“The Game Is Over” for Tyranny: Science Confirms the Inevitable Drift to Freedom

We often hear complaints about how the world is plunging into a chasm, the state is tightening its screws, and people are only dreaming of a strong hand. However, the current situation is not as bleak as it’s commonly perceived, and libertarians have reason to be pleased – recent research by psychologists and sociologists says otherwise. If you look at the long term, authoritarianism (both left and right) simply has no evolutionary chances. Therefore, let’s examine two fascinating scientific papers that explain why the “market of ideas” will inevitably resolve in favor of freedom.

The first Swedish study uncovered a mechanism that works as a one-way valve of history. It revealed that the language of freedom is universal. Arguments based on care (do no harm) and justice (honesty, one rule for all) work with everyone. Everyone is willing to change their mind if you can prove that prohibitions or high taxes are unfair or harmful to people. But the language of coercion is more localized. Arguments based on loyalty, authority, and sacredness (“this is what our ancestors bequeathed us,” “respect power,” “this is for the greater good”), only work with conservatives, while those with more liberal views simply brush this noise aside.

What does this mean for us? In public debates, authoritarian conservatives have a broken “transmitter.” They can only persuade their own supporters. But arguments for freedom of personality – based on not interfering with other people’s lives – are able to attract people from both camps. Over time, this creates a “progressive drift.” Society is slowly but surely moving towards reducing violence and recognizing the rights of individuals simply because these arguments are understandable to everyone, while arguments against (based on tradition or power) cease to work for new generations.

The second study from Portugal dug even deeper. Scientists didn’t just look at what values people have, but how they prioritize when making choices. It turned out that the key difference is not that conservatives are “evil” and liberals are “good.” The difference lies in compromises: the progressive part of society places the well-being of the individual above the interests of the group, while the conservative part is willing to sacrifice the individual for preserving the group, hierarchy, and traditions.

But the most encouraging thing researchers found within the right-wing camp. It turns out that the right are far from monolithic. There are both “high moralists” – those very religious fanatics and shoe-lovers with skyrocketing loyalty and obedience to authority, but also “low moralists” – people who vote for the right (usually for economic reasons) but don’t give a damn about “creeps,” authority, and traditions. And this is precisely the split that we, libertarians, should be exploiting. “Secular conservatives,” who don’t need a Tsar but just want them to butt out, are good allies. And the old conservative model, which held up on authority, religion, and obedience, is only losing its base.

In a Portuguese study there’s another amusing detail – scientists frankly admitted: “We forgot to include the freedom scale in the study.” They measured care, justice, loyalty, purity… but forgot about Liberty. That’s where the treasure is buried! Libertarianism is unique because we take a universal basis (the principle of non-aggression (NAP) = care/justice), which is understandable to everyone, and discard all the rubbish about “duty to one’s homeland” and “sacrosanctness of power.”

Why is the future for libertarians?! If you put these two pieces together, the picture becomes clear. The old world, built on arguments like “you must, because I’m the boss” or “that’s how it’s done,” is slowly dying. This language simply stops being perceived by people. Conversely, the language of personal rights, honesty, and minimizing harm – this is the language of the future.

Voluntary, Bitarch

Column for the Second Number of “Fronde”

Just submitted an article to the editorial board for the third issue of “Fronda”. And if that’s the case, why not make your own column from the second issue, dedicated to democracy, publicly available? Here it is, please enjoy:

Lessons of Freedom

Hello everyone, it’s Anka-tyan with you again, and today we’re talking about the lessons that a social structure like democracy gives us.

Lesson of Resolution

Ancient Greek democracy began with tyrannicides. Since then, killing a tyrant is considered good manners and a pretty decent prelude to establishing a more free political order. Most tyrants have drawn this lesson, so they try to maintain the outward appearance of democracy. Let’s draw the same lesson for ourselves:

The most direct way to establish democracy is to destroy the tyrant… Destroying an army or an economy is a much more roundabout and unreliable way. Negotiating with a tyrant about his peaceful departure is even less reliable.

Lesson of Vigilance

Fighting for democracy, people don’t want democracy itself. They want freedom from tyranny – that is, from a regime in which they are arbitrarily subjected to violence. Democracy is just a family of various compromise social structures designed to prevent a recurrence of tyranny. The common thing in all stable democracies is the principle of separation of powers. No one owns all power! Tyranny of the popular assembly is just as tyrannical as the tyranny of one person. Let’s formulate our lesson as follows:

Construct a system of self-government so that your community doesn’t give anyone the opportunity to seize power. No expansive interpretations of norms! No extraordinary powers! Any holder of power is a potential tyrant. Be vigilant!

Lesson of Distinguishing Goals and Means

Coordination in a community implies working to ensure it. Someone needs to do this work. We need to find and involve someone in this. How to look for them? In modern democracies, everything usually comes down to two mechanisms: an official is appointed by a higher authority, or they are elected by vote. Voting is just one of the possible meansof achieving a compromise solution in selecting candidates from a group, and it has a lot of drawbacks. There are many other means. The most unbiased means was originally considered lots. There are also exams and other types of competitions, there’s the purchase of positions, there are tenders, there is volunteering… Democracy doesn’t reduce to voting. The lesson is obvious here:

Don’t substitute goals with means. Don’t try to use a tool for everything, even if it’s very fashionable. Use what is simpler, more reliable, and that solves the specific task that has been set.

Lesson of Breaking Out of the Vicious Circle

Как ни распределяй власть, какие ни внедряй сдержки и противовесы, как ни связывай власть имущих законами, система со временем деградирует. Деградировав, она порождает новых тиранов, а потом по их головы приходят новые тираноборцы… Что может помешать соблазну сконцентрировать власть? Только одно: отсутствие того, что можно сконцентрировать.

Если координация происходит добровольно, в этом процессе нет места для того, кто принуждает. Чем больше места занимают добровольные отношения, тем меньше места занимают властные. Отсюда простой урок:

Если вам что-то нужно от других, спрашивайте, что хотят взамен. Не считайте, что вас должны обслужить даром. Если от вас что-то требуют, называйте свою цену. Не считайте, что вы должны обслуживать других даром. Согласны сотрудничать – сотрудничайте. Не согласны – не сотрудничайте. Всякий претендующий на власть должен понимать: принуждать людей себе дороже. Будут саботировать и искать удобного случая ударить исподтишка. Никому не хочется войти в историю в качестве свергнутого тирана.

Подведём итог

С одной стороны, демократия – это способ не дать немногим всю полноту власти над большинством. С другой стороны, демократия это возможность для большинства получить общественные блага дешевле, чем они бы стоили на рынке. Это большой соблазн, но надо отдавать себе отчёт в том, что это тоже тирания, только тирания большинства. Переход к рынку вместо принуждения – это нравственный выбор людей, которые сознательно отказываются быть тиранами. Только этот путь ведёт к настоящей свободе.

Can one praise a tyrant to save lives?

For example, praising and promoting Putin to gain the ability to operate your own charitable foundation where you will save lives. Is this a violation of the NAP?

анонимный вопрос

I present to you my new co-author; he will answer the questions you have accumulated from time to time, and where I want to add something, I will do so. So, responding is Alex Murin.

Ancap-chan

The principle of the non-aggression principle implies only the rejection of aggressive violence. Everything you write or say does not relate to the NAP. However, the NAP is a fundamental principle, not the only one. There is also the principle of freedom of contract, the institution of reputation, public opinion, and traditions. In general, there are many different factors to which the NAP has no relation. If everything is reduced to the NAP, one can simply get lost in logical and legal constructions. It is not worth doing that.

From the point of view of the NAP, praising Putin to get money for a charity or a public organization is permissible. You are not attacking people to kill or rob them.

And then there is the reputational aspect: you convince people that the system currently in place in Russia is the only possible one, that the country is managed by a person leading it toward prosperity. If you do not believe this, but want to get money from it to implement a humanitarian mission, then judge yourself. You did not attack, kill, or rob. You wrote or spoke words that you will then reproduce in one way or another. People who have not seen you will judge you by these words. Will they want to accept help from a person who praises a system that sent them to the bottom of life? Everything stated in the question has no relation whatsoever to the prohibition of aggressive violence. If, in your opinion, you are lying and then performing good deeds to redeem your own guilt, then you are doing double work. If you believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the person who deserves to be exalted, while performing good deeds, then “blessed is he who believes,” and your conscience is clear. If this is how you earn money, then your judge is your conscience. In short: this has no relation to the NAP, based on its definition. But the NAP is the primary, not the only principle.

And yes, I would not use the techniques of a Baptist preacher to influence your opinion; that would be dishonest.