In connection with the recent publications from Bitarch regarding the construction of a non-violent society, I would like to recommend the anime series Psycho-Pass to everyone. Three seasons have been released, plus some side stories; so far, I have only watched the first.
The main protagonist of the series is a quasi-minarchist society in which an effective method for the prevention of violence has been developed, but not through genetic modification and BPN, as Bitarch suggests, but through the creation of a Big Brother capable of rapid diagnosis of tendencies toward violence. In all other matters, the state does not particularly interfere, although in the area of material production, it is unclear whether it is a market or socialism—under conditions of robotic abundance, it is easy to confuse the two.
The series is intelligent. It quotes Weber, Shakespeare, Pascal, Foucault, and discusses William Gibson and Philip K. Dick—in short, it is the kind of thing that our Ekaterina Schulmann would not be ashamed to recommend, although she prefers Pixar studio productions. It might be a bit difficult to watch at first; I got into it on my second attempt—but it is definitely worth the time spent.
Many believe that conducting effective campaigns to eradicate aggressive violence from society is impossible through the activities of volunteers alone. However, the eradication of violence is beneficial not only to those for whom it is a personal interest, but also to high-tech entrepreneurs and corporations. Now, we will examine why they will inevitably invest in such an initiative.
Before answering this question, we should examine the current state of affairs regarding Scientific and Technological Progress (STP). Three subsequent scenarios can be listed:
1) Rejection of STP. In this case, the limited resources of our planet will not be enough to provide for the needs of humanity, even if the population decreases and people consume less. Resources will still run out, just a bit later. Furthermore, Earth’s existence is allotted a limited amount of time. Rejection of STP means the extinction of humanity in any case.
2) Promotion of STP without the eradication of violence. But STP is inevitably linked to an increase in energy consumption and the creation of potentially dangerous technologies. It can be expected that in the future, this will lead to the mass proliferation of very high-capacity but dangerous energy sources and carriers, such as atomic batteries, or even antimatter. Obviously, in such a case, any person could cause a local, or even global, catastrophe.
3) The promotion of STP is inextricably linked with the eradication of violence. Dangerous and energy-intensive technologies no longer threaten people; on the contrary, they serve their development and the survival of humanity as a whole.
Obviously, only the third scenario can be acceptable. But what do entrepreneurs and corporations have to do with this? It’s simple. This scenario is also the most profitable for them, even in purely monetary terms. A very large fortune can be made from the sale of products based on dangerous technologies. Imagine for yourself how much profit the sale of flying cars with built-in nuclear reactors, DNA synthesizers (although this technology does not threaten a big explosion, it can be used to create some deadly virus), or private transport for space travel would bring?
Of course, some will say that such technologies are still far off. But it does not matter whether we are close to this or far. The moment when only one step remains toward such inventions will come sooner or later, and perhaps it has already arrived. Government regulations, and overall the fear of catastrophic consequences of introducing new technologies into operation, will become barriers to further progress. STP, which is critically important for the survival of humanity, will cease.
But what is also important, within the framework of the topic we are considering, is the loss of profit for entrepreneurs and corporations. They will not be able to sell what cannot be sold due to bans or fears. But they will not be able to give up potential profit. That is why we can confidently expect that the initiative to eradicate violence will find support among them; they will certainly invest a lot of funds into such a cause, because in the end, it will all pay off handsomely!
By the way, for the reasons listed above, it is not profitable for corporations to become violent agents themselves (for example, states), because this will inevitably lead to the use of dangerous technologies, which, in turn, will destroy their entire business.
Balance of Violence Potential (BVP), or more accurately, the uniform distribution of violence potential, is a certain state in society where any person is capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on another in a local clash. For simplicity, BVP can be viewed as maximum universal armament in society, where absolutely every resident of a given territory possesses a weapon for personal self-defense, for example, a pistol or even such ersatz weaponry as a blinding laser or a poison dart, preferably several units, so that it would be impossible to disarm anyone. It is assumed that residents of this territory have the opportunity (or rather an obligation in the form of a cultural norm) to possess weapons based on their physiological capabilities without any legal barriers (for example, age, citizenship, “criminal records” for activities undesirable from the state’s point of view) and financial need (volunteers and high-tech corporations will help the poor obtain weapons for free, just as vaccination is currently helped in poor countries, since this is profitable for them as well).
By what means will BVP reduce/eradicate violence? In a multitude of different ways:
1) Classical deterrence doctrine (“deterrence by punishment”) against rational aggressors. Knowing that the victim of violence can inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor, including even killing them, the aggressor will think carefully and decide that the benefit from violence will be less than the costs and will ultimately renounce violence.
There is a good example of such a model in the wild — porcupines. Cheetahs also frequently live in porcupine habitats, and they are hundreds of times superior in physical strength. But here is the surprising part: a cheetah can theoretically maul and eat a porcupine, but practically never does. There are occasional stupid individuals who decide to do so, but as a result, they either die or sustain such injuries that they never dare to try again.
2) Deterrence through denial (“deterrence by denial”) against invader states. The authorities of such a state set a specific goal — to conquer a territory and subjugate its residents. An aggressor can, of course, drop a nuclear bomb, but radioactive land without residents is worth absolutely nothing. As for the political elite of the aggressor, this is the end, because their own population will tear them to pieces for such an act. It would also create a dangerous precedent for the permissibility of using WMDs against civilians and legitimize the creation of strategic deterrent weapons by everyone capable of doing so (even now, a biohacker student is capable of multiplying a deadly virus and does not do so only for moral reasons).
3) The impossibility of creating and maintaining a violently hierarchical structure in a society with BVP. In such a society, the use of violence locally between people becomes unprofitable; accordingly, it is impossible to create and maintain a larger hierarchy of dominance (for example, a state) through the sequential accumulation of resources in the format of a “military hegemon.”
For example, an aggressor Vasya, having only a pistol, attacks Petya to use his resources to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle. With it, he can attack Sasha with doubled force, buying a tank with the resources taken from him. Using this tank, he can attack billionaire Vanya with tripled force, who can even afford serious security, and use the obtained resources to hire a large army to conquer the entire country. But in the case of universal armament (uniform BVP), Vasya would be destroyed at the very beginning of his bloody path.
Imagine what would have happened if “little aliens” in the 1960s had arranged a “rain of pistols” over St. Petersburg? A teenager Pynya, who was prone to violence from birth, would with a probability close to 100% have died in a clash the next day, and the question of how to deal with him now would simply not be on the agenda.
4) Forcing natural selection that removes those prone to violence from the population. Analyzing many different species, biologist Konrad Lorenz found an interesting pattern — in animal species with strong innate armament (for example, hedgehogs, poisonous snakes, and insects) that allows them to very effectively inflict unacceptable damage on any opponent in a clash, an innate intra-species morality of non-aggression developed (more precisely — an instinct of aversion to initiating physical violence against a member of their own species), because otherwise the survival of the species would be under threat. This happened as a result of the most violence-prone individuals being destroyed during acts of aggression and thus failing to produce offspring. In humans, such a morality of non-aggression did not develop because humans are not a naturally heavily armed species; the mortality of fights with bare fists without the use of any additional means is very low, therefore there was no pressure from natural selection to develop this trait. More precisely, such a neurobiological mechanism also exists in the species homo sapiens, but in a very weak form. But if BVP is leveled in society, the pressure of natural selection will strengthen it in homo sapiens to the level of heavily armed species, since carriers of gene variants that cause less aversion to the initiation of violence in humans will be removed from the population before they even have a chance to pass them to the next generation.
As a reminder, Bitarch’s main idea is as follows. The cost of weapons is decreasing, their destructive power is increasing, and then we extrapolate the graph of the number of weapons over time and find that after some time, one person will be able to destroy all of humanity with a simple flick of the wrist. To prevent this, Bitarch suggests tying people’s hands in advance; they will not be able to make simple movements with them, and thus humanity will be saved.
How to tie their hands? Universal armament is required. In this case, any attempt on another person’s life must lead to the instantaneous destruction of the aggressor. Under such conditions, rational agents will not dare to encroach upon anyone’s life.
But there is a problem: besides attempts on life, there are also encroachments on property, and property rights are a matter of agreement between people and can be disputed. Therefore, Bitarch postulates: using violence to protect one’s property is unacceptable. If you are asked to choose between your wallet or your life—you can choose life, and upon an attempt on your life, destroy the assailant. But if, for example, some squatters occupy your temporarily empty house, you’re screwed. In the best case, you can ask the utility workers to cut off their electricity. And even then, it’s unclear if they will accommodate you if the squatters are paying for the electricity.
How to solve such problems? “However you like,” Bitarch answers, “these are your problems, as long as there is no violence.” And he provides as an inspiring example a tale about how states, under the threat of violence, banned the use of DDT instead of leaving it to the market. With the help of the state club, they defeated DDT, defeated ozone holes, are defeating global warming and coronavirus, are defeating common sense—they will manage violence too.
Etatism is an intellectual disease in which a person places the presumed values of imaginary collective subjects above real individual values.
On the evening of September 18, near Krasnoyarsk, a group of about ten public activists relaxing at a libertarian-conservative camp Krest Kappelya was attacked by a similar number of rioters wearing balaclavas and armed with clubs. The camp participants were seriously beaten, and their phones, some belongings, and tents were seized and destroyed, and their passports were burned. The attackers did not hide the political nature of the assault.
One of those attacked managed to escape, take cover at an empty summer house, and contact the police. As far as I can tell, it is about a three-hour drive from the Emelyanovo district center to the camp site; therefore, the police made excuses until the last moment, unwilling to venture into the wilderness at night, and only deployed after the attack gained publicity. By the time the police arrived, the camp site was already empty, and by morning, details of the attack and photos of the beaten activists began to appear. They made their own way to the nearest settlement and from there were evacuated to Krasnoyarsk.
Information regarding exactly where the camp would take place was not readily available in open sources. On the camp’s VK public page, it was suggested to contact the organizers personally for additional information. Thus, potential attackers would have had to either organize surveillance or have prior data on the camp’s location.
I am posting all these details for the following understanding:
Your political activism can lead to an attack by paramilitaries.
In such an attack, it will be difficult for you to encounter an opponent who is fully prepared for combat. In this case, the attack happened in the dark on people sitting by a campfire with a guitar—an almost ideal setup for the attackers. Even if you happen to have a weapon with you, using it would be problematic, and after the attack, you will almost certainly lose it.
Meetings in deserted places are not conspiracy. If they set a goal to find you, they will find you, but you, conversely, will face problems when trying to escape from a deserted place.
What organizational conclusions can be drawn from this:
Small events for ten to fifteen people are better held in the city or, for example, at guarded recreation centers.
If you gather several dozen people, you can afford a tent camp, but then it is important to organize security yourselves. Sober and armed. Preferably with security credentials.
Local political paramilitaries, like the police, are tied to a specific territory. If you want a quiet, secluded vacation, go outside your region, and if you have federal notoriety, go abroad. Navalny was attacked when he flew from Moscow to vacation somewhere near Anapa, I believe. But if you have only caught the eye of the “E-center” in Krasnoyarsk, a trip to Tomsk will rid you of its attention.
VK is a terrible place for planning any kind of events. Total conspiracy is impossible, but increasing the cost of operational-search activities is within your power.
And generally, the idea of a camp is quite attractive…
After all, if I am just a small entrepreneur, a local gang could seize everything I have. And there would be an unthinkable number of such gangs due to the crude nature of humans and an unwillingness to work. Am I supposed to rely only on a gun in my pocket?
Tigrenok
I analyzed this topic in great detail in the script for the Libertarian Band video on the conditions for the stability of anarchy; you can even skip reading further and just watch the video instead.
If you happen to find yourself in an impoverished society where robbery is significantly more profitable than peaceful labor, then you, as a small entrepreneur, will indeed have to rely on both your gun and a good “roof” (protection)—you will spend a very significant share of your income on protection in one form or another, and the cost of your distrust toward everyone will be factored into the price of the goods you sell, which consumers will have to pay for. Thus, your life will be poor and dangerous, and you will be seriously outperformed in labor productivity by your peaceful neighbors—and it will remain this way until a certain critical mass of people in society crawls out of the swamp of poverty: money provides confidence in tomorrow, meaning it expands people’s planning horizon. In this way, they unlearn the principle of “you die today, and I’ll die tomorrow” and switch to a “let’s let each other live” mode.
In any case, regardless of your starting conditions, you will not be able to transition to a peaceful, stable, stateless society until you are personally ready to defend your individual freedom. That is, as you quite correctly noted, rely on the gun in your pocket. A gun in a safe that you do not dare use, regardless of what happens, will not help you at all.
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.
In discussions with subscribers, I occasionally encounter the opinions of “moral monsters” who believe that morality does not exist, that it is all “talk for the poor,” and that only a fool would forgo such an effective tool as physical violence. Such people, of course, deserve the harshest condemnation and ostracism, following the example of how anti-racism and anti-homophobia activists do it in the USA. But to convince the general public, it is still necessary to outline utilitarian arguments regarding the inadmissibility of aggressive violence in society. After all, deontological morality does not appear “out of thin air”; it is the product of repeated interactions between subjects in society.
To begin, let us note that a morality of non-aggression exists even in many animal species. As proven by the famous biologist Konrad Lorenz, an innate, inherited morality of non-aggression toward members of one’s own species is present in all animals with “innate armament” (for example, hedgehogs, porcupines, echidnas, venomous snakes). It became fixed in their DNA through natural selection, as individuals prone to aggression died in clashes without leaving offspring.
When do you think a moral prohibition on a certain behavior emerges in society? I assume the answer is obvious—when such behavior causes inconvenience, reduces the quality of life, or creates excessive risks for the majority of society members. In economic terms, the behavior of one subject creates enormous negative externalities for all members of society, even though such behavior may be very profitable for that specific subject.
We can find plenty of examples of such negative externalities if we look at world history. Here are some examples of such externalities:
1) Various environmental challenges (the ban on leaded gasoline, the insecticide DDT, freons in refrigeration units, and in recent years—internal combustion engines in some countries).
2) Problems of socially unacceptable risk (the closure of nuclear power plants in many countries after the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, the limitation of carbon dioxide emissions to reduce the risk of global warming).
3) Child abuse (the ban on the use of violence against children has already been introduced in most countries of the world). It has been proven that this leads to an increase in cases of drug addiction, alcoholism, and suicide, reduces their chances of success in life, and also leads to an increase in the average level of violence throughout society.
4) Animal cruelty—leads to an increase in the average level of violence throughout society.
As we can see, in all these cases, there is a conflict between the individual, for whom selfish dangerous behavior is profitable, and the entire society, which will bear the costs of that behavior. For example, for negligent parents, spanking a child is much easier than explaining in words why they should behave in a certain way, but the consequences of this act will be spread across society as a whole. The same applies to the use of a diesel car—it is cheap and convenient for the owner, but for other city residents, it means poor air and various diseases. Such externalities only begin to be seriously discussed when the harm from them becomes noticeable to a significant part of society.
The use of aggressive violence as a tool for achieving any goals (usually coercion and punishment) carries the greatest externalities that exist on Earth. Far, far greater than even the use of Chernobyl-type reactors or a coal-fired power plant without any filtration systems in a city. Here are just a few utilitarian arguments as to why aggressive violence is bad:
1) The average level of violence in society increases. If a stationary bandit (the state) uses cruel methods of coercion against its “serfs,” they quickly become hardened and no longer consider it shameful to beat a wife and child or take money and a phone from the weak. Constant shootouts and police chases lead to frequent injuries of accidental (unrelated) persons. The stress level of many people increases, leading to an increase in mental illness, suicides, drug use, a decrease in creative abilities, and a slowing of economic growth. For these reasons, in Scandinavian countries, the state now sends people to prison only for intentional murder, and the prisons themselves are more like health resorts.
2) The risk of a man-made global catastrophe or even the self-destruction of humanity. With the development of technology, the total harm that one person can inflict is constantly growing. If aggressive violence in society is the norm (especially state violence, as it is the hardest to escape), then sooner or later a person driven to despair will decide to use some dangerous technology as a doomsday weapon (DDW)—threatening to blow up a nuclear reactor or release a deadly virus. When a stationary bandit threatens to lock you in prison forever, there will be no talk of humanity; any means are good to be left alone, even the threat of causing a global pandemic. For society, even an infinitesimally small probability of such an event is unacceptable, as the potential damage would be simply catastrophic and could even lead to the extinction of humans as a species.
3) The productive development of the economy and quality of life stops because violence becomes the “objective function” of societal development. Instead of developing technologies and producing goods and services that benefit the majority of the population, society’s resources are spent on creating tools of violence. There is a common misconception that the “arms race” drives scientific and technical progress. This is true, but only over a very short period of time. The potential for violence can be viewed as an analogue to the concept of an “objective function” in mathematics. It strives toward a very specific value that practically does not change over time (or rather, is constantly decreasing)—inflicting unacceptable damage on the opponent (tolerance for violence has a constant tendency to decrease; accordingly, the threshold of unacceptable damage also decreases). This distinguishes violence from all other areas of human activity, in which the goal is the improvement of human life. Human needs constantly grow, and this provides a stimulus for scientific and technical progress, the emergence of new niches in the economy, and the growth of quality of life. However, a society that develops through an “arms race” comes to collapse, as already happened with the USSR. When the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on each other became available to all developed states, technological development slowed down sharply.
4) The formation of a military hegemon, a hierarchy of dominance, and, as a result—the collapse of the birth rate and the extinction of humanity. In Jack Hirshleifer’s research, a proven assertion is presented that the disruption of the uniform distribution of the balance of violence potential (BVP) in society leads to the emergence of a hierarchy of dominance (the state in human society is one example of this), and if the unevenness of BVP continues to increase—a global “military hegemon.” The danger of the long-term existence of a rigid hierarchy of dominance was identified in various animal experiments, such as “Universe 25.” The population simply died out due to a decrease in the birth rate. You will probably say now that “the conditions are different,” “a human is not a rat,” “an analogy is not an argument,” but look the truth in the eye and at the statistics of the total fertility rate in various countries of the world: in most countries, it is already below the replacement level (averaging 2.1 children per woman). There is also a certain dependence between the birth rate and the actual degree of state interference in a person’s life. In Africa and India, there may formally be many regulations in various spheres of life and high taxes, but in reality, the state is physically unable to reach every resident. But in Singapore, with exit visas and caning for dissent, the population for some reason is in no hurry to reproduce, despite even a high level of income. As in South Korea, where the level of personal freedoms, if viewed impartially, is not much higher than in the North.
Conclusions. As we can see, the morality of the inadmissibility of aggressive violence is not just someone’s “wish,” but a banal condition for the survival of civilization and even humans as a biological species. The rejection of this morality essentially means exactly one thing: “I am the boss here and I don’t care if all of humanity dies.” All normal people should have a corresponding attitude toward such a person—as toward the worst scoundrel, a new Hitler or Pol Pot.
In the entire developed world, society has accepted the inadmissibility of using leaded gasoline, DDT, the operation of nuclear power plants, and violence against children for utilitarian reasons. Next in line is violence by the stationary bandit (the state).
An interesting study by biologist Konrad Lorenz shows how natural “armament” in animals leads to the emergence of morality against aggressive violence. Similarly, restoring the balance of violence potential (BVP) in human society will lead to the adoption of the non-aggression principle (NAP).
There are many species whose armament is so devastating and whose methods of application are so lightning-fast that a real combat clash between rivals would end with the death of one of them, or even both. Take, for example, venomous insects and snakes. Therefore, it is not surprising that natural selection develops a prohibition against using weapons in intra-species clashes for such species. Ethologists, following Lorenz, call this system of instinctive prohibitions that limit animal behavior “natural morality.” It is stronger the more powerfully the animal is armed by nature. During a territorial clash, venomous snakes exaggerate their size by stretching out to see who can stand taller, swaying, and pushing each other, but they never bite, nor do they even demonstrate their weapons. Some species even threaten each other with their heads turned away. It is no wonder that not only ordinary people but also many zoologists mistook the tournament battles of snakes for mating dances.
Well-armed animals can threaten each other for a long time, and when one of them grows tired, it abruptly changes posture, exposing its most vulnerable spot to the opponent for a decisive combat strike. The moral prohibition acts on the winner like an electric shock: all their angry fervor evaporates, they turn away from the opponent and hide their weapon. Similarly, a proud boy, feeling that he will lose a fight, suddenly puts his hands behind his back, lifts his face to the victor and shouts: “Go on, hit me!” Unlike a wolf or a snake, a human may actually strike in response.
After analyzing many species, Lorenz reached a conclusion of stunning simplicity more than 50 years ago: a strong animal has strong morality, while a weak one has weak morality. In terms of its natural history, a human is a very poorly armed animal; unlike monkeys, humans cannot even bite properly. Therefore, humans initially have weak instinctive prohibitions and weak natural morality. An unarmed man cannot cause significant damage to another in a clash: one will tire of hitting, and the other can always run away. Innate prohibitions in humans correspond to this. But subsequently, humans began to create and improve weapons and became the most armed species on Earth. Morality, however, has hardly changed.
Shareholder Viktor Rafaelevich “Ethological Excursions to the Forbidden Gardens of the Humanities”
The artificial isolation of citizens in their apartments has already led to a surge in domestic violence. And while this is happening haphazardly and spontaneously worldwide—one cohabitant beating another—in Russia, the state is taking over the organization of domestic violence; it is seriously intent on defending its monopoly on violence, as it understands it.
For example, it recently organized armed robberies with breaking and entering targeting several members of the “Association of People’s Resistance,” as well as Vladimir Vorontsov, the lead of the Telegram channel Police Ombudsman. The former were released after being robbed and beaten. The latter was kidnapped and is still being held. The criminals chose an opportune time, while the entire country is locked in their homes and people cannot provide serious mutual support—aside from informing each other of danger and providing situational assistance in dealing with the aftermath.
However, classic non-state domestic violence has not disappeared either, and here civil society has slightly more opportunities, provided, of course, that the state does not throw a wrench in the works, as it loves to do. The Civil Society movement announced the launch of the Fortress project, under which it will provide temporary shelter for victims of domestic violence (alas, not from the cops), and the Open Russia movement announced that it would provide Fortress with organizational and legal assistance (which would include protection from the cops).
