Тег: Violence

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

How to Search and Check Drugs for Increasing Inhibitor of Violence?

Кто-то может задаваться вопросом, как находить препараты, эффективные для усиления ингибитора насилия, наподобие продвигаемых на наших ресурсах? Да и как уже известные препараты можно было бы легко перепроверить? Если коротко – всё делается простым перебором «кандидатов», обнаруженных в различных исследованиях и статьях, каждый из которых проверяется на животных. И организовать опыты может практически любой, у кого есть достаточно свободного места в доме/квартире/даче. Простейший вариант парадигмы резидента-нарушителя (стандартного опыта на агрессию) является лёгким в проведении, а если всё делать самостоятельно, финансовые расходы будут минимальными.

Для начала необходимо приобрести в зоомагазине или взять у кого-то чётное количество мелких грызунов (крыс или хомяков, обязательно всех самцов). Все особи разделяются на две группы: «резидентов» и «гостей» («нарушителей»). «Резиденты» всегда рассаживаются по отдельным клеткам, «гости» – хомяки тоже по отдельным клеткам, а вот крыс стоит держать по несколько особей. Клетки размещаются подальше друг от друга, желательно в разных комнатах.

«Резиденты» должны побыть в изоляции минимум неделю, а лучше две. После проверяем «резидентов», помещая в клетку с ними «гостя» на 5 минут, записываем всё на видео и пересматриваем. Если нападения занимают не менее 10% длительности опыта или настолько интенсивны, что опыт пришлось прервать, значит «резидент» пригоден. Иногда необходимо провести несколько таких опытов с разницей не менее 3 дня (при этом хомяков разделяем по конкретным парам, а в случае крыс проводим ротацию «гостей»), но если какие-то «резиденты» так и не становятся агрессивными, они исключаются из опытов и отпускаются.

В совсем упрощённом варианте можно начать с дозировок препаратов как человеческая, делённая на 200 для крыс и на 1000 для хомяков. Впрочем, лучше будет для конкретного препарата поискать в сети любые опыты (даже не связанные с агрессией) и отталкиваться от дозировки, предлагаемой там. Препарат можно, например, размешать в воде и, держа особь одной рукой, ввести в пасть шприцом без иглы другой рукой. Также можно попробовать подмешать препарат в пищу, но тогда придётся проконтролировать, чтобы вся дозировка была принята.

В случае крыс пригодным «резидентам» за час до опыта даём принять препарат. Что касается хомяков – даём препарат и «резиденту», и «гостю», поскольку в их случае «гость» тоже может быть агрессивным. Также при необходимости можно проводить ежедневный приём препарата в течение какого-то периода, сделав последний приём тоже за час до опыта. После проведения опыта просматриваем запись. Если уровень нападений сильно снизился или они вообще прекратились, значит препарат работает! При отсутствии результата можно пробовать повышать дозировки, при этом контролируя, чтобы не снижалась активность особей в целом (так мы подтвердим, что эффект именно антиагрессивный, а не седативный).

After each experience with medications, it is advisable to isolate subjects for at least one week and conduct a control experiment to determine the baseline aggression, as some medications can have a very long-lasting effect. It is recommended to store medications separately from the room with “residents” in airtight containers, since the evaporation of some medications can reduce the aggressiveness of animals.

If testing an inhaled medication (e.g., essential oils), transfer the cage with the “resident” to an isolated room without ventilation, spray or vaporize a larger amount of the drug there to allow them to strongly smell its strong scent (e.g., using an aroma lamp for essential oils), let the “resident” inhale the vapors for an hour and conduct the experiment. Make sure that the vapors do not get into the room where other “residents” are kept.

Therefore, it is desirable to test any medications so that before using them on aggressive representatives of our species, you suddenly don’t find out that you were sold some kind of fake, and you can personally verify that enhancing a violence inhibitor is a real thing!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

From heartlessness to brutality: psychopathy as a key to predicting violence

Modern science shows that violence – not just the result of influence on a person by society, environment, upbringing or simply their personal choice. Primarily, violence is a biological phenomenon – the result of dysfunction of the inhibition mechanism of violence and arising psychopathic predispositions due to this. And John Marshall, a forensic psychologist, writes quite well about the key role of psychopathy in committing violence in one of his articles, which we will now consider in more detail.

Firstly, he mentions the meta-analysis by Brittany Fox and Matt DeLisi from 2019, which considered 29 samples from various countries covering over 2600 murders. The correlation between psychopathy and committing murder was equal to 0.68. For comparison – in medicine a correlation of 0.3 between smoking and lung cancer is already considered significant enough not to be ignored. And the link between psychopathy and murder was twice as strong! What’s more, the more extreme or organized the form of killing is, the more manifestations of psychopathy there are in it.

Moving on to the most relevant studies published this year, Melissa Parker West and her colleagues conducted an analysis of 117 studies on the connection between psychopathy and sexual violence. The correlation was moderate, at a level of 0.35, however it is important to note that it remains stable across various samples, including prisoners in jails and public samples. In medicine, similarly strong will be the link between cholesterol and heart disease. Such results completely destroy the idea that psychopathy has nothing to do with sexual or non-sexual violence. The data indicates the opposite: features of psychopathy significantly increase the risk of violence.

Why is this important? Critics argue that psychopathy – a too vague, exaggerated and useless in practice construct. But the data says something different. Psychopathy predicts murders with an effect size that is very rarely found in social sciences. It predicts sexual aggression at a level comparable to well-established medical risk factors. This makes it one of the most powerful indicators of violence. And the fact that the “average” criminal who has committed murder shows moderate manifestations of psychopathy underlines that this is not just a rare subtype of killers, but a general tendency for all cases of lethal violence.

But what is the practical benefit of such knowledge? Of course its value is not purely academic; it’s useful in assessing and managing risks. For example, we need to understand what measures to take towards a criminal and how suitable he is for returning to society. And if we ignore the factor of psychopathy, we can easily make a wrong answer and issue a blind judgment.

Also, this knowledge is useful in preventing violence. Psychopathic traits don’t arise at one moment when a person turns 18 years old. They can be traced in the individual’s development even in childhood and adolescence, observing their callousness and lack of emotion, absence of empathy and a tendency to manipulative or abusive behavior. It is very important to identify and intervene in the problem as early as possible. Combating these traits before they turn into ingrained adult personality models is one of the ways to reduce the number of future abusers.

Finally, psychopathy doesn’t limit itself to prisons or громкие дела (loud cases) about murders. Many people discover psychopathy in personal life: with partners, colleagues, friends or bosses. The ability to recognize emotional superficiality, pathological lies, manipulation and lack of empathy can protect a person from violence. It is necessary to raise public awareness, which will help people avoid psychopaths and the danger they represent, as well as take the right actions when encountering them!

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Collective Stockholm Syndrome or How Authoritarian Authorities Psychologically Traumatize Citizens into Complete Loyalty

You’ve all probably heard about this phenomenon – Stockholm syndrome – when a victim of abuse starts forming a strong emotional connection with the abuser, acquiring sympathy and complete loyalty to him. It got its name from one incident that occurred in Stockholm, where after an attempted bank robbery, hostages began justifying the captor’s actions, hiring him a lawyer and even sending him admiring letters. This kind of reaction is extremely dangerous because it forces the victim to act against her own interests, sometimes even defending the abuser at the cost of her life.

But why does it actually occur? Of course, it’s all about neurobiology. When someone is under chronic stress, periodic abuse and manipulation, a biochemical cocktail of cortisol, dopamine, and oxytocin is released. A traumatic attachment forms in which the abuser becomes both a source of fear and a perceived source of safety. In this case, the victim follows the abuser’s mood, behavior, and expectations and begins to prioritize his needs over her own, in order to maintain the relationship and avoid further harm.

This kind of attachment relies on a convergence of factors such as an imbalance of power, periodic cruel treatment, manipulation, as well as the emergence of a situation where escape seems unimaginable. But what’s also important is that its flourishing requires an environment of narcissistic abuse. The presence of “dark traits” in the abuser is particularly important: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Being around such a person, the victim is forced to rationalize his behavior and suppress her awareness of the situation in order to simply survive.

Of course, this phenomenon doesn’t necessarily limit itself to interpersonal relationships – it can also be observed at the sociopolitical level. When society is full of betrayal, intimidation and false assurances, citizens become attached to an abusive or narcissistic political leader who manipulates their existential fears, while offering periodic psychological rewards such as national pride, economic promises, or symbolic protection from exaggerated threats.

As a result, people begin to justify authoritarian abuses in order to cope with their helplessness and avoid cognitive dissonance. A collective Stockholm syndrome emerges, manifested at the cultural level. The political leader becomes simultaneously both a protector and a punisher, providing a sense of belonging while threatening rejection, promising prosperity while simultaneously inciting fear. Like in personal and cultural traumatic bonds, people are inclined to minimize harm, discredit critics, and remain emotionally connected with those who undermine their rights and well-being.

Resistance to the cultural traumatic bond requires understanding this phenomenon. We know that, depending on their psychological traits, different people are prone to forming it to varying degrees. Moreover, there exist emotional methods of strengthening acceptance of authoritarian leadership, such as creating a “we versus they” dynamic, exaggerating existential threats, and presenting oneself as the sole solution to social problems. Finally, authoritarianism thrives in conditions of disorientation, offering a sense of certainty and identity in exchange for obedience. All of this is important to take into account when developing strategies for destroying the traumatic bond.

People who have experienced interpersonal trauma need support, recognition, and education so that they can be freed. Citizens who have experienced cultural trauma also need this to free themselves from authoritarianism. Among other things, it’s important to expose disinformation and teach critical thinking. It is also necessary to restore voluntary and trusting relationships between people, return them a sense of dignity and collective strength. In this case, they will be able to heal from the trauma and become capable of acting against politicians who destroy trust between them.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Death, Taxes, and Sperry’s Stockholm Syndrome

Recently, an intriguing longread was published on our channel by a user under the nickname “Sperry UNIVAC.” The author, who took a nickname in honor of the computer manufacturing company—which, by the way, lived for decades on fat government contracts and worked almost entirely for the military—suddenly decided to drop some “based” truths. But instead of being based, it turned out to be a typical justification of etatism with a light touch of Marxism. Sperry tries to sell us an idea as old as time: robbery is inevitable, the “social contract” is a blessing, and the private sector is just the same thing from a different angle; basically, you should be grateful that the state is simply shearing you rather than shooting you with machine guns. But let’s dismantle this heap of conceptual substitutions before it starts to smell.

Sperry claims that a corporation taking a portion of the profit “steals” from the worker in exactly the same way that the state takes taxes. “There isn’t much difference between state taxes and corporate levies,” he writes. But if we examine this issue more closely, we will realize that the difference between private companies and a stationary bandit is like the difference between consensual sex and rape.

In the first case (the market), you voluntarily sell your time and skills for an agreed sum. If you don’t like the terms, you stand up and leave. You look for another buyer for your labor or start your own business. In the second case (the state), guys with clubs come to you and say: “Give us 40% of what you’ve earned, and we might build you a road. Or a palace for our leader. Or bomb someone on the other side of the world. And if you don’t give it, we’ll put you in a cage.” Feel the nuance? In Sperry’s world, there is none. For him, the voluntary surrender of part of the profit in exchange for a guaranteed salary and the absence of risk is the same as the forced seizure of funds under threat of violence.

Next, Sperry scares us with horror stories about “wild capitalism,” the United Fruit Company, and the shooting of workers. He forgets (or intentionally omits) that the United Fruit Company and other “banana kings” did not exist in the vacuum of a free market. These were privileged monopolies fed by the state. Who gave them the land? Local governments. Who sent US Marines to suppress riots when local petty tyrants couldn’t handle it? The US government.

This is not a “free market”; this is crony capitalism in its purest form. When a corporation merges with state power, it gains access to “legalized” violence. Libertarians oppose any initiation of violence, whether by a private army or a state guard. But history shows that the most massive killings and the largest Gulags were always organized by states, not by chair manufacturers.

The passage about “corporate taxes” in the form of gyms and cookies deserves separate laughter. He claims that the corporation decides for you where to spend the profit—on your fitness or in your pocket—and that this is the same as state distribution. But a logical error is immediately apparent in such reasoning. This is called “competition for talent.” Conscious people choose an employer not only by the figure on the payroll but also by the conditions. Don’t like the fitness and want cash? Go where they pay more in cash. The market offers options. The state offers no options. You cannot tell the tax office: “Guys, I don’t need your free healthcare and police, give it back in money, I’ll buy services from private providers myself.”

Sperry leads us to the thought: “Everyone will always steal.” This is a philosophy of learned helplessness. “Relax and enjoy yourself while you are being raped with a velvet glove, otherwise they might use a gauntlet.” We, on the other hand, say that violence is not the norm and we propose solutions. Any taxes are robbery. Any regulations are a restriction of the freedom of conscious people. And the fact that the stationary bandit tries to buy our loyalty by throwing us bones from the master’s table in the form of “social welfare” (bought with our own money, but with a wild commission for bureaucrats) does not make him a benefactor.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Man to man, wolf? Why we were wrong in assessing the wolf’s nature.

Sometimes circumstances develop such that superficial and inaccurate representations of something become deeply ingrained in people’s minds. Thus we obtain expressions like “one person to another is a wolf,” which implies that the wolf is supposedly a creature extremely selfish, hostile, and aggressive towards its own kind, and people are similarly no different from wolves. Wolves are compared to many bad things in general. For example, someone even might call authoritarian political leaders wolves for their lies, sinister nature, bullying other people and psychopathic indifference to their pain. However, reality is sometimes far from what is commonly believed.

In fact, if you carefully study the behavior of wolves in natural conditions, you can understand that their social organization is more cooperative than hierarchical. The organizational structure of wolf societies is more like a circle than a pyramid. Games and mutual support bond them together, but not hostility and competition for dominance within the pack. Wolves cannot actually be called merciless and antisocial creatures.

We were all told that there is some “alpha male” in wolf society who does not occupy his position to the last degree due to aggressive domination. However, in fact the display of aggression by leaders of packs towards their subordinates is very rare. And generally, violent hierarchies of dominance in wolf societies arise only when unfamiliar individuals are placed together in one closed enclosure, while observations of wolves in their natural environment completely disprove the myth of a single, most aggressive “alpha male.”

We can also recall the work of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who in his works, especially in his article “Morality and Weaponry,” found that wolves have an inhibitor of violence that is activated in one of the fighting wolves when demonstrating to another wolf submissive postures or vulnerable parts of the body such as the neck or abdomen. Observing this, the stunned aggressor loses the ability to continue the attack. And another ethologist, Jason Badger, once managed to infiltrate a wolf pack and observe their lives very closely. Among other things, he noted that overly aggressive individuals were simply expelled from the pack.

As we see, in natural conditions aggression among wolves is not encouraged. A wolf who is merciless to his relatives and ready to harm them for his dominance may only expect success in the conditions of a cell from which one simply cannot escape. And the cruelty and violent hierarchy that exist in human society are likely possible only because it has also been driven into “state cells.” Of course, the natural state of affairs should not be like this, and the expression “man is man’s wolf” should mean friendship and cooperation, not enmity and violence.

Judgment Night in Reality: What Will Be the World Without Laws for One Day?

Представьте, что однажды все законы были отменены, хотя бы на один день. Как именно поведут себя люди в таких условиях? Кому-то сразу может представиться сценарий «Судной ночи», в которую многие отправятся насиловать, убивать, мстить обидчикам или просто устраивать хаос ради развлечения. Наверняка к такому выводу придут сторонники позиции «обезьяны-убийцы», полагая, что человек является жестоким и кровожадным существом, которое от совершения насилия, по так называемой теории сдерживания, остановит только существование закона, угрожающего наказанием. Но что произойдёт на самом деле?

Таким вопросом в 2020 году задались несколько исследователей из Международного университета Флориды. Они решили провести опрос среди 500 американцев касательно того, с какой вероятностью они бы стали совершать преступления, если бы один день в году это было легально. Конечно же, заведомо было понятно, что какая-то часть опрашиваемых даст положительный ответ, поэтому они ещё и решили выяснить, какие именно черты личности побуждают к подобному выбору.

Результат вышел следующий: только 18% людей заявили о готовности поучаствовать в «Судной ночи», если предоставить им такую возможность. Это сразу же опровергает идею, что закон является основным или единственным существенным фактором, предотвращающим преступность. По крайней мере для большинства людей он не настолько важен, как другие факторы, иначе по теории сдерживания можно было бы ожидать согласия почти от всех участников. Мало того, было выяснено, что большая вероятность согласия на участие в подобном в определённой степени связана с низким самоконтролем, а также, уже в существенной степени, с наличием у человека черт психопатии, таких как бессердечие и эгоцентризм.

Другие исследователи из Тилбургского университета в этом году опубликовали материал, в котором они решили воспроизвести и дополнить результаты предыдущего исследования, опросив 865 человек. Они отметили, что ранее не проводилось разделение на конкретные преступления, опрашиваемым задавался только один вопрос касательно их желания поучаствовать в «Судной ночи». Поэтому теперь было решено также задавать вопросы про различные типы преступлений.

На первый взгляд результат оказался шокирующим – более 76% опрашиваемых признались в том, что при отсутствии легального контроля совершили бы как минимум одно преступление. Однако очень важно также посмотреть, о каких именно преступлениях идёт речь. Например, в готовности украсть вещи первой необходимости признались 50% людей, а украсть деньги или проникнуть на какую-нибудь территорию, куда им нельзя – по 45% людей. Около 33% выразили готовность нарушить правила вождения, а 28% – попробовать запрещённые вещества. Всё это было обозначено как незначительные преступления.

And as for serious crimes? The result turned out to be completely different here. Only 4% of those surveyed expressed a willingness to kill someone, and approximately 1-2% answered questions about sexual assault, kidnapping, hate crimes, and other acts of serious violence. The contrast is glaringly obvious!

Of course, the number of people who wanted to commit at least one crime was much larger than the researchers expected; it usually involved nonviolent minor offenses. At the same time, those ready to commit violent crimes could be counted on their fingers – and typically these were individuals with high scores on psychopathy traits.

Researchers conclude that law and criminal penalties play a key role only in preventing minor crimes. But for violent crimes requiring a person to cross all moral and social norms, this is no longer such an important factor; and if it can be truly decisive for someone, it’s only for a small percentage of the population with high psychopathy scores.

This once again reminds us – in normal circumstances, a person still possesses a strong internal mechanism of inhibiting violence.