Homo homini dominus

In this essay, I will provide insights into such individual qualities as freedom, responsibility, and understanding… and the main mistake committed by state systems.

I’ll start with a well-known riddle. Three men who wield great power are sitting in a room: a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a sellsword. Each of the men orders him to kill the other two. “Do it,” says the king, “for I am your lawful ruler.” “Do it,” says the priest, “for I command you in the names of the gods.” “Do it,” says the rich man, “and all this gold shall be yours.” Who lives and who dies? [1]

The generally accepted answer is that power lies with the person the sellsword believes holds the most authority. Power is a trick, a shadow on the wall; the larger the shadow, the greater the power its owner wields. The focus is on the three figures, who represent the state. But what about the mercenary, who represents society?

If we look at the situation in the “here and now,” then all participants have equal opportunities, and the mercenary’s motives are not supported by abstract gains and consequences. However, the mercenary is the only one who can perform a physical action. He is the only one who has a choice: that is, his free will is another weighing pan – and it is this that the king, the priest, and the rich man are attempting to “acquire.”

But how can one gain control of this valuable resource? If freedom means free choice, then choice gives rise to responsibility and a natural fear of the consequences. The most striking example here may well be entrepreneurs, their management decisions and the risks that arise in their lives.

Fear can make entrepreneurs avoid making the necessary decisions and taking risks to achieve their goals [2]. This hamstrings the development of their business and leads to decline. For risk-taking and struggle are the natural path to strength, while apathy is death. And the numbers confirm this: according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report (2024), the level of innovation in countries with high social tolerance for entrepreneurial failures (the United States, Canada, Israel) is two to three times higher than in countries with a risk-averse culture.  

But how do we arrive at this awareness of freedom? The answer lies in reflection. Reflection, or introspection, helps people understand their thoughts, feelings, and motives. All you have to do is create the necessary conditions for it.

What was the point of this introduction? There is, of course, a reason I stated that the king, the priest, and the rich man stood for the state, and the sellsword stood for society. After all, it is tempting to think that if one side is deprived of a real choice, if one plays on the fear or risk, instils apathy, then such a confrontation will not occur at all; there will be no threat of a knife, no devaluation of one’s own resources.

Now more than ever, when artificial intelligence composes texts, algorithms predict our desires, and technology promises to create a world of painless comfort, it seems that human willpower is fading into the background.

But this is a dangerous illusion.

As technology continues to develop, it is the individual, with their ability to choose and take risks, who remains the main driver of development, and not just a resource, as Margaret Thatcher once said [3].

Just as the entrepreneur operating within the presumption of risk control and avoidance is doomed to mere reproduction, so too does a society deprived of the “right to make mistakes” and barred from its discomfort zone lose its immunity to challenges and the ability to evolve. Freedom of choice, which necessarily entails responsibility and risk, is not a threat to the system. Rather, it is a source of its vitality.

But what now? States consolidating around common interests and increasingly united in their pursuit of predictability, risk forcing this key element into a sterile framework, which puts the brakes on progress.

And here’s the point: true stability is not the preservation of the status quo, but continuous development, because the outside world – everything that is beyond the concept of the state and our civilization – does not stand still [4]. Stagnation gives rise to crises that threaten any, even the most perfect, supranational system of power. Therefore, the main idea in long-term interests is to set up a kind of prize draw. Not by suppressing human potential, but by creating conditions (freedom responsibility, awareness), where it can produce explosive results.

How can this be implemented through international cooperation?

– Develop and launch a short module (36 academic hours) at partner universities within the SCO and BRICS. The purpose of such a course would be to develop responsible risk management competencies through case studies (from Steve Jobs to Marie Curie) and decision-making workshops. The pilot product could be launched at 20 universities in Russia, India, and Iran in 2027.

– Create an international competition for young people with the support of corporations (for example, Rosatom and Tata Group). The winning grant is not issued to projects with a “safe” business plan, but with a clearly defined, researched, and accepted risk area. Results are presented with an analysis of both achievements and mistakes.

– Develop an online community based on the Open Dialogue format, where participants from different countries, under the guidance of experienced entrepreneurs and psychologists, will analyse their decisions and worries, transforming experience into collective knowledge.

Expected cumulative effect of these measures:

– Based on data from similar programmes in the European Union (for example, Horizon Europe), we can expect a 10–15% increase in the share of graduates who will launch start-ups in the medium term (five to seven years). The unemployment rate in these cohorts could be reduced by 3–5% on the back of the creation of microbusinesses.

– In the long term (by 2035), we can expect a new type of “immunity” to develop, that is, the ability of the economies of the Global Majority to not only adapt to crises, but to use moments of uncertainty to make breakthroughs using accumulated human capital, accustomed to operating under risk. This will give a direct boost their global competitiveness.

– The systemic effect implies that “failure” will no longer be perceived as a social stigma, but rather a marker of experience, a key precondition for an innovative economy.

Will this actually happen? Current trends suggest a phase transition in the 2030s [5]. The preconditions for a positive outcome are melting away, and it is likely that the existing order will experience the problems described earlier in full, at which point the autopsy will begin.

But what if the title of this essay is missing a comma?