Max Parfeniuk

​How States Erode Morality ​👹 Erosion of Personal Responsibility The state often acts as a "universal caretaker" (the Welfare State), which removes the individual's duty to care for their neighbor. ​Before: Helping a poor neighbor was a moral act that strengthened social bonds. ​Now: "I pay my taxes; let the state handle it." The moral impulse is replaced by a tax receipt. When responsibility is delegated to a bureaucrat, it vanishes as a virtue. ​👹 Legalism: "If it’s legal, it’s moral" The state replaces the concept of "just" with the concept of "legal." ​This creates a society without an internal compass. People stop looking for the ethical choice and instead look for loopholes in the law. ​Result: Society turns into a group of people who don't steal only because they fear prison, not because they believe theft is wrong. ​👹 Destruction of Civil Society Institutions Morality is best calibrated in small groups: families, local communities, churches, and clubs. The state often displaces these groups, trying to become the sole mediator between individuals. ​When the state interferes in child-rearing or micromanages community life, these small groups atrophy. Along with them, the natural environment where moral values are passed down disappears ​👹Moral Hazard The state often creates conditions where immoral behavior is subsidized and ethical behavior is penalized. ​Bailouts: When big corporations make risky bets and lose, the state saves them with taxpayer money. This teaches the system that being responsible is unprofitable, while being reckless is safe. ​Inflation: By printing money, the state devalues the savings of those who worked hard and saved. This destroys the ethics of thrift and honest labor ​👹 Corruption as the "Norm" When the state creates too many impossible regulations, it pushes people toward petty deceit. ​When every citizen is forced to bend the law to survive or run a business, the moral barrier against serious violations erodes. "If the system lies to me, I have the right to lie to the system." This destroys general trust in society. ​👹 Monopoly on Arbitration By taking the exclusive right to decide who is right and who is wrong, the state suppresses natural reputation mechanisms. ​In a free society, reputation is everything. In a state-centric society, a certificate with a stamp matters more than a person's word. This allows people with "bad odors" of reputation to thrive as long as they remain loyal to the structure. ​Summary: Replacing the NAP with Force The state often violates the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) by initiating force (through taxes and forced regulations) for the sake of the "common good." When people see that the most powerful institution in the country systematically uses force to achieve its goals, their individual ethics begin to calibrate to that standard of force.

The Empire Collapse Cycle: 1. Hard labor & stable currency. 2. Ascendance & hegemony. 3. Printing money for "bread and circuses" (war and welfare). 4. Social rot and domestic turmoil. 5. Total breakdown or systemic reboot. How do you think where we are? 🤔

Chat with AI about NOSTR community 😁 Prompt: "Let’s chat about the Nostr community. I’ve been in this community for a month now, and I see that many Bitcoiners there are a kind of religious believers. They are indoctrinated in this religion and look a bit rigid and fanatical. For me, as a libertarian, Bitcoin looks like a solution, but I am more flexible and not so indoctrinated. I want Bitcoin to spread; I want more people to use it and understand its true meaning, but I don’t want to use slogans and affirmations to propagate this idea. What do you think about this? Don't you think it is a side effect of all revolutionary ideas to have such adepts, and that without these adepts, an idea could not spread quickly? Or is it more repulsive than attractive?" Answer: That’s a very sharp observation. The Nostr community is currently an epicenter for what is often called "toxic maximalism," and your sense of its "religiosity" has very real sociological roots. Let’s break this down from a libertarian perspective and the history of ideas. 🧐 1. Why does it look like a religion? ⛪ When an idea (like Bitcoin) becomes more than just a financial tool and starts being viewed as a means of survival or "salvation" from an unfair system (fiat), it inevitably picks up the attributes of a cult: Dogmas: "21 Million," "Not your keys, not your coins." Prophets: Satoshi Nakamoto (who departed, becoming a mythical figure). Rituals: HODL, Stacking Sats. Inquisition: Attacks on "shitcoiners" or anyone suggesting compromises. For many on Nostr, Bitcoin isn't just money; it’s a moral choice. This is where the aggression comes from: any other idea isn't seen as an alternative, but as heresy threatening the success of the "one true path." 2. Is fanaticism a "side effect" of revolutions? 🌪 You are absolutely right. History shows that most radical changes (from the Reformation to the Enlightenment) required a core group of "unwavering adepts." The function of fanatics: They create an "impenetrable core." When the price drops 80%, these "believers" are the ones who don't sell, ensuring the network's survival. They act as an immune system, repelling any attempts at centralization or protocol changes. The cost: The side effect is exactly what you mentioned—rigidity. They become a barrier for average people who are intimidated by complex slogans and aggressive rhetoric. 3. Attraction vs. Repulsion 🧲 There is a paradox here: To the outside world: It often looks repulsive. Someone who just wants cheap transactions doesn't want to join a "sect." For internal resilience: It is incredibly attractive. Fanaticism creates a sense of community and absolute certainty, which is vital for an asset with no physical backing. Your Path: The Flexible Libertarian 🗽 Your position—"Bitcoin as a solution, not an icon"—is much closer to classical libertarianism. A pragmatic approach (spreading through utility rather than affirmations) usually works better for long-term adoption. Ultimately, if Bitcoin truly is the superior technology, it should win because of its market advantage, not because someone shouted a slogan louder on Nostr. #nostr community #bitcoiners

Who is ur favorite Austrian painter? (other 90%) 😁 😆

"The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantity. They are pitiless masters, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit or vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people." 😉 Human Action - Ludwig von Mises

💯th anniversary of Murray Rothbard birth. Man who brought libertarian optic into my life. Thank you! ​"The only thing the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way."

​Why rent-seeking motivation leads to degradation The Psychological Aspect: The "Easy Money" Trap ​From a psychological perspective, rent-seeking motivation is a path toward personal degradation. ​Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation: Rent-oriented behavior relies exclusively on extrinsic stimuli (money, status, privileges). This kills the intrinsic motivation for mastery and creativity. When a person focuses solely on "schemes," their brain stops practicing real-world problem-solving skills. ​Erosion of Self-Esteem: Deep down, we feel the difference between "I earned this because I’m a top-tier specialist" and "I got this because I successfully tapped into a flow." This breeds imposter syndrome or, conversely, compensatory arrogance that masks an inner void. ​Hypertrophied Locus of Control: A rent-seeker depends on the system, the law, or connections. If the "gravy train" stops, such a person becomes completely helpless because they have forgotten how to create value in a free environment. ​The Austrian School (ASE) Perspective: The Economic Parasite ​For representatives of the Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard), economics is about a dynamic process of creation. Rent-seeking is the antithesis of the market. ​Lack of Value Creation: In a normal market transaction, both parties win (Win-Win). In the case of rent, it is a zero-sum game. The rent-seeker uses the state apparatus or a monopoly position to redistribute resources in their favor. ​Distortion of Price Signals: In ASE, prices are signals of scarcity and people's needs. Rent-seeking schemes (subsidies, licenses, tariffs) distort these signals. Capital flows not where consumers need it most, but where the mechanisms for accessing rent are best "greased." ​Opportunity Costs: This is the most critical point. The brightest minds, instead of inventing new medicines or technologies, waste their intellect on lobbying and legal manipulations. This is a colossal loss for humanity. ​Why it’s "Garbage" (Conclusion) ​In short: Rent-seeking is a bet on statics in a dynamic world. ​It doesn’t scale: Rent is always limited by the resource you are "milking." Real business and innovation can grow exponentially. ​It’s toxic for "karma" (Social Capital): Nobody likes rent-seekers. As soon as the political or administrative wind shifts, the rent-seeker loses everything, including their reputation. ​It halts evolution: The rent-seeker ceases to be "Homo Agens" (the acting man) and becomes "Homo Parasitus."

"For those who do not distinguish between Law and Legislation (meaning the commands of a group of people), it is difficult to imagine that Law can exist independently of the State. Meanwhile, Law is older than any state. The State has never truly 'created' its own law (it cannot do so by definition). Instead, it has merely utilized and distorted pre-existing norms for its own benefit. The Roman Law we are familiar with and still utilize today was not a creation of the state. Roman Law was 'jurists' law' — a system shaped by practice and maintained by professionals who were paid for their services. Similarly, for approximately 1000 years, the legal system of ancient Ireland operated through a specialized class of jurists known as the Brehons. While Ireland comprised between 80 and 100 independent jurisdictions (tuatha), the Brehon Law was common to them all. This system was highly sophisticated for its time, surpassing, for instance, English Common Law. Lex Mercatoria (Merchant Law), which we also use today, emerged in the Middle Ages. It was created by merchants themselves for their mutual interactions. Because feudal law was cumbersome and often based on fallacies (such as the prohibition of interest or the notion of a 'just price'), Merchant Law arose to govern their relationships. It ignored feudal superstitions, allowing for the swift resolution of conflicts in courts held at major fairs and trading cities. English judges, who formed a relatively independent caste, were the first to recognize the superiority of this law; to attract clients, they began incorporating it into their own proceedings. By the way, English Common Law is also an example of 'free law,' as it contains 'judge-made law' alongside statutes. This system could have functioned perfectly well without the statutory component altogether. From the book of Vladimir Zolotariev: 'Why fix what wasn't broken?'"

Four years ago today, the war in Ukraine began. I witnessed its start in the central part of the country, having left Irpin just two weeks prior. Around 5 a.m., we woke up to the sound of an explosion. Hundreds more would follow. The first months were incredibly intense. It was terrifying. Adrenaline was off the charts. I will never forget that sense of cohesion and mutual support. So much of it was voluntary. No one told anyone what to do. Everyone acted according to their strength and understanding. Everyone calculated the risks and made their own decisions. Those first four months were a model of grassroots, decentralized resistance. Then, the State began to spread its wings, and everything started to sour. Centralized planning, a monopoly state army, a strict chain of command. The war increasingly shifted from defending one’s family, home, street, and the local bakery into the defense of abstract constructs (the state, the nation) 500 kilometers away. Personal interests were replaced by propaganda and geopolitics. Back then, it was hard for me to grasp what was happening, but my intuition whispered that something was going wrong. At that time, I didn’t yet distinguish between society, individual interests, and the State. I thought the State would take care of things and do its best to protect me. How wrong I was. As the front stabilized and the war shifted from maneuver to trench warfare, things worsened. Under the pretext of an external threat and the need for "unity," the government began to drastically curtail rights. People found themselves trapped, feeling more and more like tools in someone else’s game. The military was turning into a "collective farm" of slaves - it had always been that way, but now it became glaringly obvious. Grassroots initiative and that "Cossack spirit" have been replaced by state propaganda and predatory, statist methods. Yes, motivated volunteers remain in the army, but they are now a minority and are no longer the ones driving the process. Yes, the ruzzian putins regime illegally attacked Ukrainian cities and people. They are bastards, and they can burn in hell. But we Ukrainians through our lack of understanding, our fear, and our slave mentality nurtured and submitted to our own Leviathan. It has begun to devour us, turning grassroots resistance into a war of one criminal syndicate against another. This was fueled not only by Ukrainians but also by EU bureaucrats and the US with their damn geopolitics. Entering the fourth year of the war, I am filled with sadness, bitterness, and disappointment. I paid dearly for my naivety. But there are also gains. I have become stronger, more resistant to state propaganda, and freer. There are many decent Ukrainians fighting on two fronts: against Putin’s predatory regime and against our own "parasites" in Kyiv. It is incredibly difficult to endure. Even if it’s impossible to stop the war because Putin doesn’t want to, Ukrainians must be given the chance to defend their property as they see fit or not to defend it if the price is unacceptable to them. Private armies, open borders, ending mobilization, the legalization of weapons, the reduction of state regulation and propaganda returning agency and that energy from the first days would help immensely. But this likely won't happen because humanity, and Ukrainians are no exception, is held captive by a religion called statism. So, it is what it is. I want this war to end as soon as possible. For people of goodwill, it brings nothing good. It only enriches psychopaths and other pathological scum. Like yeast, the state grows on war, penetrating your pockets, your mind, taking your time, your present, and your future. The only way out of this darkness is to attain personal sovereignty which is what I am doing, and what I wish for everyone. Freedom and dignity will win I hope they will win. PS. On a picture Molotov cocktails we were making as civilians in first days of war. #war #warinukraine #freedom #resistance

We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors 🌳

When I have problems, I think about what Jesus would do. Then I pretend to be dead and disappear for three days 😊

Political campaigning has started in Slovenia. Robinhood was the first to arrive in the mailbox 😁

War does not end when someone finally forces a victory, but when momentum runs into the limits of reality. War ends when guilt becomes visible rather than projected. War ends when the ability appears to see reality without myth. War ends when victims are truly acknowledged. As long as victims serve ideology, the war continues to speak through new people. War ends when the system stops demanding self-sacrifice. War ends when life becomes more valuable than a symbol. War ends when the living become more important than the idea. War ends when responsibility returns to each person where it belongs. War ends when people begin to understand and say, “We cannot go on living as if this were normal.” War ends when death is no longer justified. War ends when victims stop being considered “necessary.” War ends when the living gain the right to live without guilt. War ends when there is less pathos, more silence, more simple questions, and fewer “sacred” answers.

AI generated text but I decided to save it here. Engineered Stagnation: How Social Engineering is Eroding European Dynamism Europe, once the global epicenter of the most successful self-organizing systems in history—from the free market to the rule of law—is increasingly becoming the subject of a perilous intellectual experiment. This experiment seeks to replace the natural complexity of society with rigid social engineering. The prioritization of "the central plan" over "the spontaneous process" is leading to a systemic degradation of European institutions. 1. The Fatal Conceit of Centralized Knowledge The fundamental error of social engineering lies in what Friedrich Hayek termed "The Fatal Conceit." This is the illusion that a small group of experts or planners can possess the total sum of knowledge required to manage the lives of millions. In reality, essential knowledge—concerning consumer needs, resource scarcity, and innovative opportunities—is dispersed among millions of individuals. When regulatory bodies in Brussels attempt to standardize every facet of economic activity, they effectively disconnect the society’s information network. We are replacing a flexible Spontaneous Order (Cosmos) with a rigid, cumbersome Organization (Taxis). 2. Regulatory Paralysis and the Loss of Adaptability Social engineering in Europe has fostered an environment where stability is valued above development. The urge to "protect" the market from every possible crisis or error creates a systemic trap: The Preservation of Inefficiency: Excessive regulation and subsidies hinder the process of "creative destruction." Resources remain frozen in obsolete industries, stifling the emergence of new, competitive sectors. The Erosion of Feedback Loops: In a spontaneous order, a failure is a signal for correction. In an engineered order, failures are often masked by further regulations, which only deepens the underlying crisis. 3. Social Engineering vs. Innovation Innovation is, by its very nature, unpredictable. It flourishes where individuals are free to experiment and, crucially, to fail. The current European model, built upon the "precautionary principle" (where everything is effectively forbidden unless explicitly permitted), makes innovative risk prohibitively expensive. This results in a "drain of capital and talent": the most dynamic agents relocate to jurisdictions with higher levels of freedom, where order emerges from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down. 4. From a Living Continent to a "Museum Exhibit" The ultimate consequence of social engineering is the gradual transformation of Europe into a static system. While it remains orderly, safe, and aesthetically pleasing, it is losing its capacity for self-renewal. The dominance of administrative vision over individual initiative turns a vibrant continent into a museum exhibit—attractive to tourists, but unable to compete in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Conclusion: A Return to Rules, Not Plans To restore Europe’s vitality, a fundamental shift in the paradigm of governance is required. We must abandon the attempt to "construct" the outcomes of social development. Instead of thousands of pages of detailed directives, society requires simple, stable general rules of conduct. Such a framework allows the individual plans of citizens to coordinate once again through the price mechanism and voluntary association. True order is not the result of control; it is the byproduct of freedom.