Тег: Violence

“Citizen-Avenger”: Not a Libertarian, but a State in One Person

After the release of the movie “Citizen Vigilante,” some viewers saw the main character as almost a libertarian avenger: the state is failing, the courts release criminals, and an armed citizen takes the protection of society into his own hands.
 
It sounds impressive. But this character has about as much in common with libertarian philosophy as a sea pirate does with the protection of private property. The external attributes are similar: distrust of the state, weapons, independence, and contempt for bureaucracy. But inside, there is a completely opposite system of values.
 
Libertarianism begins not with a pistol, but with the recognition of every person’s right to life, liberty, and property. From this follows the non-aggression principle: violence cannot be used against someone who has not initiated it themselves. And this is where the image of the “people’s avenger” falls apart. The vigilante kills not only criminals. He executes the relatives of a rapist—people who did not participate in the rape. Yes, they say disgusting things, justify the crime, and blame the victim. Their words are loathsome. But libertarianism does not presume the death penalty for vile views.
 
A person is responsible for their own actions, not for the crimes of a son, brother, father, or neighbor. Collective responsibility is a favorite practice of authoritarianism. Today, a family is shot for the act of a relative; tomorrow, property is seized from the “wrong” class; and the day after tomorrow, people are sent to camps for having an unfortunate last name. The path is well-trodden, and the signs have long been in place.
 
Even more terrifying is the scene with the oncoming car. The hero intentionally drives into the opposite lane, forcing an innocent driver off the road. The car falls into a ditch and explodes. People die simply because the vigilante needed a vivid illustration for another monologue. This is no longer “private justice,” but the murder of innocents for the sake of a political spectacle.
 
At the same time, the film tries to endow the hero with a moral code. On the bus, he pays the fare for teenagers and gives them a lecture: if some do not pay, the costs are shifted to others. Everyone must follow the rules! The thought itself is clear. Only it is preached by a man who entered the country illegally, did not legalize his status, hides the real owners of real estate behind a network of holdings, and raises questions with tax authorities. The result is a surprising moral compass: if you don’t pay for a public transport ticket, you undermine society. If you hide your business, money, and legal status—well, that’s something else, that’s an “extended vacation.”
 
Of course, a libertarian is by no means obligated to consider state law just. Immigration restrictions violate natural human rights, taxes are theft, and financial regulation is a violation of property rights. Breaking any law that punishes “crimes” without a victim does not make a person a villain and is entirely permissible.
 
But then one must be consistent. You cannot declare yourself an opponent of the system when the rules hinder you, and become a stern defender of order when a teenager doesn’t buy a ticket. This is no longer a philosophy of freedom, but the good old “everything for friends, the law for everyone else.”
 
“Citizen Vigilante” could have raised an interesting question: what should society do when the state justice system truly fails to protect victims? Where is the line between self-defense, civil resistance, and vigilantism? But instead of a complex conversation, the film presents the viewer with a man who has appointed himself investigator, judge, and executioner. Moreover, evidence, proportionality of punishment, and the rights of the innocent interest him about as much as a cash receipt interests a bank robber.
 
The film’s protagonist does not protect individual freedom. Instead, he creates his own pocket state: he writes the laws himself, determines the guilty himself, passes sentences himself, and exempts himself from the rules. This is not libertarianism, but the dictatorship of one man—just without a coat of arms, a parliament, and boring meetings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Hardening of character or a lifelong trauma?

There is a traditional opinion: a boy needs to “harden” his character to grow into a full-fledged man and be ready for life. Following this position, or simply using it as a justification for violence, some abusive fathers deliberately harm their sons. Victims encounter this form of violence at a very early age, which makes it important to examine.

At the core of such an approach is the belief that a boy must grow up to be tough, insensitive, aggressive, and dominant, and that any manifestations of vulnerability, emotionality, and softness allegedly make him weak and unable to survive in society. However, a recent article published on the Psychology Today website correctly notes how such “upbringing” actually only causes serious damage to the child’s mental and emotional development.

The methods used for such “hardening” include physical “punishments,” psychological pressure, humiliation, and intimidation. A child may be forced to participate in aggressive or painful activities, or encouraged to fight or engage in excessively harsh sports such as boxing, martial arts, and even American football. Simultaneously, he is required to suppress his emotions—especially fear, sadness, and affection. The boy is taught not to cry, not to complain, and not to show weakness, forming an internal belief that sensitivity is something shameful. These practices may be accompanied by direct instructions on what a “real man” should be.

It is important to understand: such actions cannot be justified by “good intentions,” partly because in practice they are often used by the abuser purely for personal interests, as a method of control and dominance over family members. A son may be used as a tool—for example, to strengthen the father’s power, exert pressure on the mother, or pass on the same beliefs and behavioral models to the next generation, making violence an inherent trait of the family. Abusive fathers also tend to destroy the bond between the son and mother, which is crucial for psychological development and a sense of security.

The consequences of such actions for the child’s emotional development are very profound. The constant suppression of feelings leads to the child stopping the recognition of his own emotions and the emotions of other people. His capacity for empathy decreases, and difficulties with self-regulation and the expression of experiences arise. In the future, this may manifest as emotional detachment, an inability to build close relationships, and outbursts of uncontrollable aggression.

Ultimately, the boy may begin to identify with the aggressor and adopt his model of behavior. He is deprived of the ability to build healthy relationships, becomes cruel himself, and passes this cruelty on to future generations, forming a closed cycle of violence and traumatic experience. Alternatively, he may suppress himself, leading to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Often, both outcomes blend to some extent. This only decreases, rather than increases, the child’s social adaptability.

Beyond psychological harm, such treatment can lead to physical consequences—injuries, chronic stress, and related health problems. And even if the child is not a direct victim of physical violence, the mere observation of aggression in the family already has a destructive effect on his psyche and health.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: “hardening” through violence has nothing to do with care or upbringing. It is a form of abuse of power by a domestic tyrant, which destroys the child’s personality and even exacerbates the problem of violence at the societal level. Such practices are simply incompatible with a free, non-violent society, and they must be completely replaced by models of upbringing based on respect, empathy, and the development of emotional resilience not through the suppression of feelings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why parents should be interested in treating psychopathy in their children

Considering various approaches to solving the problem of violence using biomedical technologies, such as strengthening the violence inhibition mechanism and bio-enhancing morality, one can quite quickly conclude that the most appropriate and effective approach would be to perform such procedures as early as possible. Moreover, signs of psychopathic traits, which are the strongest predictors of violent behavior and indicate dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, can be detected as early as childhood, even at the age of 2-4 years, as demonstrated by research.

It is important to understand that if an individual with a risk of developing a violent and psychopathic personality undergoes morality bio-enhancement very early, they will essentially not even have a chance to be such a personality for even a short time. Furthermore, the nervous system at this age is still developing, which makes it possible to achieve an effective result even with gentle intervention. Widespread practice in detecting and correcting violence inhibitor dysfunction could solve the problem of violence in society long before it even arises.

This should already be enough to convey to many parents how important it is to carefully monitor a child’s behavior and emotional reactions (for example, empathy and whether they have an aversion to causing harm to someone), and to intervene in a timely manner upon detecting any anomalies. However, if some parents are suddenly not very concerned about what kind of personality their child will grow into, or if they see no problem with violence at all, then it is worth reminding them of another very strong motivation to consider this issue—personal well-being and the preservation of their own nerves.

Research on violence and psychopathy is often focused on the person with such a condition—their behavior, the risks to society, and criminal manifestations. Some of it discusses the role parents may play in the development of psychopathic traits in a child. At the same time, the opposite problem remains in the shadow—when parents become the very first victims of heartlessness, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, and even cruelty on the part of their own child.

Of course, it is not customary to label children as psychopaths, but they may demonstrate early signs of this condition or so-called callous-unemotional traits—emotional numbness, lack of guilt, and an inability to empathize. Such signs indicate that the child does not simply have a “difficult character”; we are talking about deep-seated personality characteristics which, among other problems, can seriously destroy family dynamics.

For parents, such a child becomes a severe psychological trial. Parenthood brings them no pleasure, only daily problems. They find themselves in a trap: on one hand, the social expectation to love and support their child, and on the other, constant stress, fear, and a sense of helplessness. Often, such families face a lack of understanding from others and even accusations of poor parenting, which only increases their sense of isolation and guilt. Parents may also face very serious problems if their child begins to behave antisocially in society, as they will have to bear responsibility for their actions.

All this being said, it must be understood that good upbringing and a favorable environment alone may not be enough to prevent a child from developing a psychopathic personality (although this is, of course, also important for reducing the risk). Therefore, all parents have an interest in detecting early signs of this condition and resorting to therapeutic intervention if they are present. This will certainly help them preserve their own family, and with widespread practice, it will also lead to a reduction in the level of violence throughout society, and over time—to the complete eradication of this problem!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Fight, flight, freeze… or just hack someone else’s brain?

As we know, there are three basic survival strategies in the wild. Encountered danger? In that case, fight, flee (“run”), or play dead (“freeze”/”hide”). But here’s the thing: while we thought this was an exhaustive menu, evolution decided not to stop there. As it turns out, there is a fourth, far more sophisticated path in the wild. Let’s call it “hack your neighbor’s neurobiology.”

Imagine: you are a huge, strong tropical cockroach. An emerald cockroach wasp (which is about three times smaller than you) flies up to you and gives you a quick sting. You are alive, you are conscious, your legs are working. But you… don’t want anything anymore. The wasp delivers a second, surgically precise sting directly into the cockroach’s subesophageal ganglion (the brain). Its venom acts as a perfect blocker of octopamine—the neurotransmitter responsible for initiative and the motivation to move. The cockroach is not paralyzed! It simply completely loses its free will. It is in a state of severe apathy. The wasp takes the giant by its antenna and, like a compliant dog on a leash, leads it to its burrow, where it will lay an egg on it. The larva will eat the cockroach alive, and the cockroach won’t even attempt to escape.

There is also the famous Toxoplasma (Toxoplasma gondii). This single-celled parasite desperately needs to get into a cat’s intestine—that is the only place where it can reproduce. But how do you get there if you are currently inside a mouse? Toxoplasma doesn’t just wait for the mouse to be eaten by chance. It takes control! The parasite forms microscopic cysts in the amygdala of the mouse’s brain, as a result of which the mouse completely loses its innate terror of the smell of cat urine, or even begins to experience slight sexual arousal from it. The mouse goes out into the open on its own, searches for a cat, and predictably becomes its lunch.

Another very cool example: the lancet fluke—a flatworm that needs to get from an ant into the stomach of a sheep or a cow. It penetrates directly into the ant’s subesophageal ganglion and takes the helm like a seasoned truck driver. In the evening, when it gets cold, the parasite forces the ant to separate from the colony, climb to the very tip of a tall blade of grass, and cling to it firmly with its jaws. The ant hangs there and waits to be swallowed by a cow. But do you know what is most amazing? If the cow doesn’t come during the night, and in the morning the sun begins to blaze (which could cause the ant to dry up and die along with the parasite), the worm releases control! It allows the ant to unclench its jaws, descend to the ground, and hide in the shade. The ant spends the whole day living its usual ant life, and in the evening, the parasite presses the button again: “Time to climb the blade of grass!”. And so it goes until they are eaten.

Why is this so cool? When we hear the word “parasite,” we imagine someone who just drinks blood or steals nutrients. But evolution has shown: information and control over behavior are the most valuable resources. These creatures do not control the victim through fear. They use perfect knowledge of neuropharmacology. They synthesize analogues of dopamine, serotonin, various alkaloids and proteins that “hack” the neural circuits of other species. This is not a random system glitch, but the result of millions of years of harsh evolutionary selection. Those who learned to change the host’s behavior in their favor survived and reproduced much more effectively than those who just sat and waited for a miracle. And nature didn’t give a damn about philosophical concepts like “free will”!

What does this mean for us, humans? Acting upon the neurobiology of an opponent who threatens us with harm—for the sake of bio-enhancing morality or as a violence inhibitor—is also not some “madman’s rambling,” but a fully successful strategy supported by millions of years of evolution, which is becoming technologically more accessible to us every day. If you don’t like such an approach at all, then look at yourself and propose full recognition of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the impermissibility of violence in exchange for the limitation of biotech weapons that affect behavior.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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

Divide, conquer, and… smile with all 32 teeth!

We usually talk about violence in physical terms. But there is another type of aggression that is far more elegant from a biological perspective. It is not the club of a Neanderthal, but a surgeon’s scalpel. Or, to be more precise, a sweet poison. Recently, a great article by Winifred Rohl on this topic was published in Psychology Today. She raises the issue of exactly how psychopathic personalities break social bonds. If we look at the market of human relationships as a free exchange of values, then a psychopath is a monopolist-fraudster. And their primary currency is confusion. Let’s now examine this problem point by point.

First, psychopaths use charm as camouflage. Rohl writes: “For psychopaths, charm is their glitter.” Biologically, this is mimicry. A psychopath cannot feel empathy, so they simulate it. Example: you see a charismatic leader who says the right things. Your brain, tuned to search for an “alpha,” screams: “Oh, this is someone to follow!”. In reality, it is a predator who has simply learned in what tone to purr.

Second, they employ the “Wedge” tactic. The article gives a chilling example: a mother (a psychopath) tells her daughter over the phone: “Speak, darling, we are alone, this is private.” The daughter pours her heart out. Meanwhile, the mother winks at the second daughter, who is sitting nearby and listening to everything. Why? To create an artificial deficit of information and trust. While you are fighting among yourselves, you aren’t looking at the one pulling the strings. A classic of statecraft transferred to the kitchen.

Third, they “hack” the hierarchy. Research by Paul Babiak (author of “Snakes in Suits”) shows that psychopaths are promoted in corporations. Why? Because they perfectly hack vertical management systems. To the boss, they “sell” confidence and flattery (psychopaths do not experience anxiety, so they appear super-competent). Meanwhile, they terrorize, sabotage, and frame their colleagues and subordinates. The result: those at the top see an “effective manager,” while those at the bottom see scorched earth. By the time the information reaches the top, the psychopath has already gained their benefit and moved to another department.

Why did evolution leave us with such personalities (approximately 1% of the population)? It is a parasitism strategy. If everyone around is cooperating and trusting (cooperative strategy), then an individual appears who can exploit this trust for maximum personal gain. Without spending resources on conscience, reflection, or fear. Pure profit.

How to avoid becoming prey? The author of the article emphasizes: the main marker that a psychopath is nearby is your feeling of “I’m going crazy.” If person A tells you nasty things about person B in secret, and then you see them hugging—you experience cognitive dissonance. You begin to doubt your own sanity.

So what should be done? Look at actions, not glitter: charisma is cheap, reputation and adherence to contracts are expensive. Therefore, decentralize your fact-checking. If you are told, “The whole department thinks you’re an idiot,” do not take it on faith. Go and speak with the department directly. Psychopaths fear the direct communication of victims like fire, because lies only live in the dark. So protect your neurons and your boundaries. Freedom begins where manipulation ends!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Serenity Mission – can the bio-enhancement of morality destroy us?

In the film titled Serenity, which takes place in the universe of the Firefly series, the main characters discover a planet with millions of deceased inhabitants. As it turns out, an experiment was conducted on this planet involving the spraying of an anti-aggression drug. However, along with this, it suppressed the very will to live, and in 10% of the population, it caused a side effect with the opposite result — a complete removal of ethical barriers, turning them into bloodthirsty predators.

Opponents of the idea of moral bioenhancement, which consists of improving people’s moral qualities through biomedical technologies, may use the plot of this film as another opportunity to criticize it. In general, they have already put forward various arguments against such a practice. But they should clearly not rush into this, because all their concerns can be answered. This is exactly what philosopher Barbara Stock did in one of her articles, which we will now examine in more detail.

The first problem lies in the impossibility of providing a general definition of morality, since different moral theories offer different answers to questions about good and bad. However, as Stock notes, this is not entirely true, as there are still some universally recognized values. If we look at the example from the film, although the main characters are smugglers who break the law (of course, as libertarians, we see nothing wrong with this), they are not devoid of basic moral principles, such as caring for one another, fairness toward the vulnerable, and a willingness to risk themselves for others.

The second problem points out that everything could end badly, as happened in the plot of the film. But it is important to understand that the film shows an extremely negligent intervention — without clinical trials, without ethically permissible procedures, and without an overall understanding of the risks. Of course, no one will dispute that real researchers must take all of this into account in any of their actions.

The third problem arises from the fact that morality is not some separate trait, but a complex system of interconnected qualities and motives. However, this is also a question of the correct approach to implementation. One should focus on interventions that are minimal and take such interrelationships into account. To Stock’s argument, let us also add the fact that in reality, it is not necessary to suppress aggression specifically — it is only necessary to strengthen inhibiting mechanisms when a person lacks them.

The fourth problem consists of the danger and repressiveness of coercion to undergo biomedical procedures. We know, of course, that total coercion is ethically unacceptable. But what about moderate social methods of pressure to undergo the procedure (and mandatory moral bioenhancement only for those who have already committed acts of violence)? Furthermore, even now there are situations where students and employees resort to taking nootropics to improve their alertness and attention, and thereby cope with the tasks assigned to them. In this sense, moral bioenhancement, which allows a violent individual to manage things so that other people do not see them as a threat and do not exclude them from social interactions, is no different from the question of other forms of human enhancement.

The final problem is the undermining of human freedom and autonomy. There are claims that morality is the ability to choose between good and evil, and if a person cannot choose to commit evil, their moral actions lose any meaning. But Stock rightly notes that any current proposals for moral bioenhancement do not consist of turning people into mechanical robots without choice, but merely in shifting their inclinations toward the more moral. And can we even respect the autonomy, for example, of a person who is directly threatening to commit violence against us? You likely wouldn’t do that yourself!

Of course, the idea of moral bioenhancement requires caution and thorough elaboration. It indeed may carry a number of serious risks. But these risks are not an insurmountable obstacle requiring a categorical rejection of the idea. They can quite well be taken into account and worked through.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Where Libertarianism Will Actually Take Root? Spoiler: Probably Not Where You Think.

In the libertarian scene, the United States is considered an “earthly paradise.” How could it be any other way: the First and Second Amendments, the spirit of the Wild West, freedom of speech, the right to self-defense! Mises, Rothbard, Rand – all are connected with America. Meanwhile, old Europe and, especially, Canada and Scandinavia are often dismissively viewed as Trotskyist swamps with exorbitant taxes. But if we dig deeper and look at the very foundation of libertarianism – NAP (the principle of non-aggression) – we’ll see something interesting.

The renowned anthropologist Douglas Fry in his works raises a brilliant topic – so-called Hobbesian beliefs. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, if you remember, believed that the natural state of man is a “war of all against all.” So, Fry shows that the belief in the “naturalness” of war and violence in the United States is frighteningly widespread, much wider than in other developed countries. In one study, students at universities in Florida and Connecticut were asked whether people have a “war instinct” and whether war is an integral part of human nature. About half of the respondents answered affirmatively! Half of these young, educated people believe that killing your fellow humans – it’s frankly ingrained in our genes.

When the whole world calls America “Pinistan” or another derogatory analogy in their local language, it’s not necessarily envy. It could be a reaction to a culture in which a significant portion of the population normalizes violence and imperialist policies. As Fry notes, this is exactly what Europeans see in America. Of course, on the ground, far from all Americans are like that. But there’s enough of them to repeatedly elect hawks and applaud “precision strikes” against countries that many would not find on a map. Furthermore, if a society sincerely believes that violence is “human nature,” it will inevitably be tolerant of state violence within its own country.

And now let’s take a 180-degree turn. If to triumph the libertarianism and NAP we need an society which organically digests violence, where do we look? Contrary to popular myths, the best chances for libertarian ideas may lie precisely in Europe, Canada, and, paradoxically, Scandinavia.

Yes, there’s a bloated welfare state there now (though that’s pretty common these days). But let’s look at the social base. First, the level of violent crime (especially in Scandinavia) hovers around statistical error compared to America. Second, the overwhelming majority of people feel genuine, deep disgust for war and imperialistic ambitions, not considering it a natural phenomenon for humans. Third, the level of social trust there is colossal.

For a European or Canadian, it’s much harder to sell the idea of pre-emptive war. For them, violence is not “biological instinct,” but a catastrophic system failure, barbarism that simply has no place in the 21st century. And this is precisely the ideal psychological ground for the principle of non-aggression! NAP cannot win where many are ready to shoot first. NAP wins where people have internally agreed that initiating violence is an absolute social taboo.

So, perhaps we should stop idealizing cowboys and take a look at, say, Swedes or Norwegians. Yes, they still have a lot to explain, for example, that high taxes are also a form of hidden, systemic violence. But convincing a peaceful burgher who rejects aggression in principle may be much easier than persuading a supporter of preemptive bombing in the name of greatness.

Here you can see irony: “American” libertarianism is stuck in a country whose cultural code resists it. And where libertarians are used to seeing “socialism,” the basic premise of their philosophy – that people are not obligated to be violent – has already been accepted as common sense. Maybe we should stop banging our heads against a wall and look where the door is slightly open?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why human rights papers aren’t working anymore and how to make them respected again

Recently, Maxim Kats released a video about Davos and the sunset of the “long world.” And you know, there he voiced a thought that makes any normal person (and especially a libertarian) start to feel their hair stand on end. Of course, Maxim isn’t our ally by virtue of his political views, but he still knows how to effectively dissect current problems, so we’ll be considering his reasoning nonetheless. Because he rightly observes: what we call “human rights” – it’s essentially a system error, an anomaly.

His video begins with pointing out that war has long since ceased being just a slaughter between soldiers—scientific and technological progress has reached the point where it’s possible to erase entire cities from the face of the Earth. The idea that humanity could simply self-destruct as a result of another war has stopped being fantastic and has taken on the form of a real risk. Political elites who had experienced World War II realized: we won’t drag out another round. The response was the creation of so-called “international law” and the concept of “human rights,” simply to avoid dying. It was, essentially, a global non-aggression pact signed with a trembling hand at one’s temple.

Of course, international law is largely just a “fiction,” but to some extent states are still willing to play by the established rules and observe restrictions, so this fiction is quite useful. Politicians, naturally, don’t care about the lives of ordinary people and humanitarian ideals, but they are afraid for their own skins anyway, so they won’t go completely overboard. At least that’s how it worked until recently…

But what changed? To power came a generation of politicians who hadn’t personally witnessed disasters or felt the threat of war themselves. They no longer fear mutual guaranteed destruction (MAD) and other scenarios of “deterrence doctrine” so much. For them, all this is just an abstraction from historical textbooks. And therefore, their motivation to observe the “fiction” agreed upon by previous generations of politicians has decreased significantly. As a result, the world once again faces a state of war between everyone and everyone.

Однако несмотря на эти рассуждения, всё же может оставаться вопрос того, насколько реальной является угроза самоуничтожения человечества с технической точки зрения. Кто-то сразу подумает о ядерных боеголовках, но их не так уж много и находятся они в руках очень ограниченного числа лиц (хотя и они могут отбросить человечество на многие десятилетия назад). Впрочем, сейчас технологии зашли ещё дальше. Например, в ближайшем десятилетии мы вполне можем ожидать появление массовых, простых и очень дешёвых в производстве боевых дронов, которые будут иметь автономное управление на основе ИИ и смогут поражать любых «неугодных» людей, включая политиков, используя распознавание лиц, а глушение сигнала окажется неэффективным из-за отсутствия канала связи с оператором. Ещё одна угроза – создание смертоносных и очень заразных искусственных патогенов с целью применения в качестве биологического оружия массового поражения. Биотехнологии уже сейчас довольно продвинуты и дешёвы, чтобы такое было достижимым даже для небольших групп людей, преследующих насильственные политические цели.

В таких условиях в мейнстримовую повестку не просто вернётся значимость универсальных прав человека, гуманизма и идей о недопустимости насилия, а перестанут быть маргинальными и более радикальные способы предотвращения глобальной катастрофы. Идеи наподобие усиления механизма ингибирования насилия и даже морального улучшения людей с помощью биомедицинских технологий (биоусиление морали) уже не будут восприниматься как что-то невозможное или нежелательное для реальной жизни. Развитие этого направления становится необходимостью для долгосрочного искоренения насильственных угроз как в личной, так и общественной жизни. Иначе, как отмечают исследователи, нас ждёт либо глобальный тоталитаризм с круглосуточной слежкой за каждым, либо вовсе уничтожение цивилизации и даже всего человечества.


Не ИИ – пост написан людьми!

Why Psychopaths Are Not Needed by the Market

In popular culture (and in some business publications) for years an image of the “business shark” has been cultivated – a cold, calculating cynic in an expensive suit who steps on people’s heads, breaks rules, but brings super profits to shareholders. Sort of like Gordon Gecko or Patrick Bateman. Of course, many libertarians (and we among them) value rationality and the ability to disconnect unnecessary emotions when it comes to figures. But there is a fine line between rationality and pathology. And a new meta-study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, clearly highlights this line.

What is it about? Psychologists Lenke Roth and Ute-Kristine Klecke analyzed data from almost 50,000 people. Their results knock the Hollywood myth flat: psychopathic traits lead to terrible work performance! We’ve been used to thinking that a psychopath is such a brilliant manipulator who outsmarted everyone. In reality, statistics show something different.

Firstly, individuals with psychopathic traits simply have low productivity; they work worse than others. They also provide no help to colleagues. In a healthy private company, success is the sum of efforts. A psychopath won’t lend a shoulder, even if it depends on the fate of the project. Moreover, such people are prone to counterproductive behavior, which is the most interesting thing. Sabotage, bullying, theft, delaying deadlines – this is about them. From the perspective of a free market, an employee concludes a contract: time and skills in exchange for money. A psychopath de facto violates this contract. Instead of creating value, he engages in destroying the company’s social capital.

Individuals with so-called secondary psychopathy also “stood out” – they are impulsive, hostile, and unable to control their emotions. They are delayed-action bombs that explode the office from within.

What should employers do? Your business is your private property. You have full rights (and even an obligation before your wallet) to filter those you allow on your doorstep. Don’t be fooled by charisma and ostentatious self-confidence during interviews. HR screening, personality tests, and thorough reference checks are not bureaucracy but protection of your investments. One such “wolf from Wall Street” can scare half your productive department (high employee turnover is a typical result of psychopathic personalities among managers), and you’ll spend years clearing up the losses from a toxic atmosphere.

And now, seriously – if, reading the description of psychopathic traits (the absence of empathy and guilt for harming people, manipulative behavior, impulsivity), you suddenly recognized yourself… then there are news for you. You aren’t an “alpha-predator.” You are an inefficient economic agent. The market harshly punishes inadequacy. Your inability to fit into cooperation and work towards results makes you poorer in the long term. Being toxic is economically disadvantageous.

Libertarianism is built on the principle of non-aggression and voluntary collaboration. Psychopathy often pushes people to violate both. As long as you don’t initiate violence, no one should force you into treatment – your body, your business. But rational egoism suggests: if your “hardware” malfunctions and prevents you from earning, maybe it’s time to take some medication and fix the system? Consent to therapy is not weakness, but an investment in your human capital. Psychopathic individuals should think about this before they simply stop hiring them even as pizza delivery guys. Because the further along we go, the more widespread understanding will become that a psychopath is not a profitable employee, but a risk and source of damage.

Voluntarist, Bitarch