Тег: Strategy

Methods of combating aggressive violence

With this article, I would like to summarize the cycle of previously published notes concerning the NAP—from discussions on the relevance of the topic to various approaches to its dissemination in society. Most of the ideas are taken from Bitarch and have been thoroughly reworked. Links to earlier materials expanding on certain theses are generously scattered throughout the text; if desired, you can refresh them in your memory.

What is unsatisfying about the status quo? Without eliminating aggressive violence from the life of society, it is impossible for any somewhat libertarian model of the country’s socio-political structure to emerge (even healthy federalism, let alone ancap or panarchy). Furthermore, the habit of solving problems through violence creates powerful negative externalities in society—it reduces the quality of life and economic well-being, slows down scientific and technical progress, and even creates a risk of the extinction of all humanity.

What is the non-aggression principle (NAP)? There are many interpretations of the non-aggression principle, but we will limit ourselves to the most minimalistic version. Let us assume that the NAP prohibits only direct physical violence against a person’s body and property that is under their immediate physical control (for example, the house where a person lives and the phone in their pocket). According to this minimal interpretation of the NAP, the use of violence for self-defense is permitted only in the form of counter-violence against the aggressor at the moment they attack and only in the minimal amount sufficient to make them cease the aggression. To seek revenge, punish, or recover compensation using violence would already be going beyond such an NAP. Psychological influence, due to the ambiguity of perception, should also not be considered violence. Following the NAP in this form already ensures freedom of association, and further, within voluntary associations, additional rules can be used that are not derived from the minimal NAP but are convenient for the comfortable interaction of the association’s members. A violation of the NAP itself or the established additional rules within an association can be settled through conciliation procedures or simply lead to a refusal of further cooperation, whether temporary or lifelong.

Why this specific minimal NAP? It inherently corresponds to the notions of justice of the vast majority of people, even if they have no complex concepts of property rights other than those inherited directly from animal ancestors. There is a well-known study by biologist Konrad Lorenz, who described the evolutionary mechanism for the emergence of innate inherited morality regarding intraspecific non-aggression in many animal species, such as hedgehogs, porcupines, echidnas, venomous snakes, and insects. In those periods of human history when society lacked functioning institutions to counteract individual violence, natural selection quickly led to the recognition of the NAP in roughly this minimal form. A similar understanding of the NAP can also be found in international relations, that is, between states, especially developed ones capable of employing deterrent weapons.

Who will be responsible for maintaining the NAP in society? Volunteers. Look at the distribution of the Bitcoin network’s hash rate across mining pools. Bitcoin has existed for over 10 years, and there is still no global dominant pool. People do not spend their efforts gathering statistics and warning miners about the risks of centralization for no reason. It even reaches the point where mining pools that approach a dangerous threshold of dominance, under public pressure but without violent coercion, stop accepting new miners, voluntarily depriving themselves of potential profit. All these people perfectly understand the value of decentralization and that it is better to spend a little of their own effort or give up part of their profit than to have people lose faith in the reliability of Bitcoin during a “51% attack,” which would cause the coins to lose value and the losses to be far higher. The same will happen with the maintenance of the NAP. Volunteers will certainly be found for whom the opportunity to live in a society with a low level of violence and to “enjoy the freedoms we have” are not empty words, and who are ready to exert effort to maintain it.

The methods for fighting aggressive violence described below can be used by anyone and in any combination, depending on the preferences and abilities of the volunteers. Their effectiveness and, accordingly, the appropriateness of their application in each specific case vary. All described methods do not contradict the NAP and do not imply the use of aggressive violence even against the most hardened maniacs. The list is not exhaustive and leaves room for human creativity.

1. Moral pressure

This method involves expressing condemnation toward those who practice aggressive violence themselves, as well as toward all those who approve of it. People are uncomfortable when they are considered villains; they seek justifications for themselves, and the task of moral pressure is to debunk these justifications.

For instance, it is important to convey to people the idea that the state is a stationary bandit, and that political methods of management are, in essence, robbery. Justifying such things is either a manifestation of Stockholm syndrome or evidence of complicity in robbery, and therefore is also subject to condemnation. Few are capable of openly admitting they are a violent criminal and a robber; this is the lot of only a minority of people who see nothing wrong in it, while for others, the very concepts of violence and robbery are primarily associated with something immoral. Let a person first begin to state, even if only under public pressure, that they condemn state violence, and then grow accustomed to such rhetoric and believe in it themselves.

The more hardened the statist, the harsher the methods of criticism permissible toward them. They can be compared to pedophiles (a comparison that favors the pedophiles) and totalitarian dictators, for whom the price of a human life is zero. The strategy of Western fighters against homophobia and racism, utilizing the ostracism of such individuals, which has proven its effectiveness, would also be appropriate. All these methods can be amplified by proliferation through specialized online services.

A powerful strategy that is potentially possible is the use of existing left-wing activism to promote the NAP. The alarmist protest, the face of which became Greta Thunberg, succeeded because many beneficiaries of the agenda Greta transmitted were found within the establishment. Now, when many countries are shaken by protests against police aggressive violence, the idea of riding this theme and beginning to transmit a general refusal of aggressive violence looks quite realistic. The same corporations that sponsor this protest will fit into a new expanded discourse. The public loves apocalyptic predictions, and we have them.

2. Transparency

Psychological research shows: people, if they believe their identity is hidden, find it much easier to cause suffering and pain to others. Any situation in which people feel anonymous, when no one knows who they are or does not want to know, reduces the sense of personal responsibility and thereby creates an opportunity for atrocities. The violent effect of anonymization can be amplified by the effect of an upward spiral of emotional arousal, which creates a feeling of power. The Milgram experiment also showed that personal face-to-face contact increases the likelihood that people will not carry out inhuman orders from authority to cause suffering and pain. Anonymity promotes the commission of violence.

Accordingly, the threat of publishing unsightly facts always works as a deterrent to violence. To prevent people from resorting to this method of protection, proponents of aggressive violence usually use shame. You are told that “airing dirty laundry” is shameful. That informing is “snitching.” That the victim of violence, not the perpetrator, will be smeared because they were at fault. This is a serious obstacle that can be overcome precisely through the moral pressure described above. Never condemn the victim, even if it seems to you that they could have been less careless, more modest, or followed cultural norms that you personally like rather than their own.

Technically, it is not so difficult today to find all the data about a person, knowing their appearance, voice, or other clues. Big data is a powerful tool that can also work in the interests of civil society. De-anonymization services, hidden audio and video recording, trackers and the like are actively developing. If you know promising teams working on this—support them. If you know of ready-made useful products that help people uncover the identities of criminals—tell others about them.

3. Balancing the potential for violence

The more evenly the potential for violence is distributed in society, the fewer opportunities a potential aggressor has to commit violence for their own benefit. With a completely even distribution of the potential for violence, the attacker always receives exactly the same damage as the object of the attack. If, at the same time, the potential for violence is not only evenly distributed but also quite high, then even uniting ten people to attack one may seem like a bad idea: one-tenth of the damage received by the victim would be more than enough for each attacker.

Thus, there will be less aggressive violence in society the more evenly the potential for violence is distributed, the greater the potential for violence of the individual, and the more readily they are willing to use force for their own defense, that is, to practice the doctrine of deterrence.

In essence, the presence of a sufficiently large potential for violence in each individual makes an exact parity of forces redundant: it is enough to have the necessary minimum to inflict unacceptable damage on the attacker. A classic example of such a necessary minimum is a firearm: a standard rifled short-barrel weapon. With minimal skill and determination, it allows one to fight off a small group of aggressors or keep at a distance an ill-motivated crowd in which no one wishes to be the first victim. However, a pistol is simply an example of a convenient modern technological solution to the problem of balancing the potential for violence. As shown by the example of the technologically backward Senoi tribe, even blowguns with poisoned darts are quite sufficient to deter aggression, provided they are guaranteed to be used when aggression is directed at them.

One might object that individual self-defense works poorly against the state, but this assertion is refuted by practice. The well-known science fiction author Alexander Rozov expressed himself well on this matter in his blog:

“A completely different matter is in Sweden (with a comparable and very high level of economic well-being). There, a person is, in general, also powerless before the state. But this powerlessness affects almost exclusively the LAW-ABIDING person—he is easier to find and punish for something. But an armed bandit, although also powerless, is harder to punish (since he must first be found, and then detained—and he may offer armed resistance). Therefore, the Swedish police prefer to hunt law-abiding citizens.”

“A completely different matter is in Sweden (with a comparable and very high level of economic well-being). There, a person is, in general, also powerless before the state. But this powerlessness affects almost exclusively the LAW-ABIDING person—he is easier to find and punish for something. But an armed bandit, although also powerless, is harder to punish (since he must first be found, and then detained—and he may offer armed resistance). Therefore, the Swedish police prefer to hunt law-abiding citizens.”

Of course, the state can spend a disproportionate amount of resources on opposing a specific individual, inherently exceeding any of their spending on defense. An individual can oppose this with two tactics.

First, the price of an effective frontal attack by the state on a private person usually turns out to be several dozen times higher than the price the person spent to counter this attack; in other words, in an arms race, the defending individual has the advantage. Having firmly decided to sell their life dearly, they are capable of causing a lot of trouble even after death.

Second, transparency and moral pressure provide a very unfavorable background for large-scale state violence, whereas a large number of people may come out to defend the victim because they decide for some reason that it also concerns them. Despite the fact that the firepower advantage in such situations still remains with the state, mass civil disobedience is often enough for the state to hush up the conflict.

4. Non-violent upbringing of children

The most humane and unobtrusive thing a person can do to fight aggressive violence in the world is to pass values of non-violence to children. Of course, this means the need to act by personal example, that is, first and foremost not to apply violence to children oneself, so the task may not be easy. Nevertheless, the effort is worth it, for in the long run, this is the strongest means of influencing the world. A person who grew up understanding that they can trust people and not look for a catch, that people are benevolent and inclined to negotiate, will carry these values into adult life, and will react to stories about the realities of the beginning of the 21st century as we react to stories about public executions: with incomprehension and disgust.

Even if the state is not rejected by humanity for its inefficiency, being led by people who absorbed non-violent practices from childhood, it will become humane and unobtrusive in its methods, not even remotely resembling the gang of robbers from which it once grew.

Of course, when instilling values of non-aggression in a child, it is also important to instill a readiness to oppose it: starting from ways to nip a conflict in the bud through constructive negotiations, and ending with the use of means of self-defense, as described in detail in the previous point.

The idea of non-aggression leads directly to the idea of legal equality, so much attention will also need to be paid to instilling this idea. First of all, it manifests in the small things. For example, a society in which adults address children using the informal “ty” while demanding to be addressed with the formal “vy” is already instilling the idea of inequality. Meanwhile, there are situations of natural inequality of opportunities due to different ages and experience, and usually, it is more appropriate for adults not to participate in many children’s games on equal terms with children in order to preserve their dignity.

A good illustration of this thesis is the approach to adolescent sex. In Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World” (or “Science in Search of God”), the results of a statistical study by sociologist James Prescott are described, who compared the customs of hundreds of cultures in human history.

“…the fundamental differences relate to whether it is customary in that culture to hug children and whether premarital sexual intercourse is permissible for youth. He considers these parameters to be key and concludes that all cultures where children are hugged and adolescents are allowed to engage in sexual intercourse ultimately do without a pronounced social hierarchy, and everyone is happy. Whereas those cultures where certain social prohibitions prevent hugging children and a strict taboo is placed on premarital adolescent sex develop a strong hierarchy of dominance and wallow in violence and hatred.”

“…the fundamental differences relate to whether it is customary in that culture to hug children and whether premarital sexual intercourse is permissible for youth. He considers these parameters to be key and concludes that all cultures where children are hugged and adolescents are allowed to engage in sexual intercourse ultimately do without a pronounced social hierarchy, and everyone is happy. Whereas those cultures where certain social prohibitions prevent hugging children and a strict taboo is placed on premarital adolescent sex develop a strong hierarchy of dominance and wallow in violence and hatred.”

At the same time, as noted in the study, the prevalence of sex between adults and adolescents again proves to be a pretext for the development of dominance relationships.

Of course, if you practice non-violent upbringing of children, you will have to face violence from others directed toward them. You will have to be ready to counteract this, even if they are other people’s children; otherwise, you will simply instill in the child the idea that the main thing is personal well-being and it is better to turn a blind eye to everything else to stay safe. Depending on the situation, means of protection, public disclosure of facts of violence, and the creation of moral pressure may be useful here.

5. Freedom of Association

Modern people too often have to be part of various involuntary associations. This could be compulsory schooling, a conscript army, imprisonment, an orphanage, certain family-clan relations in archaic societies, and even the institution of citizenship itself.

It is precisely where leaving a community is impossible or associated with high costs that a phenomenon such as bullying appears, including the use of physical violence. Involuntary association with anyone develops in a person the ability to endure, to act covertly, hiding one’s interests and motivations, and sharply reduces empathy—in short, it makes them a rather unpleasant type. Spending energy on intrigues and survival in society, a person loses the opportunity for development and self-realization.

What can be done to develop freedom of association in society?

First, of course, it is important to recognize the problem itself, to speak publicly about its existence, calling things by their names: prison as prison, slavery as slavery, dependence as dependence.

In many cases, the exit from an involuntary association is not actually closed, and many people remain in them simply by tradition. Having found the exit, one should use it and learn to enjoy life in conditions of freedom, destroying with one’s own example the myths about the troubles awaiting those who leave the cozy cage. Thus, those who leave school for self-education will arouse envy rather than pity if they not only rid themselves of the pressure of the educational system but also achieve the life success for which the entire educational system is presumably built.

Similarly, it makes sense to flee abroad immediately upon the threat of criminal prosecution—or even simply in a situation where the political regime in the country becomes particularly unpleasant, and one can choose something less repulsive.

It is important to promote and publicly approve leaving toxic, abusive personal relationships—it is also desirable to provide support to victims of such relationships afterward so that they can find another support in life and not fall back into something similar.

Finally, it is not enough to know how to exit involuntary associations; it is important to learn how to enter voluntary ones, gaining pleasure, benefit, and security from this. This could be any interest-based group on social networks, membership in public organizations, or establishing a network of known service providers. Finally, one can simply become a regular at bars, clubs, children’s or sports grounds. Even such elementary habits as greeting neighbors in the building and talking with taxi drivers or hairdressers are already an important step toward building a civil society. When people evoke sympathy and interest in each other, it promotes the spread of the values of non-aggression.

6. Working with Heredity and Biochemistry

Biologist Konrad Lorenz proposed a model describing the appearance of innate morality of non-aggression toward representatives of one’s own species in many animal species (those possessing innate weaponry—hedgehogs, porcupines, echidnas, venomous snakes, and insects). The higher the ability of the species’ representatives to destroy their conspecifics, the faster the genes responsible for the tendency toward intraspecific aggression are washed out of the population during lethal conflicts. A strong animal may have a strong morality of non-aggression, and a weak one—a weak one. In its natural history, humans are very poorly armed animals. Therefore, in humans, instinctive prohibitions are initially weak, and natural morality is weak. Innate prohibitions in humans correspond to this state of affairs. However, reason has provided humans with the ability to significantly improve their tools for killing humans in timeframes that are negligible by evolutionary standards; therefore, an innate morality of non-aggression toward other humans never had time to appear in humans during natural selection.

It has been established that a tendency toward increased and pathological aggression can be either inherited or acquired (due to brain damage and hormonal imbalances). A single gene or even a precise list of genes responsible for the tendency toward intraspecific aggression has not been found to date, so this is a promising direction for applying effort if you specialize in the relevant biological disciplines.

Several approaches can be proposed for washing out the hereditary tendency toward intraspecific aggression from human society, which differ both in ease of application and in the speed of achieving results.

6.1 Forcing Natural Selection

When armed self-defense is available and welcomed in society, aggressors quickly exit the population. Thus, the implementation of the methods outlined in section 3 can ensure a long-term reduction of aggressiveness in society, although natural glitches and mutations will still not allow the complete and final elimination of intraspecific aggression; therefore, it will be necessary to constantly maintain a uniform BPN (Balance of Power/Non-aggression) so that pathological aggressors appearing by chance as a result of mutation are washed out of the population.

6.2 Sexual Selection

As historian Martin van Creveld said,

“the true reason for the existence of wars is that men have always loved to fight, and women have always loved warriors.”

“the true reason for the existence of wars is that men have always loved to fight, and women have always loved warriors.”

As women increasingly prefer caring partners over aggressive ones, carriers of genes with low aggressiveness get more chances to have offspring—after which aggressive individuals go off to squander their lives and manage perfectly well without reproducing.

In addition to these methods, which are suitable for application already now, the development of science may allow for more direct methods of influence in the future.

6.3 Embryo Selection

A DNA sample is taken from the fetus and analyzed for pathological hereditary diseases, including those related to a tendency toward aggression; in the event of a positive analysis result, the pregnancy is terminated. More obvious hereditary diseases, such as Down syndrome, are already fought in this way. Convincing a mother not to deal with problems she does not need and simply make another attempt at conception later is a solvable task, provided there are not too many cultural constraints in society prohibiting the termination of pregnancy.

6.4 Genetic Modification in Adults

A virus is created that integrates into human DNA and either switches off the genes responsible for the tendency toward aggression or reduces their expression. The technology of genetic modification itself has already been created and is actively developing, but exactly which genes and how exactly should be corrected still needs to be studied thoroughly. The direct switching off of genes most obviously linked to aggression so far leads to many undesirable side pathologies in experiments, so the technology is yet to be refined.

6.5 Genetic Modification at the Embryonic Stage

The method is the same as in the previous point, but it introduces changes into the genome that will subsequently be inherited. The task is much easier, since changes need to be introduced into literally one cell, rather than into an already formed organism.

6.6 Supportive Medication Therapy

Since the tendency toward aggressive violence is regulated by the hormonal background, it is not strictly necessary to delve into the genome if the hormonal background itself can be regulated. Currently, this is done with medications, but in the future, implanted hormonal regulators could be used for this purpose.

Some of the described methods can be practiced by everyone; some require qualification. In any case, speaking of methods 6.4 or 6.6, there can be no question of coercion. Even if someone committed aggressive violence under the influence of pathological tendencies, they should be left with a choice: ridding themselves of the pathology or bearing full responsibility for the act committed. In the latter case, this, again, should not be associated with violent punishments—only compensation for damages and restriction of communication opportunities.

Conclusions

Maintaining a low level of internal aggression in human society is a complex and multifactorial task. There is no single universal solution here; instead, there is room for initiative in a wide variety of directions, some of which are outlined above. It is important to realize the existence of the problem itself, not to hush it up, and to discuss it freely, as if it were a problem of cardiovascular diseases. One manifestation of strong intraspecific aggression in humans became such an institution as the state, with its tendency to sacrifice countless victims on the altar of its own greatness, or simply to poison people’s lives in peacetime. As humanity realizes the tendency toward violence as a problem, this toxic institution will go into the past—either completely, or it will transform into a harmless set of voluntary services. As ideas about the necessity of transitioning to non-violent interactions penetrate, they will find increasing support both in funds and volunteers, but for now, a great responsibility for its rooting in society lies with the few adherents of the idea.

Life with androids

Solution to the android husbandry problem by Artyom Seversky.

We are given a favorable but completely unfamiliar environment, as well as a company of androids—universal interfaces for transforming this environment. The working conditions of the android exclude its conversion into private property. And so, behold—Ancap-chan becomes a communist!

Features of Android Husbandry

A. Synergy. Non-linear growth of productivity resulting from an increase in the number of androids involved in a task; there is a significant positive economy of scale. Therefore, the constant privatization of androids one by one to serve families or individuals is inefficient.

B. Unsuitability for zero-sum games. Any attempt to requisition an android for tasks that do not benefit others is suppressed with incredible ease. Insisting that an android perform a strictly individual assignment is incredibly difficult. Therefore, the most advantageous evolutionarily stable strategy is to employ androids primarily for the benefit of the largest possible collectives.

C. Uncertainty of the future. According to the terms of the problem, the end date of the experiment is unknown. It is also unknown how complex the production of new androids will be. Therefore, one should proceed from the pessimistic assumption that the growth of the human population will occur faster than the growth of the android population for a considerable amount of time.

Now I will formulate the strategy.

  1. Our goal is the maximum prosperity of the community in the longest possible perspective.
  2. Until it is possible to ensure that the growth of the android population exceeds the increase in the number of people, we should reduce our dependence on androids by developing production chains that do not include androids.
  3. Priority is given to tasks that bring immediate benefit to the maximum number of community members. That is, instead of tasks like “bring me some tea,” preference is given to tasks like “construct a time-cost function for planting a tea plantation for the entire human community based on the number of androids involved in the task; now you three go and plant it.”
  4. Since androids are de facto slaves in public use, the social structure to be adapted as a self-governance mechanism should be one that implies the mass use of public slaves. For example, Lacedaemon, better known as Sparta. That is, decisions on the plans for using androids for public tasks are prepared by a “gerousia”—these do not necessarily have to be biological elders, but some elected body of experts in such optimization tasks. And the decisions are approved by the “apella,” that is, a general assembly.
  5. An obvious solution for the initial setup phase:
    5.1. Each family receives an android for family setup tasks during the daytime and has the right to use synergistic effects by cooperating with neighbors.
    5.2. A small surplus of androids (at the start there are slightly more than there are families) is immediately assigned to public tasks according to the scheme “gerousia outlines the plan, apella approves.”
    5.3. During the nighttime, all family androids must be sent to public works with instructions to return by morning.
  6. As the community grows and becomes more complex, the initial mechanism will inevitably be revised. Questions regarding revision should be raised after a change in the number of families, the end of the primary setup phase (everyone already has a house, a garden, and a sports ground, and androids gradually begin to be recruited for tasks like “scratch my heel”), at the moment of a predicted sharp change in the load on the android fund (start or end of major projects), or at the moment of a change in the number of androids (they begin to fail or, conversely, a production line is launched).
  7. The appearance of a group with radically different views than the majority on the disposal of androids should lead to a proposal to settle further away, taking androids with them proportional to the size of the group. Otherwise, the damage from management collisions will paralyze the plans of both the majority and the minority.

Well, am I a good communist?

Scylla and Charybdis of the discourse on nonviolence

Several articles by Bitarch on “absolute NAP” have already appeared in this channel, by which he understands a ban not only on aggressive violence, but also on delayed retribution or the enforcement of sentences. I am not yet convinced by his arguments, but I consider the topic itself important enough to continue introducing you to it.

Briefly, the idea is as follows. Technical progress increases the scale of violence available to humans and reduces the relative cost of violent impact. Tomorrow, any biology student could launch a pandemic like the current one, so we need a society where people have as few reasons as possible to threaten such things and as many moral constraints as possible that prevent them from even thinking about it. As one option for action, Bitarch considers a non-violent state. To provide a hypothetical Greta Thunberg with arguments, he published an article on the externalities of violence, where he lists how violence harms society. I will briefly go through the theses of this article and several others on similar topics.

1. Referring to Konrad Lorenz, it is stated that humans have no natural morality of non-aggression toward members of their own species embedded in their genes, since human natural weaponry is small. Therefore, one alternative to violent punishments for violent crimes could be voluntary genetic correction of behavior, if it can be developed.

Humans have almost no genetically determined patterns of behavior; there are only some inclinations, while all the specifics are set through social mechanisms. Thus, references to biological evolution serve more as illustrations than as a literal guide to action. Social evolution also exists; it is better to look for examples there.

2. Examples are given of how humanity introduced a ban on certain activities and successfully enforced it (the use of leaded gasoline, DDT, CFCs). It is pointed out that in the same way, humanity successfully enforces restrictions on morally unacceptable actions (for example, cruelty to animals, children, and prisoners). Therefore, a campaign of political pressure would also help in establishing the absolute NAP.

The state is always happy to ban something; the justification is not that important. For instance, the arguments for banning CFCs, which supposedly eat the ozone in the stratosphere, and DDT, which supposedly can cause cancer, mainly boiled down to so-called scientific consensus. The same applies to the arguments for banning carbon dioxide emissions, which are supposedly responsible for global warming, which supposedly poses a threat to humanity.

So, for political pressure on a global level, serious arguments are not even needed; one only needs to seize a spot on the agenda. To do this, climate change will have to be pushed aside, but first, its younger brothers like the Rothschilds, microchipping, and GMOs must be overcome. This is a solvable task, but the methods of such campaigns require more screaming than thinking, and that is personally difficult for me, despite the fact that I am screaming in my avatar.

3. Arguments are presented regarding the long-term negative consequences of high social tolerance for violence. At the very least, widespread violence becomes a factor hindering the economy—too large a share of resources goes toward ensuring security, including the security of transactions. Conversely, the long-term positive consequences of low tolerance for violence are shown. For example, in a recent note, a study is mentioned on how a culture of hugging and freedom of teenage sex leads to a decrease in hierarchy within society.

Now, arguments are a different matter; there is something to discuss here.

To summarize. Anyone wishing to ensure the success of non-violence ideas will have to pass between the Charybdis of the sleaziness of moral hysteria and the Scylla of the limited impact of scientific discussion. I would advise Bitarch to stick closer to Scylla, as Homer enjoined us, but here let everyone who sails the waters of public discourse choose their own path.

That leftist whirlpool over there is more dangerous

P.S. We, of course, did not agree with Bitarch on the content of the article. I reworked some takes, but not all. So, most likely, a continuation of the discussion awaits us.

Rules for Success for Libertarian Organizations. An Overview.

The host of the channel Right Argument for 14.88 rubles asked to criticize 12 points published on his channel: Part 1. Part 2.

Point No. 1: An idea needs only 10% convinced supporters to convert the remaining 90% of society to its side.

According to Taleb, 4% will be enough; there are studies suggesting even less is needed. If there is an active radical minority, its ideas begin to be taken into account. However, a society may end up with two such radical minorities. This is fraught with civil war. Is this a reason to abandon one’s idea? No, but it is worth considering this point.

Point No. 2: Ideology must intersect with the mainstream.

It is suggested to broadcast simple and clear slogans outwardly, leaving the sophisticated studies for the inner circle; otherwise, agitation will be easily countered by stupid memes about courts under ancap.

Point No. 3: If a movement consists of more intellectuals, then the ideology and culture within the movement will be more developed and attractive.

This is an antithesis to point 2. Without intellectuals, a movement to transform the world degenerates into a gathering of rowdy schoolkids, rejecting anyone remotely adequate. Upon receiving a complex question, an agitator must answer at the appropriate level, or admit that it is better to consult so-and-so.

Point No. 4: Arguments over axioms and cornerstones of theory between libertarians and leftists/etatists are a waste of time.

Unless it is a public dispute to win over the public’s sympathy or training debates to hone rhetorical skills.

Point No. 5: Internal enemies are a thousand times more dangerous than external ones.

When an organization begins to fight internal enemies, it means that the external ones have won without a fight. In general, one should not confuse the competition of ideas with the machinations of enemies.

Point No. 6: Watch your appearance.

One should not fall into the opposite extreme, or it will turn into a Putin-style lineup of technocrat governors.

Point No. 7: Stay away from people who are too old.

The largest audience is forty-year-old women; without their approval, you won’t get far. Thus, you need mature people who have a track record of success, and they are the ones who should be put in the storefront, while the task of the youth is active movement.

Point No. 8: Stay away from Russian social networks, but actively use foreign ones.

Every social network has its own pitfalls. Facebook and YouTube have censorship. VK has arrests. It is important to understand where the target audience is, how to speak with them, and what precautions to take.

Point No. 9: Convince people of other political views and inexperienced newcomers of the consistency and viability of libertarianism.

There is no need to obsess over trying to absolutely convert opponents to your teaching. It is more important to create a reputation for libertarians by your own example as people who are capable of agreement and consistent, with whom one can cooperate on specific issues. Then, an ideological drift in your direction becomes inevitable.

Point No. 10: We do not have good media resources, and those that exist are terrible in terms of effectively promoting ideas to the masses (this applies to this channel as well).

It is unclear what this point is doing in the list; it does not form a positive assertion.

Point No. 11: Track progress.

In the authors’ understanding, this refers to progress in metrics: number of subscribers, views, likes, and so on. I would suggest understanding this point in a more general way.

Point No. 12: We do not have very much time to realize our ambitions.

This is a demonstration of the authors’ high time preference. An ordinary young activist quickly burns out if they do not achieve significant success, after which they switch to what does bring success—usually a business career and family life. But social change is a longer process than the evolution of a specific activist’s priorities. A movement that does not take this into account can only win by chance.

State drug policy

When Alexander Litreev was swept up for substances at the end of February, I published a post where I urged people to focus not so much on the specific case, but on the repeal of Article 228 itself. The suggestion was to hurry with pressuring the state through mass actions before the news cycle was replaced by something else. Alas, the news cycle was indeed replaced, and mass actions now can only occur as a result of state sabotage, as happened in the Moscow metro on the day the access system premiered.

So, while the country was gradually settling into home self-arrest, Litreev’s support group worked quietly for his release and succeeded: Alexander has been freed. But the direction of undermining state drug policy has not been forgotten, and today the Tea Club movement released a very good, detailed longread about how the state fights drugs and how it should be done.

I am aware that the Libertarian Party is on strained terms with the Tea Club, but in this particular case, I would consider it a major oversight on the part of the LP not to promote this article—even if it requires pulling it onto their own site and removing mentions of the TC and the signatures of all authors who are not party members. As Ekaterina Schulmann likes to repeat, for political success, one must unite around common interests, not common sympathies. So please, help your editorial board make the right decision.

It would also be great if Egor Zhukov forwarded the article to his recent interlocutor, Evgeny Roizman. In my February post, I naively stated that even within his cannibalistic logic, a drug user is not a criminal. Not by a long shot. On the air of Zhukov’s program “Conditionally Yours”, Roizman claimed exactly the opposite. He also indicated that he was completely unaware of the Portuguese experience—which the article describes.

Thanks to the coronavirus, another promising direction for pressuring the state has emerged. One can demand the full or partial repeal of Article 228, and one can also demand amnesty for everyone imprisoned under this article due to the threatening epidemic situation. When officials have “yes” and “no” options, it is easier for them to refuse. When there is a choice between repealing the article and granting amnesty to those imprisoned under it, the chance of amnesty increases sharply. Immediately following amnesty, one can insist on a moratorium—what is the point of releasing a bunch of people from prisons only to start filling the vacant spots under the same article. And from a moratorium, it is a short step to repeal. But even if repeal doesn’t happen, it’s not that scary—we have already lived for many years in a regime of moratorium on the application of the death penalty.

Strategies in a crisis

Vladimir Milov has started a “on quarantine” section in his video blog and has released two videos in it so far. In the first, he gives a rough outline for employees, and in the second, he offers some tips for small businesses. It is better, of course, to watch them in full, but I will point out the moments that I consider important.

  1. This is for the long haul. If you are already suffering losses right now, you should not expect to simply wait out the absolute clusterfuck; you need to work on reducing them immediately.
  2. The state will not help. You should demand as much as possible from it and as loudly as possible, but you should not seriously base your plans on state support.
  3. Being assholes is unprofitable. The state has not declared force majeure, it does not compensate for losses, and it does not curb its appetites. If we start eating each other now, it is a path to nowhere. It is important to reach amicable agreements among yourselves, since this has hit everyone. As for the assholes, they can be shown the full power of the institution of reputation.

I will stop separately at the third point. Milov advises adjusting your consumption model so as to buy only from those who meet ethical criteria: feeding doctors free lunches, caring for animals, paying employees’ salaries instead of sending them on unpaid leave – and so on.

Indeed, the role of every consumer has significantly increased now, and it largely depends on them which business survives and which does not. But I would recommend adding one more, and very important, selection criterion to all the others: how much this business kicks back to the state. Feeding the state with one’s taxes has always been a burdensome moral compromise, but now it is becoming almost a crime. Previously, one could work under the table and be indifferent to the fact that the state takes VAT from your purchases. Now it is important. In conditions of people’s impoverishment, the growing tax collections of the Russian government are a demonstration of sheer madness on the part of the citizens.

Therefore, when choosing whom to buy, say, food from, orient yourself primarily on this. Pickles or potatoes at the bazaar are an excellent placement of money. Buying from a farm kiosk is great, but it’s even better if it’s from a car and without a cash register. Buying at a local store – only if it is not a chain and is on a simplified tax system (the absence of VAT can be seen on the receipt).

The best moral choice for any small business today is to go underground. Closing officially and continuing to serve clients by personal agreement is a measure that will allow not only to plug the hole through which your money leaks to the state, but also to accelerate the development of horizontal ties. It is time to expand contact lists, acquire personal plumbers, hairdressers, doctors – and clients, of course.

In order to refuse service to the security forces, the atmosphere in society has not yet heated up enough, but it already makes sense to have soul-saving conversations with them. Like, you are state employees, you’ll survive on your salary, it’s harder for the private sector. So don’t get in the way, don’t interfere with work – don’t tempt fate.

The next stage of rejecting the regime after going underground is usually sabotage, diversion, and guerrilla warfare: destroying surveillance cameras, smashing FNS offices, setting fire to police cars and other cute trifles, but one should not bother with nonsense. If it is possible to achieve total non-compliance with state orders without violent excesses – then all the better for all of us.

And when Putin leaves, and some Navalny takes his place, then it is important to immediately put him before the fact: things will not be as they were. An efficient state is a cheap state. The cheaper it is for the citizens, the more grounds it has to expect that its polite requests will be fulfilled. As for any demands from the state in the beautiful Russia of the future, citizens should have a simple and quick answer: fuck off – that way. And point in the direction where today’s dictator was sent.

Big Changes

Sorry, I’m focusing on current events again, which is actually not very characteristic of my channel about theory.

The year has been quite rich in events. So much so that some of them, which seemed very important when they occurred, are now almost forgotten. Who remembers that at the very beginning of the year, a war between the USA and Iran almost broke out? It didn’t happen, so that’s fine. Nevertheless, each such surprise, even if it was managed quickly, rocked the boat. Perhaps the global economy would have digested another fallout between the USA and Iran, but then the coronavirus happened. Perhaps it too would not have caused a global recession, but then the cartel agreement between OPEC and the RF collapsed. If the global economy miraculously digests this as well, tomorrow some new horror will surely happen that will break the camel’s back.

One of the business cycle theories, the so-called real business cycle theory, argues that crises occur not because of some internal reasons and accumulating contradictions in the economy, but exclusively due to external shocks that sharply change consumer behavior. I am not ready to fully adhere to this theory (essentially, it is an application of Taleb’s black swan idea to the theory of economic cycles), but it is hard to deny that external factors are quite significant. However, it is also hard to deny that external factors become quite significant precisely when enough internal contradictions have accumulated.

And as if we didn’t have enough external shocks, the Russian leadership is bustling with activity in domestic politics as well. The resignation of the government, the first wave of constitutional amendments, the second wave of amendments, the idea that the constitutional amendments reset presidential terms—all of this is a reflection of active mental churning at the top. No one knows what ideas will surface in public policy tomorrow, but it is perfectly obvious that fish are easily caught in muddy waters. This must be taken advantage of.

The notorious plebiscite on constitutional amendments is an attempt to scoop up at least a drop of legitimacy from the people. And since legitimacy is needed, populism can be expected. This means it is the perfect time to announce a public demand.

Of course, I don’t know exactly which demand will be widely supported, because even sociologists can only provide support percentages for a closed list. As for us, we have yet to toss that list out there.

I already suggested the first proposal in connection with the Litreev case: the repeal of Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the RF, at least regarding the criminalization of possession without intent to sell. The beginning collapse of the Russian economy provides additional support for this idea: by reducing the prison population by a quarter, the FSIN budget can be significantly cut.

It is unlikely that ideas for tax cuts will be pushed through—we now have a former tax official as prime minister. But it is still necessary to complain about the unbearable tax burden, so that they at least don’t try to exacerbate it. On the other hand, there is a chance to simplify regulations—if presented under the guise of budget savings. For example, trying to replace the abolition of fire supervision with mandatory fire insurance. Or pushing for the easing of control over the circulation of hunting weapons. Or canceling the licensing of various types of activities.

It is very possible that it will be possible to selectively expand the rights of local self-government and bring back mayoral elections in some places.

In short, right now, supporters of reducing the state through political methods have a good opportunity to make progress. Even if success cannot be achieved in all areas, at least they can build up competence. As for the fact that Putin intends to rule forever, it’s too early to worry. Maybe tomorrow he’ll catch the coronavirus, and in a month he’ll kick the bucket—there’s no need to predict so far ahead; Putin currently plays no role in our calculations at all.

From Dictatorship to Democracy. Overview.

Commissioned by the Tea Club

Gene Sharp’s essay “From Dictatorship to Democracy” could just as easily have been titled “From the State to Ancap” or “From Bad to Good.” In fact, it is simply a collection of reflections on how to change a political regime if you dislike it, feel morally justified, and assume public support for your position.

The central idea of the book is that the most reliable strategy for this is political disobedience, also known as nonviolent resistance. A consistent denial of the state’s legitimacy can indeed make it illegitimate as this denial becomes increasingly stylish, fashionable, and youthful.

The weak point of the approach proposed by Sharp is that everything must begin with strategic planning, and then the resistance develops its activities strictly according to the plan, centrally deciding which of the 198 methods to choose for today and which for tomorrow. Thus, the best tactic for a dictator is to sow discord within the opposition, letting them fight among themselves to determine under whose banners they should unite in the war against the bloody regime.

Decentralized resistance, according to Sharp, is far less effective, and this is bad news for ancaps wishing to act through political methods.

On the other hand, Sharp explicitly points out that one should not just fight a dictatorship, but already at the stage of resistance plant the seeds of a new society that will already be legitimate by the time the regime falls, and this fall will merely provide them with legality. Thus, if the ultimate goal of the resistance is to adopt the construction of a stateless society with decentralized law and a free, unregulated market, then the idea of building the resistance on these very same principles seems damn logical; Sharp simply did not consider such a goal: his political fantasies did not extend beyond the Swiss cantons.

The least useful part of the book turns out to be the most famous—namely, the appendix listing the notorious 198 methods of nonviolent resistance. The book was written in 1993; in 27 years, the toolkit has changed significantly, and those methods that are still relevant are already more or less well-known. So, I can understand Leonid Volkov, the chief of staff of the Russian resistance, stating that the book is weak, but I do not accept his reproaches that it is harmful. It is definitely worth reading. As for using it in practice—do so with great caution. Especially since, since the book was written, dictatorships have increasingly mutated into electoral autocracies, and the set of methods for abolishing them will be very different.

Among the book’s strengths is its modest size; if one wishes, the essay can be finished in one evening.

Your opinion on nap.world?

Valya

As Mikhail Svetov, the creator of nap.world, claims, medium is the message. The one who speaks is part of the message. Therefore, it is not enough to examine the proposed text of the non-aggression pact; one must look at the person proposing it.

Mikhail’s rhetoric is hate speech. Even in his New Year’s greeting, he wishes torment and death to all “bad people.” It is important to understand: the proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact is not a declaration of peace. It is a declaration of war. A war against everyone who does not sign the pact. To Mikhail and his supporters, everyone outside the NAP agreement is not a legal subject.

Most likely, you are under no threat as long as you do not draw their attention. But if you initiate violence, or even publicly approve of someone else initiating violence, that’s it—you become a permissible victim. Lies will be told about you. Your counterparties will be discouraged from cooperating with you. If you have done something illegal, a report will be filed against you. But they will not physically lift a hand against you.

What does this remind us of? To me personally, it resembles the tactics of radical feminists or SJWs. They will find any instance of harassment or racism and broadcast it loudly. They will peck at you for any approval of such things. They will twist the facts about you and do everything in their power to make you persona non grata.

Feminists started before Svetov, and we can see where such tactics lead. They lead to the world becoming less sexist. Harassment turns out to be dangerous. Sexist jokes are laughed at less. Sexist advertising sells worse. The vile feminists, whom one wants to recoil from in disgust, make the world better. For them, it remains just as dirty, patriarchal, and unjust. It becomes better for us, the more moderate ones.

The Bitarch proposes using antifragile tactics (according to Taleb) to fight the state—that is, tactics that only grow stronger through opposition. If everyone whom the state prosecutes for victimless crimes declares that the state is a bandit and that they do not recognize its jurisdiction, it will undermine the legitimacy of the state, and the wider the repression, the stronger the delegitimization. Is this an antifragile tactic? Yes. The first such cases will receive wide publicity, and the prisoners will be seen as political. As the movement develops, attention will not be as intense, but this will be compensated for by the scale of the movement. However, such blatant disrespect for the court will more often lead to longer sentences, so it will be difficult at first to decide to bring politics into one’s case.

But what if an irreconcilable community actually forms around the idea of signing the NAP and intimidating everyone who hasn’t signed it? Let’s look again at Taleb, the book Skin in the Game. He shows how an inflexible, irreconcilable minority, evenly distributed in society, gradually imposes its rules on a flexible majority. In the US, political correctness became a norm recognized by the majority. In Russia, the example of implementing an accessible environment for the blind is more obvious. You won’t find a blind person on every street, but every traffic light beeps, and everyone trips over tactile paving: this is a norm imposed by an inflexible minority. Those who shame NAP non-signatories have a chance to achieve the same effect.

First, they will purge the ranks of decision-makers. Then they will intimidate the liberal opposition. Next, they will begin to harass those who approve of the actions of security forces—and then the security forces themselves. And at this stage, the idea of massively refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of state courts looks like a completely natural progression.

In short. The nap.world project as executed by Svetov is aesthetically repulsive to me, but if he gathers enough fanatics, the world around me really might become better. And after that, it would be good if they lusted themselves. Like the djinn from Andrzej Sapkowski’s story “The Last Wish.”

On the doctrine of deterrence

I would like to present to your attention a translation of an article by Mike Mazarr, dedicated to modern approaches to the United States’ deterrence doctrine regarding other states. The author works at the RAND Corporation and previously served in Naval Intelligence.

The article is interesting in that it departs from rather primitive notions of deterrence based on game theory and focuses on methodological subjectivism, which is so valued by proponents of the Austrian school. Therefore, libertarians should find the content of the article easy and pleasant to digest, and for my part, I have tried to make the reading even easier and more pleasant by significantly simplifying the rather ponderous language of the article.

By the way, I have collected all the translations, which were scattered across my site, into a general section; feel free to use it.

Original article in pdf