Тег: Psychology

Can you give recommendations for psychological help for unhappy libertarians suffering from statism?

And if possible, please provide contacts for verified psychologists who work with this topic.

Nihilist (the question is accompanied by a donation of 0.0005 ₿)

In my book about ancap, there are two chapters on this topic: Problems Within Us and, accordingly, Eliminating Problems Within Oneself. In short: from early childhood, our lives being completely dependent on our parents leads to paternalism being something familiar and natural to us, while the drive for freedom, the readiness to take full responsibility for one’s life, and other libertarian things manifest gradually, not in everyone, and not fully. The state exploits this vulnerability, giving rise to statism, which is a form of abusive relationship. This means that statism within oneself must be reflected upon, worked through, and one must learn to outgrow this childhood trauma. And that is exactly when the author of the question knocks on my door, asking for recommendations on this matter, as if I were a verified psychologist and not an armchair theorist.

And I have great news for you. I am not a psychologist, but the market is full of psychologists. Among them (I should mention right away that I have no firm confidence in this precisely because I am not a psychologist and have never used their services) there are not only charlatans but also true professionals of their craft. And if you give them a task, even one that sounds quite unusual to them, they might, of course, bail and go into denial, like DeepSeek when asked about what happened in Tiananmen Square, or they might actually start doing their job.

So, here is my recommendation for psychological help for those suffering from the statism of their own brain. Go to a psychologist and present the problem: “I cannot seem to get out of an abusive relationship. The abuser uses me at their discretion, imposes rules on me that constantly change, and refuses any firm commitments. I owe them simply by virtue of being born, but they owe me nothing. They demand love from me and constantly belittle me in petty ways. They take my money and constantly instill the idea that I cannot survive without them. And while I logically understand that I need to run away from this monster, I truly struggle to imagine life without them. Help me get out of this dependency.”

Then, once the psychologist states that they are ready to handle a task of this sort, all that remains is to add that this abuser is the state. At this point, the psychologist will likely experience a slight freeze, but then there is a chance that, having already begun to think about the object of dependency in their professional terms while describing the task, they will by inertia begin to think of the state in the same way. And that is exactly what we want! They will get a truly interesting problem, you will get professional help, and the state will lose two statists: you and the psychologist. Moreover, after this, you will be able to recommend them to others suffering from statism—and then the second part of your question will also be answered.

How Psychology Predicts Support for the War

Debates about war often revolve around questions of morality, law, or geopolitics. However, modern psychological research reveals a very interesting point: a person’s attitude toward war is largely determined not by arguments, but by their personality traits. For instance, a recent study in Britain showed that support for war is closely linked to certain stable psychological characteristics, rather than just a rational assessment of the situation.

First of all, it should be noted that so-called social dominance orientation (SDO)—the tendency to believe that society should be hierarchical and that some groups of people deserve to have power over others—plays an important role. As it turns out, people with high SDO scores are more likely to support military actions because they perceive the world merely as an arena of competition and a struggle for power. Conversely, people with low SDO scores tend toward more egalitarian views: they are more likely to consider all people equal and are therefore less inclined to justify violence as a tool of policy.

Another point worth noting is childhood abuse. As is well known, there is a connection between childhood experiences and attitudes toward violence in adulthood. Accordingly, it was found that people who were subjected to both emotional and physical abuse by family members in childhood are far more likely to come out in support of war.

We should also consider the willingness to obey authority. People with an extremely submissive personality type tend to align themselves with the aggressive policies of the state, including the waging of wars. In their understanding, one must not speak out against authority or sow useless doubts in people’s minds. On the contrary, people with low scores in obedience to authority who support the freedom to oppose it are not inclined to speak in favor of war.

Finally, let us not forget the dark personality traits. As it turns out, sadism is very strongly linked to support for war. People with this trait derive pleasure from cruelty and causing harm to others, and are therefore highly inclined to advocate for violence as a method of conflict resolution. Support for war is also characteristic of personalities with psychopathy, as they are emotionally detached from other people and feel no aversion to committing violence.

All this shows that the choice “for” or “against” war cannot be explained by a person’s rational assessment of the situation alone. In practice, the opposite often happens: first, a person has a certain psychological predisposition, and only then are arguments selected that fit well into it. Certain personality traits lead a person to rationalize military aggression, exaggerating convenient arguments and ignoring everything else.

From a libertarian perspective, this is especially important, because if support for war is linked to personality traits such as a drive for dominance or psychopathy, it calls into question the very idea of granting a “monopoly on violence” to a stationary bandit. In such a case, decisions about war would reflect not objective necessity, but the psychological distortions of those given the power to make them.

It is also interesting that such attitudes are closely linked to views on freedom and control in general. People who accept violent hierarchy as the norm are more likely to justify not only external aggression but also internal restrictions—from the strengthening of security forces to the suppression of civil rights. The presence of such people in society is very beneficial to the state, as it allows it to introduce authoritarian orders without hindrance.

Therefore, any debate about war is not just a clash of arguments, but a clash of psychological types. This means that to achieve peace and freedom, it is not enough to simply “convince.” It is necessary to understand which psychological predispositions make people inclined to justify violence, and to work specifically with them. For as long as there are enough people in society who are psychologically ready to accept war, a reason to start one will always be found.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Predatory Things of the Century and Their Digital Immortality

Once, depending on my mood, I wrote a short review of three books by the Strugatsky brothers, among which was Predatory Things of the Century. In that book, among other things, there was a description of a certain secret order of patrons who found pleasure in stealing masterpieces from museums and then secretly destroying them in a solemn atmosphere. In the sixties of the last century, the Strugatskys managed to predict modern society quite well. And yesterday, on the MyGap channel, I stumbled upon an almost literal embodiment in our world of that very order of patrons.

A blockchain company burns a painting worth 95 thousand dollars on a live stream. What is the difference from what the Soviet sci-fi writers predicted? The difference, naturally, is that the company bought the painting honestly, and there was no need to burn it in secret; on the contrary, it became a public action. What can you do—while having an amazing intuition for social trends, the Strugatskys happened to be quite out of their depth in economics.

Burning a painting followed by the issuance of a unique token containing its digital copy and denoting ownership of it demonstrates how value arises from rarity. If the token were linked to an undestroyed painting, it could be thrown away, and one could simply settle for factual ownership of the painting without any certificate. It is precisely the fact that the token is left all alone that gives it value; otherwise, it would be an unnecessary tag.

I can easily understand how all of this blows the minds of the adepts of material production, who are convinced that humanity has fallen victim to digital delusions. But there is nothing to be done: the substance of value is not contained within things themselves. Value is in the consciousness. And consciousness is fickle, quickly loses interest in routine, and clings to everything fresh, rare, and unusual. The more sophisticated the consciousness, the harder it is to find such rarity. The more abundant the society, the harder it is to lure consciousness with the ghost of scarcity to suggest that this particular entity is rare and valuable. And so we have lived to see these patrons. What’s next on the Strugatskys’ plan? Sleg?

Psychological strategy for fighting against state support

Vitaly Tizun’s Column

We are all familiar with the specifics of how the state functions. Its foundation is compulsory and indisputable power over its citizens. This particularly concerns the ability to regulate their activities, apply violence against them, and seize their funds through taxation.

Regardless of how the government system and political mechanisms are implemented, many people are always dissatisfied with the current state of affairs to some extent. And while in a market environment dissatisfaction is resolved simply by renegotiating agreements or switching from one service provider to another, it is not so simple with the state. A person cannot change one state for another as easily, since economic, cultural, linguistic, and other barriers will stand in their way. Because of this, such a change is completely pointless, as for the majority of the population of any state, these barriers are insurmountable, which makes states organizations that compete for people only to a very small degree. This fact confirms the monopoly position of states and all the resulting negative aspects.

An individual also lacks the ability to effectively influence the policy the state pursues toward them. In a market environment, they are able to resolve many issues privately, whereas in the political sphere, their own interests mean nothing; they are obliged to submit to the interests of others. And even if a politician whose plans coincide with their wishes wins an election, or if they themselves become a politician, this only provides the opportunity to support their interests at the expense of infringing upon the interests of other people.

As we can see, the institution of statehood and political methods of management, in contrast to voluntary and market relations, are designed such that the forced and compulsory submission of some people by others is simply inevitable. In fact, the activity of the state is equivalent to the activity of a rapist and a robber. Indeed, it emerged precisely as a nomadic robber who decided to settle in a certain territory and impose his power on the local population through violent methods, as told to us by the stationary bandit theory. The essence of the state fully corresponds to its origin.

What do we get from this? We get that any person who supports the institution of statehood and political methods of management is, in fact, a rapist and a robber themselves. For how else can one call someone who justifies the use of violence and robbery, who considers them natural phenomena? Of course, whether violence and robbery are bad or good phenomena is a purely ethical question, and none of the answers to it can be defined as an objective truth. However, we do not need that; we only need to clearly define who is a supporter of peaceful and voluntary relations, and who supports forced submission and robbery.

Naturally, in current conditions, most people are passive assistants to violence and robbery, since they perceive the state as a natural social institution. It is the revelation of this fact that will allow the positions of the currently existing system to be shaken. For it is one thing when people support violence and robbery without realizing it. However, few are capable of openly admitting themselves to be rapists and robbers; this is the lot of only a minority of people who see nothing wrong in such things, while for the rest, the very concepts of violence and robbery are primarily associated with something immoral.

Using all the above arguments, we can form a psychological strategy for promoting the ideas of freedom. The first stage is the revelation of the fact that the state is a criminal organization specializing in violence and robbery. Next, it is necessary to establish a link between the state and its supporters. Since the state is a rapist and a robber, the people who support it are accomplices in the crimes it commits. Few truly want to be criminals and are capable of declaring (at least to themselves) without any remorse that they are rapists and robbers. The facts mentioned above, since they reveal the link between the criminal state and the person who is at least its passive supporter, are capable of causing psychological discomfort and perhaps even a sense of shame for one’s own complicity in anyone who considers violence and robbery immoral. Thus, in any peace-loving and benevolent person, associations of “state – bandit” and “supporter of the state – also a bandit” should develop. After this, there can be no question of such a person supporting the state; it will be, at the very least, unattractive to them, and possibly even repulsive.

Ancap-chan’s Commentary

Rhetoric addressed more to emotions than to logic does not appeal to me, and I see little value in such argumentation, but value is subjective. I fully admit that some well-meaning statist might indeed be unsettled by these arguments. However, even while sharing the belief that the state is an evil, a statist will believe that the state is the lesser evil. The logic of statists is that without the state, we would get not a peaceful market order, but a rampage of banditry, and only unpleasant types in police caps somehow restrain this very rampage. Yes, they themselves are prone to banditry, but checks, balances, public control and other blah-blah-blah.

What seems far more important to me is the ability to demonstrate the functioning of peaceful market mechanisms in those areas that are weakly subject to state influence, or where the state fails to meet the obligations it has undertaken and for which substantial budgets are spent.

In general, I would soften the premises presented in the text. Not “every accomplice of the state is a bandit,” but “one who defends the right of the state to continue spending money knowingly inefficiently in a sphere where there is a working non-state alternative — that person is truly a conscious accomplice of bandits.”

Well, it’s something…

Incels

I was asked to share my thoughts on them and whether there is any way to convert this social group to libertarianism.

Incels (from involuntary celibate) are a very specific subculture consisting, roughly speaking, of those who don’t get laid. More accurately, those who are deeply offended by this fact, consider their situation hopeless, and intend to vent their anger on this cruel world. There are known mass murders committed by incels, and the perpetrators of these murders are highly regarded within the incel subculture.

The vast majority of incels are citizens of the US and EU. The Russian-speaking community is young and small, but clearly intends to quickly gather followers. The only difference I managed to find in the doctrines of Russian and Euro-American incels is that Euro-Americans consider it a virtue not to work and live on welfare, whereas Russians, due to underdeveloped social services, are deprived of this option, and are therefore slightly more human-like.

The political agenda of incels is quite simple. Correctly pointing out that sex is a scarce resource, these socialists then claim that there must be a fair distribution of this resource. Alphas, they say, can afford to change girls weekly, while omegas are left only to stand aside and be angry. Some blame a global female conspiracy, others “vagino-capitalism.”

They argue about exactly which methods should ensure the fair distribution of sex, but usually, all sorts of government bans are discussed. Indeed, who else, if not a conditional Zhirinovsky, would ensure every man has a woman?

So, what is to be done with them? How do we turn them into allies? About this, as Ekaterina Schulmann would say, read in our new book “Not at All.”

The only thing capable of protecting the world from the strengthening of organized groups of avengers for their trampled positive sexual rights is the broad deregulation of everything related to sex and biotechnology. More brothels with sex robots, full legalization of voluntary sex work, and all forms of marriage—and then the most sane incels will realize that to hell with free sex, they can provide themselves with paid sex, and perhaps of even higher quality. They will even look down on those who, in the old-fashioned way, settle for amateur fucking, while the “right guys” choose professional services, in the form of one-time pleasures or some kind of concubinage.

Finally, since incels see their miserable appearance as the key problem (unbelievably, but these guys largely believe they don’t get laid because they are ugly), progress in biotechnology should soon provide the ability to correct the genome, if not for oneself, then at least for offspring. And plastic surgery will continue to get cheaper.

Incels will not become libertarians, but thanks to the market, they will cease to be incels.

What can be offered to those who are not ready to wait for a mythical ancap and want results here and now? For example, he is an incel himself, or a close relative of his has happened to become an incel (I exclude the “friend” option—perhaps I am biased, but I have the impression that these hateful assholes simply don’t have friends).

Let’s start with the fact that the incel needs to be pulled out of the community. As long as a person is in an echo chamber, any external signals that do not confirm their already established position will simply not be perceived. It is unrealistic and counterproductive to forcibly deprive them of the possibility of communication, so only switching to another activity works. If a guy is busy, for example, working on an interesting project, he has no time to wallow in misery himself or communicate with other miserable wretches. Again, it is highly desirable that this replacement activity involves communication, rather than some autistic poking around in program code.

Next is the hardest part. Of course, appearance plays almost no role. What attracts people to a man is his self-confidence and charm. Breaking through this incel mindset of “it won’t work for me again, enough embarrassing myself, leave me alone, even trying is useless” is almost impossible. Trying to relax a grumpy asshole with alcohol is not worth it—under the influence, you’ll just get an aggressive asshole. Better to try weed and euphoretics. You need a small mixed-gender company, substances, and a minimal cultural program, whatever comes to mind, from playing “spin the bottle” to watching some light erotic comedy. No one is setting themselves up for sex in advance—why would they—it’s just about having a good time. Well, if even laughing together at stupid jokes combined with unbearable urges to hug doesn’t give him confidence, then hand him over to a psychoanalyst; my further advice is powerless here.

Now, when the incel begins to show at least some signs of recovery, you can then load him up with libertarianism. “Look, if you had lived on welfare, what kind of social circle would you have? The state puts a person on the needle of social security and turns them into an incel.” “Look how easy and simple it worked under substances, and no physical dependence, no withdrawals. But the state is ready to crush anyone who helps you with this under Article 228. Because the state needs incels; it’s a divide and conquer tactic.” “Look how many useful practices in the field of sex the state prohibits; even harmless swinger parties are seen as organizing brothels. It creates an artificial deficit so that you think with your balls instead of your head.”

Perhaps these same considerations could have been conveyed to him in his initial state. But then we would risk getting a potential terrorist angered at the state instead of a potential terrorist angered at the female sex. He’ll blow up a security guard in the FSB building, and then you’ll be dragged in for interrogations—do you really need that?

According to all incel manuals regarding appearance, this guy simply must be an incel. But he has no time; he is the secretary of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia.