Тег: Policies

How politics deprives science and medicine of the opportunity to develop

Imagine this: scientists are actively researching a new approach to treating various mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, alcoholism, and even violence. They are achieving decent results, which indicate that this approach has significant potential. But then politicians, relying on personal interests and considerations rather than scientific data, strictly ban this approach as something extremely dangerous and unacceptable, often not even allowing scientific research in this direction behind closed laboratory doors. At the same time, for some reason, they are in no hurry to ban other equally risky things so strictly. Do you think this is a fiction or the plot of some novel? However, precisely such a story has already happened in real life.

In the middle of the 20th century, psychedelic substances such as LSD and psilocybin were actively researched for scientific and medical purposes. Scientists saw immense therapeutic potential in them, which is also confirmed by numerous modern studies conducted in recent years. However, there is a gap of almost half a century between those and these studies. Why is that? The answer is simple: psychedelic substances became associated with a number of things that politicians found objectionable.

First of all, in the pursuit of sensations, the media began to vilify them in every possible way, actively spreading reports about possible risks: psychoses, addiction, social degradation, and danger to youth. Of course, such risks cannot be completely denied, but they were extremely exaggerated. Claims of high addiction or mass social consequences had virtually no convincing evidence; the scientific basis cited in such claims was very limited.

Additionally, the spread of such claims coincided with the growth of countercultural movements, especially in the USA and Western Europe. Psychedelics became associated with hippies, anti-war protests, and broader cultural changes. As a result, drug policy began to be viewed not only as a matter of public health but also as a tool for social control. After all, one cannot expect a stationary bandit not to want to ban everything associated with movements opposing his policies. And psychedelics were caught in the crossfire.

The geopolitical context of the Cold War also played its part. The USSR and other Eastern Bloc countries actively used the topic of drugs in their propaganda as an argument against Western societies, depicting them as morally degrading. Naturally, in response, Western states decided to show that they were capable of controlling the drug problem and protecting public health.

Besides all the above, there was simply no one to protect psychedelics. Few would argue that tobacco, alcohol, as well as many sedatives and stimulants, pose no less risk to human health. However, their production had strong support from industry and governments. This helped them avoid the strictest restrictions. Psychedelics, on the contrary, had no powerful economic or political lobbyists; they were produced by the private sector, which gave politicians the opportunity to take harsher measures.

As a result, international policy regarding psychedelics was formed far from being based on scientific data about risks. Moreover, strict bans were imposed not only on their private distribution and use but also on their study. For example, in the USA, researching psychedelics was allowed only under the strict control of regulatory bodies, effectively closing this possibility to most laboratories, while the governments of France and the USSR at one point advocated for a total international ban even on limited scientific research of psychedelics. The policy of strict bans on psychedelics was shaped under the influence of cultural fears, political struggle, and institutional interests. This is precisely how science and medicine were deprived for a long time of the opportunity to develop a promising direction in the treatment of many disorders.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How to make a good economy without taxes so that the whole economy is from the market?

Zxcutehikka

This is an interesting question. I suspect the author of the question wants a statist answer: how to build a good economy from scratch, having come to power in some state. There are several quite decent examples in recent history, such as Kakha Bendukidze’s reform of the Georgian economy or Argentina’s economy – under Javier Milei. What unites these cases, and more classical examples of economic miracles – Western German, Japanese, South Korean, Singaporean and so on?

Primarily, it’s that the economies in these countries were completely wrecked before the reforms began. Only when the horse was dead would the bureaucratic horde graciously agree to dismount and say, “Well, alright, reform us, don’t interfere with me, but only weakly, and as soon as the horse gallops again, of course, my time will come, and I’ll push you aside.” And then the reformer more or less carefully dismantled regulatory blockages, allowing the economy to breathe.

Perhaps the only example of an economic miracle that didn’t involve any reforms comes to mind: Hong Kong. There, according to reports, the governor simply sabotaged metropolitan policy and didn’t interfere much with what was happening in the local economy for a long time. And then the metropolis simply handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese socialists.

The path of Hong Kong is just what anyone can use, not only the chosen or unchosen politicians. The business is simple – you just need to ignore government directives and deal with your private affairs. If no one will pay taxes, we’ll get a tax-free economy, which, incidentally, is what the questioner is interested in. Of course, the modern state knows how to cope without taxes. For example, it could simply print money and finance its needs from this source. So it would be good to ignore government funds too.

The problem, however, is that mass ignoring of official wishes doesn’t begin until people realize that the state has botched things. And therefore, at the start of the economy, we have ruins. Worse than that, the level of economic literacy among people at the start is probably shockingly low – otherwise how did our economy end up in ruins? Why “presumably”? Because there’s a more favorable alternative: people are generally more or less literate, and the economy is ruined, for example, by war and economic sanctions. And this is why Russia has a better chance of achieving economic prosperity after forcibly displacing the current government than Cuba or Venezuela.

And the fact is, even if the Venezuelan government is now crushed by the US Army, there’s probably not much good that will come of it – because the local socialists will be convinced they were right all along, it was just a force majeure situation, and now let’s fix our wonderful Bolivarian socialism. Where do I get this certainty? Well, there’s the precedent of Iraq: an external overthrow of a socialist government doesn’t allow the people to become smarter; instead, the people become enraged.

The answer came out sprawling – more like rambling thoughts than a coherent lecture – and political studies isn’t really my forte. But somehow I managed to look at the topic from several angles, and that’s enough bread.

How is the culture of libertarian political thinking structured?

Rinat Enikeev

Politics is how collective actions are customarily carried out in a given community. Political thinking is a complex of ideas and evaluations concerning politics. Libertarian political thinking is political thinking determined by libertarian principles. The culture of libertarian political thinking is how it is reproduced and promoted.

Now the full definition: the culture of libertarian political thinking is how the complex of ideas and evaluations regarding how collective actions are customarily carried out in society, determined by libertarian principles, is reproduced and promoted. How is this culture structured?

In modern society, politics very rarely corresponds to libertarian principles, so a libertarian usually involuntarily shuns politics. In what cases will they not shun it?

First, the collective action must be voluntary for its participants. Rallies by quota, mandatory elections, and the like will be sabotaged by a libertarian whenever possible.

Second, the collective action must pursue an obvious benefit for its participants. A libertarian is unlikely to be inclined to pull chestnuts out of the fire for others.

Third, collective action may involve causing harm only if it is intended to restore justice. Lynching or street clashes with police committing illegal acts may well fit into libertarian political thinking. Pogroms—unlikely.

How are all these values reproduced and promoted? Like many other cultural ideas: through personal example, references to successful political actions, and campaigning.

The Typical Politician is a Psychopath

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is known that more than half of people will not score higher than 2 out of 24 on Robert Hare’s PCL:SV test. And only 1–2% of individuals will score 13 or higher, indicating a high level of psychopathy. But it is interesting to wonder how a “typical” politician would fare on this test? Based on the article “On Politics and Psychopathy,” let us conduct a thought experiment and assign a score from 0 to 2 points for each trait of psychopathy to his personality.

Let’s start with the first factor of psychopathy, which assesses an individual’s selfishness, callousness, and ruthlessness.
– Does a typical politician possess superficial charm? Of course, it is very important for him to present himself well in public. It should also be noted that he tends to pretend to be someone he is not and simulate emotions. On this point, he can certainly be given 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Does he consider himself better than everyone else, i.e., someone worthy of ruling others? He wants power, so he certainly gets 1 point, and possibly 2 points.
– Is he deceitful, insincere, manipulative, unscrupulous, and dishonest? Needless to say, 2 points.
– Does he lack empathy, sensitivity, and respect for other people? And we are speaking specifically about people as individual persons; we are not interested in his feelings toward a certain nation or political course, since empathy can only be felt toward individuals. Of course, he actually doesn’t care about individual people, except perhaps his friends and family members, so we confidently give 2 points.
– Does the politician evade responsibility for his actions? Naturally, he will cover up his wrongdoings and will only take responsibility if it brings him even more power, wealth, or fame, so we can confidently give 1 point, or even 2 points.
– Does the politician lack guilt and remorse, and is he cold toward others? Is he completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of the victims of his actions? Yes, he passes laws that cause people inconvenience, make them poorer, or violate their rights, so we confidently give 2 points.

Now let’s move to the second factor of psychopathy, which assesses how antisocial an individual’s lifestyle is.
– Is the politician impulsive, reckless, rash, and unpredictable? Not always, however, from time to time he may support extremely risky decisions, so we give 1 point.
– Is he impatient, unrestrained, and irritable? Also not always, but politicians often allow themselves sharp, “alarmist” appeals, so we also give 1 point.
– Is his lifestyle parasitic, does he have no long-term goals for the future? Of course he has goals, but these goals consist of achieving power, wealth, and popularity by worsening the situation of others. Also, a politician lives on taxes forcibly collected from people, so he is a parasite who receives 1 point.
– Is he irresponsible, unreliable, and fails to meet his obligations? A confident 2 points.
However, as for antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood, this is not typical for a politician, and if he did behave this way at some point, it would be hidden from the public, so a confident score cannot be given here.

In the end, a typical politician receives 9 to 12 points for Factor 1 (which is the maximum result) and 5 points for Factor 2. His total score is 14 to 17 points. It turns out that he confidently falls into the worst 1–2% of the population. He is not someone we would want to associate ourselves with, let alone vote for. And in a properly organized human society, he would simply be exiled; he would not receive the slightest share of power.

I would also like to add a comparison of a typical politician with war criminals. As research demonstrates, ordinary violent criminals have high total scores, but fairly balanced scores across the two factors of psychopathy, whereas war criminals, while having similar total scores, have higher scores on Factor 1 and lower scores on Factor 2. They are not overly antisocial personalities. At the same time, they are excessively cruel and callous, just like a typical politician.