Тег: Education

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

Anarchist Practice of Pedagogy

A link to a lecture on the anarchist theory of pedagogy appeared in the Ogurism channel, which I found very interesting. It tells the story of the teachings of a very wise Croat who served as a Catholic priest and, as befits a normal Catholic saint, regularly shamed the devil, played by various education officials.

Beyond the banal criticism of the dominant education system, which almost everyone has slammed for the insane ritualization of the process and the disregard for the opinions of those who should formally be the customers of education, our Catholic paid considerable attention to constructive solutions, and the lecturer recounted some of this construct, supplementing it with their own thoughts. In many ways, this construct echoes Friedman’s reasonings on how to prepare children (throw books at them and see which ones stick), although it devotes slightly more attention to the actual teaching technology.

Meanwhile, this weekend we took a private kindergarten, which I help out with small things from time to time, to an educational resort. The owner of the site specializes in inventing puzzles and, for fun, created an inspiring environment around himself. In addition to monetary donations, he took payment from me and my companions in the form of conversations about the meaning of life, libertarianism, Freud and Frankl, neural networks, and evolutionary biology; he was satisfied. The children, in the breaks between the pool and watching peacocks, steadily poked at the puzzles and various cool crafts piled everywhere, thus inevitably exercising their brains.

Let’s consider this somewhat disjointed story to be a toast, and drink to the hope that theory does not diverge from practice!

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

New video from Libertarian Band – about education

The Libertarian Band team has released another video — about private education.

The video is well-made, even a bit pedantic: featuring a historical overview, a demonstration of the state’s lack of involvement in the emergence of most educational practices, and a list of key ideas for removing the state from this sphere.

I’ll throw in a few more links regarding ideas on how to organize this very education. David Friedman on the reform of schools, universities, and on unschooling.

And tomorrow, we move from theoretical reflections on private education to practice. The readings of Adam Smith are a bit late this year, and they didn’t surprise us with anything on Guy Fawkes Day, but they will take place tomorrow after all (without Shulmann, as you might imagine!). I’m really counting on a proper broadcast on YouTube; in that case, I will likely provide prompt commentary on what’s happening on my Twitter, and then post my summary impressions to my other channels.

Is there perhaps a card number where a donation can be transferred?

The “Money and Apocalypse” channel (close in spirit)

I took a look at your channel; there are some interesting thoughts, and I subscribed, although in my opinion, there are too many reposts, materials are released too frequently, and the overall content is more about the apocalypse than about money. So, after some time, I might unsubscribe, once I’ve had my fill. It’s a bit strange that an economist and a financier, not unfamiliar with reading materials from Simon Cordonsky and reposting figures of Bitcoin’s annual growth, prefer to request a bank card number for donations, even though it could be done in Bitcoins, whether on-chain or via Lightning. But a potential donor has the right to their own quirks, so I added a form for sending rubles to the donations page.

Of the interesting thoughts in the channel, I’ll mention the last one. The graph of returns on education, which shows a growth in returns in the nineties, followed by a decline in the two-thousands. You and some of your readers suggest that this is due to the decrease in economic freedom, where loyalty replaced competence. Other readers point out that it might be due to the general decay of higher education, because the world has become too fast for long-term study. I haven’t seen a similar graph for, say, the USA; it would be interesting to compare, as rumors suggest they have similar problems there as well. In short, there is something to reflect upon here.

I would also like to note the thought migrating from post to post that the decline in real disposable income of citizens, observed for almost all the “tens” (decades), is not just man-made, but also deliberate. A subject must be poor so that they think about their daily bread, rather than pondering strange non-material questions like changing the regime. Moreover, a low level of wages provides the country with some degree of investment attractiveness, regardless of country risks. This is an interesting conspiratorial consideration that explains the observed facts, but is not substantiated by any leaks of secret instructions or similar things, which are, in fact, the only way to confirm conspiratorial theories.

Suppose a girl wants to study at a military university, but they mostly take guys. What to do?

Provide a quota for girls? Let me say right away that this nonsense—claiming “we will establish a proper system where selection will be unbiased”—doesn’t work, because at the moment “this selection is also unbiased,” yet they still predominantly take guys, and it is difficult for a girl to get in.

liberal

It is a time of anarchy, capitalism, heat, and summer. A young woman submits an application to an educational institution where they teach effective ways of killing people and destroying material assets as part of organized groups and using various specialized equipment. In essence, this is as ordinary an event as if a girl were applying to an educational institution where they would tell her the history of how people effectively killed people as part of armed groups and so on—that is, a faculty of history.

What interests guide the institution when accepting her application? It expects to make a profit. What ways does it have to profit from educating students in the absence of state funding (due to the absence of the state)? There are two main ways. First, trading in knowledge—that is, educating for money anyone who is willing to pay. Second, trading in prestige—that is, implementing a strict selection process, providing the most effective knowledge and skills, and hoping that graduates will be maximally successful in life and then, out of gratitude, contribute to the endowment fund of their beloved university. The education itself might even be free, because the university here effectively acts as a venture capital fund.

If the military university in question makes money by selling knowledge, the girl has no problems. She pays—she receives what she bought. But if the university considers itself prestigious, then the girl has a chance of encountering disproportionately serious difficulties right at the admission stage.

Let’s start with the fact that historically, the army is a male brotherhood, and the entry of women into it often dealt a blow to the prestige of the army (historian Martin van Creveld talks about this interestingly in his book Transformation of War, I highly recommend it). We do not know to what extent patriarchal snobs will form the core of organized armed formations under ancap conditions, and how fundamental it will be for them that women not only do not enter the army, but do not even study military science. I find this unlikely, simply because trends have changed, inclusivity is in fashion, and work in the army looks less and less like a brutal slugfest and more and more like working in a delivery service or other logistics businesses.

Secondly, the army still places significant physical fitness requirements on soldiers, including those related to lifting heavy weights and other disciplines in which women are relatively weak simply by virtue of their constitution. Theoretically, this should not become an obstacle to university admission, as it should, at worst, only narrow the range of available specializations. However, if physical training turns out to be one of the admission criteria at the university, then our hypothetical applicant faces obvious, though surmountable, difficulties.

So your fears are quite justified; it is unlikely that it will be much easier for girls to become specialists in the military sphere under ancap. Then again, this sphere itself does not look particularly promising, so it’s not like anyone really wanted it that much.

I recently read about the Summerhill school, the idea of which was the non-violent education of children.

“At Summerhill school, students choose for themselves which lessons to attend. Furthermore, there is no grading system of any kind. No punishment is incurred for skipping classes” (Wikipedia). Can this school be called a kind of libertarian project?

2R

Recently, the left-anarchist channel Prometheus posted an article about anarchism and education, which is, in turn, a summary of an article by Ekaterina Tolkacheva titled A Little Anarchism for the Education System. It discusses Summerhill and many other similar projects specifically as examples of the implementation of a libertarian approach.

From what I quickly googled about Summerhill, it is clear that it is one of the most consistently libertarian educational projects, where a child’s freedom is limited only by the fact that they are physically in a boarding school, but otherwise engage in whatever they please. As far as can be judged from the excerpts I found from the book “Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing” by the school’s founder A.S. Neill, the earlier a child entered the school, the more eagerness they showed for activities: children infected by compulsory education needed time to regain their taste for learning.

Graduates of the school usually turned out to be people with an entrepreneurial streak, or geeks whom no one hindered from pursuing only what they enjoyed, and they continued to specialize in this in their adult lives. At the same time, no absolute geniuses graduated from the school: whether this is a characteristic of the educational methodology, or whether the modest number of students—no more than a hundred children of all ages—played a role.

Thus, I can suggest that this school was far ahead of its time: in the industrial era, a different type of graduate was in demand, but now it is precisely such people who are mainly needed. Ekaterina Schulmann discusses this, for example, in an interview with the publication “Takie Dela”. She describes the problems of the modern Russian school in light of changing trends in society—but does not provide recipes, because she does not know them. However, one of the recipes is boarding schools like Summerhill. Perhaps this is even better than homeschooling, because parents’ pedagogical abilities can be modest.

The main drawback of Summerhill is that such education cannot be mass-market. Therefore, the only real alternative to modern compulsory secondary education is simply the total abolition of its compulsory nature. In modern society, a person has an incredibly long childhood. During this time, the minimally necessary skills for further adult life are acquired even from aimless surfing on the internet, simple housework, and communicating with friends. Those who desire more will find extremely motivated teachers in various “Summerhills.” And for those who cannot afford such things, online courses will remain. The experience of Summerhill shows that when a child is left to their own devices, they eagerly absorb new information; it is enough for them to know that they will obtain their knowledge at the moment they seek it.

Of course, there are many professions for which compliance with strict standards is necessary. In a system of free education, it is sufficient that these standards be known. Those children interested in a profession will know exactly what to achieve, and once they master the required amount of knowledge, they will simply take an open exam. No state regulations are needed for this; professional standards are ultimately dictated by employers.

Summerhill school

Taking money away from people may not be good, but on the other hand, society wins from it

Yes, the middle class and the wealthy have more expenses, but in return, the poor get the opportunity, for example, to receive an affordable education. For instance, in the US, both education in good colleges and universities, as well as medicine, are very expensive. I see no reason why one cannot help a person now, and then they will help others through their own taxes. Yes, involuntarily. Yes, they will grumble about robbery. But life now is much better than it would be if there were no taxes.

My friend

Alas, it is impossible to reliably learn the opinion of speculative subjects about what constitutes their gain, since speculative subjects exist only in a specific human mind. One will say that society gains from taxes, another that God gains from the ban on abortions, a third that his imaginary friend will gain from a school shooting, and these will be equally reliable statements.

Therefore, it is better to proceed from what benefits, say, a specific child from a poor family will receive from the fact that education is funded by taxes, compared to a situation where education is funded voluntarily.

Since money for education is spent centrally, the curriculum is also determined centrally. Thus, the child studies according to a program prescribed from above, receives a diploma upon graduation, and after that, it depends on luck. Either the knowledge acquired is in demand by business, or it is not. If not, he has quite justified grievances against the state: you ordered me to study things for which no one is willing to pay, so go ahead and pay for it yourself. And the obedient state provides the person with a budgeted job, paying them a salary from money that is, again, collected from private business in the form of taxes.

If the state proves to be a successful entrepreneur and successfully guesses what knowledge in what volume will be in demand by business in the future, then centralized education indeed helps cover the needs of business for a qualified workforce. If the state does not guess correctly, then the money is spent in vain, the workforce remains low-skilled despite the expenditures, but at the same time, having an education, these people are no longer willing to take low-skilled jobs and instead claim high-paying work, even if it is useless, for example, funded by taxes.

The more static a society is, the more justified tax-funded education is within it. The faster a society changes, the less justified it is. If socialism were implemented worldwide, progress would slow down, and such education would become relatively effective, but is this what socialists mean when they say that society will benefit from public education? They seem to call themselves progressives rather than conservatives.

Now let education be private, and a child from a poor family chooses for themselves what they can afford. They can take a loan, receive an expensive education, and then, after landing a high-skilled job, pay back that loan in a few years. They can immediately get a low-skilled job and, in their spare time, get an education based on free courses, which are plentiful on the internet. They may not receive an education at all, but simply increase their qualifications directly in the workplace, which will lead to career growth. And finally, they can demonstrate their great talent in one competition or another and receive a private educational grant. After some time, having achieved success, they themselves will gladly invest in the endowment fund of the university that gave them such a wonderful opportunity.

As a result, we will have a system where every member of society arranges their life exactly as they themselves find most convenient. Wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that society as a whole benefits from such an approach, since each of its members benefits?

Work with your hands by day, and in the evening on Coursera—mastering corporate management