In its reaction on the terroristic attacks of September 9th, 2001, the US-government threatened Afghanistan's Taleban with war in order to force them to extradite terrorist leader Bin Laden; the Taleban said that they would not surrender to this kind of blackmail – and so, they were removed from Kabul by means of military force. The rivalling versions of this story depend crucially on notions such as "terrorism" and "blackmail". Obviously you'll gain public support for your preferrend version (...) of the story if you are able to determine how those notions are to be used. So we had better reflect about their very meaning and about the moral implications of their proper usage. To gain a deeper understanding of our notions of "blackmail" and "terrorism" I shall propose an extreme thought experiment: Cassandra's plan. Cassandra foresees that sooner or later one of the nuclear powers might take the liberty to use atomic bombs. From fright she founds an NGO for blackmailing the statesmen who are in charge of nuclear weapons; she announces in public that all ministers and leaders of any government shall be hunted down, and executed, whose soldiers drop but one atomic bomb. (Cassandra's NGO keeps killer teams in constant training so as to increase the effect of the threat; this is being financiated from private donations). In my paper I shall raise two questions (without claiming to provide definite answers). First, would we have to say that Cassandra's NGO was a terrorist organisation? Second, would it be morally wrong if Cassandra blackmailed statesmen in the way indicated? (shrink)

Sit-ins, blockades, and lock-ons are common protest tactics. They work partly because continuing the operation or attempting quickly to remove activists risks injuring or killing them. Injuring or killing the activists is morally wrong, so the targets of the protest must (temporarily) yield to the activists. This appears to be a case of moral blackmail: The blackmailer makes it so that the blackmailed must either do what the blackmailer wants or do something morally wrong. Here, protestors appear to exploit (...) the targets’ tendency to be moral. Can such tactics be justified? I contend that they can insofar as such activists merely add further reason to what their targets already have decisive reason to do. The problem of moral blackmail, however, complicates the morality of primarily communicative civil disobedience. (shrink)

Disclosure of true but reputation-damaging information is generally legal. But threats to disclose true but reputation-damaging information unless payment is made are generally criminal. Many scholars think that this situation is paradoxical because it seems to involve illegality mysteriously arising out of legality, a criminal act mysteriously arising out of an independently legal threat to disclose conjoined with an independently legal demand for money. -/- But this formulation is not quite right. The real paradox raised by the different legal statuses (...) of blackmail threats to disclose and disclosure itself involves a contradiction between our strong intuition that blackmail threats should be criminal and some equally strong arguments, all of which depend on the fact that disclosure is legal, that blackmail threats should be legal. So an adequate solution to the real Blackmail Paradox requires us either to drop the intuition or to refute the pro-legalization arguments. -/- This Article will adopt the latter approach. It will explain why the six main arguments for legalizing blackmail threats all fail. In the course of refuting one of these arguments, it will also offer a novel positive justification for criminalizing blackmail threats: they should be criminal for the same reason that menacing, harassment, and stalking are criminal--namely, because they involve the reasonable likelihood, and usually the intent, of putting the victim into a state of especially great fear and anxiety. -/- Of course, one might object that disclosure itself is likely to have the same effect, if not malicious purpose. Yet, again, it is still legal. But this point shows only that we as a society value freedom of speech more than we value freedom from infliction of emotional injury. It does not show that we do not value freedom from infliction of emotional injury sufficiently to protect it when competing moral or institutional interests such as freedom of speech are not at stake. (shrink)

I develop an egalitarian account of what's objectionable about coercion. The account is rooted in the idea that certain relationships, like those of master to slave or lord to peasant, are relationships of subordination or domination. These relationships are morally objectionable. Such relationships are in part constituted by asymmetries of power. A master subordinates a slave because the master has more power over the slave than vice versa. Coercion is objectionable, I argue, because it creates such asymmetries of power and (...) so creates relationships of subordination. This account, moreover, illuminates what's wrong with blackmail, exploitation, withholding aid, and compulsion. (shrink)

The case for secrecy in voting depends on the assumption that voters reliably vote for the political outcomes they want to prevail. No such assumption is valid. Accordingly, voting procedures should be designed to provide maximal incentive for voters to vote responsibly. Secret voting fails this test because citizens are protected from public scrutiny. Under open voting, citizens are publicly answerable for their electoral choices and will be encouraged thereby to vote in a discursively defensible manner. The possibility of bribery, (...) intimidation or blackmail moderates this argument but such dangers will be avoidable in many contemporary societies without recourse to secrecy. (shrink)

A -/- abortion and infanticide/ academic freedom/ academics/ action/ act-omission doctrine/ addiction and dependence/ adoption/ advertising/ affirmative action/ age of consent/ age of criminal responsibility/ age of majority/ agent/ aggression/ agriculture/ aid, foreign/ AIDS/ air/ akrasia/ allies/ altruism/ American Civil War (1861-1865)/ American exceptionalism/ American War of Independence (1775–1783)/ anarchic social order/ anarcho-capitalism/ anarchy/ animal rights/ animal welfare/ apartheid/ apathy/ appeasement/ apriorism/ aristocracy/ arms trade/ arms race/ artificial intelligence/ arts and sciences/ assassination/ asset stripping/ asylum seekers/ atomism, social/ Austrian School (...) of economics/ authoritarianism/ authority/ autonomy, intellectual/ axis/ -/- B -/- balance of trade/ balance of power (international)/ banking/ bankruptcy, insolvency, and limited liability/ barriers to entry/ begging/ belief/ betting/ big business/ bigotry/ biodiversity/ bioethics/ black market/ blackmail/ blasphemy/ booms and slumps/ borders, political/ boxing and dangerous sports/ boycott/ bribery/ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)/ BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy)/ bureaucracy/ business cycles/ . (shrink)

The Advantages of Self-Sufficient Countries with Manageable Populations and Minimal Import Dependence -/- Introduction -/- In a world where globalization has connected economies, many nations remain highly dependent on imports for essentials such as food, energy, and industrial materials. While trade brings benefits, over-reliance on imports exposes nations to risks such as supply chain disruptions, inflation, and geopolitical pressures. However, some countries have successfully built self-sufficient economies, allowing them to thrive with minimal reliance on foreign resources. -/- Self-sufficient countries benefit (...) from economic stability, enhanced national security, environmental sustainability, and a higher quality of life. Examples such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland, Bhutan, and Uruguay demonstrate that strategic resource management, energy independence, and population control contribute to long-term success. -/- This essay will explore the key advantages of self-sufficiency, examine the strategies employed by these nations, and highlight the broader implications of reducing import dependence. -/- 1. Economic Stability and Resilience -/- One of the primary benefits of self-sufficiency is economic stability. Nations that produce essential goods locally are less vulnerable to global economic downturns, inflation, and trade disruptions. -/- Trade Surplus and Financial Security -/- Countries like Norway and Switzerland have built strong economies by focusing on industries that generate trade surpluses. -/- Norway: A leading exporter of oil, gas, and seafood, Norway earns more from exports than it spends on imports, ensuring a strong national economy. -/- Switzerland: With a diverse economy—banking, pharmaceuticals, and precision manufacturing—Switzerland remains stable despite global financial fluctuations. -/- Local Industry Growth and Job Creation -/- By minimizing imports, self-sufficient nations stimulate local industries, creating jobs and ensuring wealth stays within national borders. -/- New Zealand: Its agricultural sector produces dairy, meat, and fruit for both local consumption and global export, strengthening the workforce and financial stability. -/- Uruguay: The country invests in local renewable energy industries, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels while creating green jobs. -/- Protection from Global Economic Shocks -/- When economies rely heavily on imports, external crises like wars, pandemics, or financial recessions can cause severe economic disruptions. Self-sufficient nations are more resilient: -/- Switzerland’s banking sector thrives regardless of external turmoil due to its strong internal financial policies. -/- Iceland’s geothermal energy independence protects it from global oil price fluctuations. -/- 2. National Security and Political Independence -/- A country that depends heavily on imports is vulnerable to trade restrictions, geopolitical tensions, and supply chain disruptions. Self-sufficient nations reduce foreign dependencies, strengthening national security and political stability. -/- Energy and Resource Security -/- Self-sufficient countries avoid dependence on foreign energy sources, making them less vulnerable to political blackmail or economic manipulation. -/- Iceland generates 100% of its electricity from geothermal and hydro energy, eliminating its reliance on oil imports. -/- Uruguay produces 98% of its energy from renewable sources, reducing its need for foreign energy supplies. -/- Reduced Geopolitical Vulnerability -/- Countries that rely heavily on imports can be pressured by foreign powers through trade restrictions or embargoes. -/- Switzerland’s economic neutrality allows it to trade freely while maintaining independence from global conflicts. -/- Bhutan discourages foreign consumerism to maintain sovereignty and control over its economy. -/- 3. Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resilience -/- Reducing import dependence directly benefits the environment. Long-distance shipping, mass production, and over-reliance on fossil fuels all contribute to global pollution. Self-sufficient countries focus on local production and sustainability, lowering their environmental impact. -/- Renewable Energy Leadership -/- Norway: Nearly 100% of Norway’s electricity comes from hydropower, making it a leader in green energy. -/- Iceland: Geothermal and hydroelectric plants generate all of Iceland’s electricity, eliminating fossil fuel imports. -/- Bhutan: The country exports excess hydropower to India, reducing the need for fossil fuels regionally. -/- Sustainable Agriculture and Land Management -/- Food self-sufficiency is essential for sustainability. Countries that prioritize local food production ensure long-term food security and reduce carbon emissions from imported food transportation. -/- New Zealand’s farming industry provides dairy, beef, and fruits for domestic consumption and export. -/- Bhutan promotes organic farming, making it one of the most sustainable agricultural economies in the world. -/- 4. Social Stability and Quality of Life -/- Countries with well-managed populations and self-sufficient economies enjoy higher living standards, better infrastructure, and lower poverty rates. -/- Population Management and Resource Allocation -/- Self-sufficient nations carefully regulate population growth to match available resources, ensuring sustainable development. -/- Iceland and Bhutan have small, manageable populations, allowing them to provide high-quality healthcare, education, and infrastructure. -/- Switzerland’s strict immigration policies ensure that economic growth does not outpace resource availability. -/- Resilient Social Systems -/- Strong social welfare programs are more effective in self-sufficient countries because resources are distributed efficiently. -/- Norway: High-quality education, healthcare, and pension systems ensure a high standard of living. -/- Switzerland: The government reinvests economic surplus into public services, benefiting all citizens. -/- 5. Crisis Preparedness and Resilience -/- Global crises such as pandemics, wars, and economic recessions highlight the dangers of import dependence. Self-sufficient nations can respond effectively to crises without relying on external aid. -/- Pandemic and Food Security -/- During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions left many countries struggling to import essential goods. However, self-sufficient nations remained stable. -/- New Zealand’s strong food production ensured that its citizens had uninterrupted access to food supplies. -/- Switzerland’s well-stocked food reserves allowed it to manage shortages without external dependence. -/- War and Trade Embargo Resilience -/- Countries that produce their own essential goods are less affected by global conflicts. -/- Iceland’s fishing industry and energy independence keep its economy stable regardless of international instability. -/- Norway’s oil reserves and food security ensure long-term resilience against economic disruptions. -/- 6. Minimal Import Dependence: The Path to Sustainable Growth -/- While some level of trade is beneficial, excessive import dependence weakens a nation’s economic and political stability. The countries examined here have taken strategic steps to limit imports while maximizing domestic production. -/- Lessons from Self-Sufficient Nations -/- 1. Invest in Renewable Energy – Iceland, Norway, and Uruguay have shown that countries can function without fossil fuel imports through hydropower, geothermal, and wind energy. -/- 2. Prioritize Food Security – Switzerland, New Zealand, and Bhutan ensure food independence through agriculture and local food production. -/- 3. Control Population Growth – Iceland and Bhutan demonstrate that sustainable population sizes lead to better economic planning and quality of life. -/- 4. Develop Strong Local Industries – Norway and Switzerland focus on high-value goods that allow them to export more than they import. -/- 5. Encourage Sustainable Practices – Bhutan and New Zealand promote environmentally friendly farming and renewable energy, ensuring long-term stability. -/- Conclusion -/- Self-sufficient countries with manageable populations and minimal reliance on imports enjoy numerous advantages, including economic stability, national security, environmental sustainability, and a high quality of life. Nations such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland, Bhutan, and Uruguay demonstrate that renewable energy, food production, and population control lead to long-term prosperity. -/- As the world faces increasing economic and environmental uncertainties, adopting self-sufficiency principles can help nations become more resilient, independent, and sustainable. While globalization has its benefits, balancing local production with strategic trade is the key to securing a stable and prosperous future. -/- . (shrink)

In this article, I present a view on the future of nuclear war which takes into account the expected technological progress as well as global political changes. There are three main directions in which technological progress in nuclear weapons may happen: a) Many gigaton scale weapons. b) Cheaper nuclear bombs which are based on the use of the reactor-grade plutonium, laser isotope separation or are hypothetical pure fusion weapons. Also, advanced nanotechnology will provide the ability to quickly build large nuclear (...) arsenals and AI could be used in designing, manufacturing and nuclear strategy planning. c) Specialized nukes like nuclear-powered space lasers, hafnium bombs and nuclear-powered space ships as kinetic weapons. Meanwhile, the nuclear war strategy also has changed as the bipolar world has ended and as new types of weapons are becoming available. The first strategy change is that Doomsday weapons for blackmail will become attractive for weaker countries which can’t use ICBM to penetrate the anti-missile defense of the enemies. Secondly, the cheaper nukes will become available to smaller actors, who may be involved in “worldwide guerilla”. Cheaper nukes and a larger number of actors also encourage nuclear terrorism and anonymous or false-flag warfare. This will result in the normalization of the use of nuclear weapons in war and growing nuclear arsenals, now distributed between many countries. The third change of the strategy is the use of nukes not against primary military targets but on other objects, which could increase their effects: nuclear power plants, supervolcanos, EMP, tsunamis, taiga fires for global cooling, and even more hypothetical things like asteroid deflection to Earth. All these unconventional means and strategies of nuclear war could become available somewhere in the 21st century and may cause or contribute to the civilizational collapse and even human extinction. (shrink)

In this article a reference to Jacques Lacan’s ‘capitalist discourse’ will help highlight the bio-political workings of neo-liberalism in times of austerity, detecting the transition from so-called ‘debt economy’ to an ‘economy of anxiety.’ An ‘il-liberal’ turn at the core of neoliberal discourses will be examined in particular, which pivots on an ‘astute’ intersecting between outbursts of renunciation; irreducible circularity of guilt and satisfaction; persistent attachment to forms of dissipative enjoyment; and a pervasive blackmail under the register of all-encompassing (...) regulations and evaluations — all of which elevates the production of success up to the point of a production and consumption of failure. (shrink)

Better instruments to predict the future evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) are needed, as the destiny of our civilization depends on it. One of the ways to such prediction is the analysis of the convergent drives of any future AI, started by Omohundro. We show that one of the convergent drives of AI is a militarization drive, arising from AI’s need to wage a war against its potential rivals by either physical or software means, or to increase its bargaining power. (...) This militarization trend increases global catastrophic risk or even existential risk during AI takeoff, which includes the use of nuclear weapons against rival AIs, blackmail by the threat of creating a global catastrophe, and the consequences of a war between two AIs. As a result, even benevolent AI may evolve into potentially dangerous military AI. The type and intensity of militarization drive depend on the relative speed of the AI takeoff and the number of potential rivals. We show that AI militarization drive and evolution of national defense will merge, as a superintelligence created in the defense environment will have quicker takeoff speeds, but a distorted value system. We conclude with peaceful alternatives. (shrink)

The proposition that “promises ought to be kept is one of the most important normative ideas or value judgements in our daily lives. But what about “illegal promises”? That is to say, what about promises that are, legally or morally speaking, malum in se or inherently wrongful, such as voluntary exchanges that are inherently immoral or wrongful, like bribes, blackmail, murder, etc.? In short, what moral obligations, if any, do such promises impose? Although many of the greatest thinkers in (...) Western civilization have offered a wide variety of theories to explain the source of promissory obligations, it turns out there is a blind spot in this centuries-old conversation, for few theorists have given the problem of illegal or immoral promises any sustained thought. Nevertheless, illegal or immoral promises should be of theoretical interest to us because such promises may help us delimit the outer boundaries of promissory obligations. (shrink)

The practices of using hostages to obtain concessions and using human shields to deter aggression share an important characteristic which warrants a univocal reference to both sorts of conduct: they both involve manipulating our commitment to morality, as a means to achieving wrongful ends. I call this type of conduct “moral coercion”. In this paper I (a) present an account of moral coercion by linking it to coercion more generally, (b) determine whether and to what degree the coerced agent is (...) liable for the harms resulting from acceding to moral coercion, and (c) investigate factors relevant to determining whether we ought to accede to moral coercion. In so doing, I provide grounds for the intuition that we “allow evil to succeed” when we accede to moral coercion. (shrink)