The mystery party “Servant of the People” declared libertarianism as its doctrine. The basis of this ideology is a radical transformation of society through the provision of maximum freedoms and autonomy of the individual. Among the list of expected liberties includes the right to bear arms, the legalisation of soft drugs, a ban on the state to interfere with privacy, and the abolition of taxes and conscription. As an idea, it sounds attractive, but, as we know from history, the most interesting part begins at the stage of implementation.
I have never considered myself a conservative, and therefore, in general, I support the granting of all possible freedoms to citizens. However, I also clearly understand that the reverse side of this approach is an increase in responsibility for each member of society. As such, this requires fairly high public organisation. Is this something we have now? I doubt it. Of course, there is more than one way to achieve this. We could, for example, introduce these freedoms and wait until the only survivors left are those from Atlantis. For the strong, however, this kind of freedom is not terribly attractive, and therefore the question of such a fanatical stake, at least as far as I’m concerned, seems highly debatable.
To some extent, society can be compared to a social mechanism. And in this regard, I have one technical analogy. A few years ago, I was reading some interesting material about the development of a fundamentally new model of engines without camshafts. The Swedish company FreeValve (a daughter company of Koenigsegg, well-known for its creation of the hypercar) implemented the idea that instead of being tied to a specific static formula, new technology offers flexibility in engine operation. Not only does it sound simple, it is ingenious: the shafts are not needed since each valve is individually designed for individual work and are not rigidly connected with adjacent valves. Hence the name FreeValve. The developers claim that such a system has much greater efficiency, is far more environmentally friendly, and is better adapted to fuel use.
So why then has this technology not changed that which is less efficient and outdated? So far, experts have concluded that this idea is raw and feasible only on high-tech lines. Production requires exceptional quality control at all stages, including further operation, and what suits hypercars is not necessarily suitable for a regular vehicle as a means of transportation. Even the most courageous sounding experiments need to pass the test for correlation with reality. I, of course, do not think that freedoms can be rejected for security purposes or for any other imaginary benefits. I am only suggesting that radicalism often entails consequences, and a confrontational country, whose economy depends largely on international support, doesn’t often have the resources for such experiments without resulting in tragic consequences.
With all the attractiveness of direct democracy and unlimited freedoms, it is now strategically important to build and strengthen public institutions. Not separate states, but public ones, such that they include the voice of many, but reduce everything to the simplified idea of universal freedom. Ukraine, and here I mean all citizens without exception, needs to learn responsibility first, and then move on to experiments with freedoms. Otherwise, we risk being a teenager behind the wheel of a powerful hypercar, moving at great speed. And then it no longer becomes important how the engine is put together, because the danger in moving at this speed trumps all else.