse in adulthood;
– Support for violence against children in adulthood (here it is appropriate to recall Dobson once more, who was also beaten as a child).

The consequences of physical “punishments” are similar to those arising from trauma caused by other types of childhood experiences—physical and emotional abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, domestic violence, and the presence of mental illness in the family. Also, research has shown that when children encounter harmful experiences, they become hypersensitive to the emotional reactions of other people, as some of these, such as anger, begin to be associated with subsequent bad actions. In children subjected to physical “punishments,” the brain begins to function in the same way as in children subjected to other forms of violence. Moreover, negative childhood experiences may increase the risk of certain physiological problems, such as impaired muscle metabolism.

Finally, some researchers believe that a punitive political stance, including the endorsement of war as a tool of national policy and the death penalty, is a consequence of violent upbringing. Those who were beaten, intimidated, and shamed by their parents in childhood, and who did not overcome the corresponding psychological problems through psychotherapy, tend to project their childhood anger onto political views and other groups of people. There is an opinion that the widespread practice of cruel child-rearing methods in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century played a significant role in the subsequent growth in the number of supporters of Nazi views.

How should a libertarian behave if they find out that children in their neighbors’ family are being subjected to domestic violence?

Yesterday we were sitting in a club, and someone asks me: so, apparently, at the MTL-lunch Svetov was grilled with questions, and he didn’t answer the subject, so what, you wonder, do you think about this?

In Svetov’s defense, I will immediately note that if he is incriminated for communicating via canned responses, then I, as a rule, base my answers on my own previous responses to similar questions, or on more general concepts I have formulated earlier. Therefore, here you go, to start with, the answer to a related question about what a child should do when they are subjected to domestic violence. And then I will expand the thought on what third parties should do when they encounter violence against other people’s children.

Libertarian morality dictates intervening in conflicts on the just side. Justice is the feeling of proportionality between the value of the subject of the conflict and the damage caused during the conflict. Therefore, the first thing to do when seeing a conflict is to quickly determine by eye what the subject of the conflict is, compare it with the damage suffered by the parties involved, and then make a decision for oneself whether to intervene or not.

However, in the case of children, the situation is complicated by the fact that a child is not fully a legal subject and is under the jurisdiction of the parent, and damn strong grounds are required to invade someone else’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the best tactic our hypothetical libertarian can adhere to is to attract a sufficiently substantial support group to their side. These could be other neighbors (a neighbor can most easily justify why this conflict concerns them at all—they hear it, see it, and feel irritation), but one can also attract simply outsiders, as long as they are ready to express their independent opinion about what is happening.

In some ways, this process is similar to bitcoin mining. In conditions of conflicting chains, the one backed by the most accumulated hash rate is considered true. Similarly, in our case—the parent provides justifications for their correctness and attracts supporters of their position—and the neighbor, opposing the violence against the child, provides their own arguments and attracts their own supporters. Each supporter acts as a node in the network with their own hash rate, that is, the ability to impose costs on the opposing side. If those who speak out against domestic violence are able to cause serious problems, this becomes a strong argument to stop the violence or avoid the problems some other way, for example, by moving.

Of course, the clash of positions will not necessarily be so harsh; it is quite likely that the parties will reach a compromise. For example, an agreement may be reached that on payday the child goes to stay overnight with a neighbor, and then the parents can drink to their heart’s content while the child is safe. Or the neighbors might propose a system of non-violent penalties for the child if they are indeed prone to causing serious damage to those around them.

Nevertheless, it is always useful to keep the scenario of possible escalation in mind, so as to intervene in others’ conflicts with a view to one’s own capabilities. And to upgrade those capabilities in advance.

The Network of Moral Pressure

What is often not taken into account in the assessment of the reproductive success of violent individuals

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Violent behavior and psychopathic predispositions were long considered, and through many studies, to be adaptive traits that should provide a reproductive advantage. Of course, more current research refutes this view. Studies of tribal peoples found no real advantage for killers in the number of children over non-killers. Studies of psychopathic personalities, while showing their success in romantic relationships (which is explainable by manipulative behavior and the ability to use the feelings of others for their own benefit), do not always show success in long-term relationships and having children. These conclusions, which at first glance seem counterintuitive to many, are actually very logical if we look at what violent individuals are like and how this affects success in continuing the lineage.

It is worth asking one simple question: why would a violent individual need children at all? The answer to this question is quite obvious in the case of normal people, who would like to care for someone, raise someone, leave something behind for the future, simply because they feel a need for it. But violent people are far less concerned with such things; they are more interested in direct personal gain here and now, which the need to care for someone or worry about the distant future can only hinder. Of course, this does not mean that such feelings are entirely absent in violent individuals; they can be expressed as much as in normal people. But at least on average, one should expect this from them less often.

Even if you simply browse the internet, for example, visit the site “Quora,” where various people communicate in a question-and-answer format, you can see confirmation of what current research says. As an example, let’s take a comment from a woman answering a question about whether psychopaths want to have children. She points to both her own selfishness, unwillingness to care for someone and spend her time, as well as the negative aspects associated with having children. She believes that most parents are unhappy, and that having children is a “hellish cult.”

However, it should be noted that there are reasons why a psychopath may strive to have children. First, let’s note social influence. In the past, consciously and openly refusing to start a family and continue the lineage was something unacceptable and condemned; such a person would likely be considered abnormal by many. Such pressure could have played its part, just as its absence certainly plays a part in the modern world, where the refusal of family and children is becoming an absolutely normal personal choice. Of course, a normal person with the previously mentioned feelings will often still be inclined to have children, at least one child. But for a psychopath in such conditions, there is a much higher probability of becoming a staunch “childfree” (no offense to non-violent people who have decided not to have children).

Reasons could also include a person’s personal beliefs, the social influence that still remains in some situations encouraging the having of children and condemning the refusal of it, or even simply an accidental pregnancy. But even if a psychopath does have a child, they are unlikely to influence them in a positive way. On the contrary, the result will most likely be psychological trauma for the child, which will only reduce their own reproductive success in the future. As we can see, violence is once again not an adaptive trait in the long term.

It is good that psychopaths are nevertheless less successful in continuing their lineage than normal and mentally healthy individuals, especially in modern social conditions. Although it would be even better if none of them had or raised children, at least until an effective therapy for their condition is developed, aimed at restoring the function of the missing mechanism of violence inhibition.

Ancaps’ love for children — moving into the practical plane

I recently had the opportunity to present my book at the Montellibero club. There were about twenty-five people; no one threw tomatoes—on the contrary, they threw donations. Despite the fact that the decision to speak was spontaneous and not properly prepared, it seemed to go quite well.

However, as a result, I was asked to create some kind of adaptation for children, so that there would be a way to explain clearly to them what these strange games their parents play are all about, and to involve them in these very games.

Well, games it is. I want to make one game in a purely conversational genre, as a trial run. We will play “The Kind Tsar.” A child inherits a kingdom and wants to make their subjects happy. They can ask how things are going in their kingdom, give orders, and find out from me what is reported back to them. I am mainly interested in what questions the children will actually ask. Considering that I don’t have any of my own, this should be a mutually beneficial experience. I think that within a couple of weeks, I will decide to hold the first game there, at the club.

Another game will require more serious development; I want to create a board game about life under etatism. In the basic module, I want to offer the roles of employee, entrepreneur, official, and politician. The goal is to show their relationships as simply as possible, but without losing realism. I also want the game to leave room for ethical decisions.

Such are my ambitious plans. I spent over a year tinkering with the book on ancap, so I hope I’ll manage this significantly faster.

I also strongly hope that in the near future, I will have much more free time and will be able to devote as much attention to the channel as it deserves.