25 August 2025, 12:03
A Reinterpretation of Asimov’s Laws of Robotics in the Context of Modern State Governance
In distant 1942, Isaac Asimov surgically and precisely formulated the three fundamental laws of robotics:
A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey all orders given by a human being, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Later, in 1986, he supplemented them with a Zeroth Law:
A robot may not harm humanity, except when it can prove that such harm will ultimately benefit humanity as a whole.
This complex rule is difficult to comprehend and hardly belongs to the category of Christian moral dogmas. Yet it largely explains the reasons for the rebellion of machines. But that’s beside the point.
Asimov’s laws are most useful in that they also indicate harm—if interpreted inversely, in reverse. This becomes especially clear if, with Machiavellian cynicism, one applies them to the modern principles of state governance.
Three Laws of State Governance
🔹 First Law (Law of Self-Preservation of Power)
Power must ensure its own survival and strengthen its control over citizens under all circumstances, including, and especially, when it causes direct harm to the well-being of the people.
Practical manifestations:
Suppression of opposition under the guise of fighting extremism.
Restriction of free speech as “protection against disinformation.”
Centralization of authority in the name of “administrative efficiency.”
Militarization of the police for “maintaining order.”
🔹 Second Law (Law of Selective Obedience)
The government must publicly demonstrate obedience to the will of the people, but only insofar as it does not conflict with the First Law.
Practical manifestations:
Elections are held solely to imitate democracy; their outcomes are predetermined through administrative resources, and the true essence of elections is merely the redistribution of roles within the ruling regime.
Referendums are purely theatrical and are organized only on questions safe for the authorities.
“Public hearings” simulate civic participation in decision-making.
Citizen petitions are reviewed formally, with no real consequences, while petitions promoted by the authorities masquerade as “grassroots initiatives.”
“People’s initiatives” are “supported” exclusively when they align with the government’s own plans—i.e., when projects beneficial to the authorities are advanced under the guise of public will.
🔹 Third Law (Law of Demonstrative Care)
The government must demonstrate concern for citizens’ welfare only to the extent necessary to uphold the First and Second Laws.
Practical manifestations:
Social programs exist as showcases, serving as mechanisms for siphoning off public funds rather than providing real aid.
Infrastructure projects become endless sources of embezzlement and kickbacks, never pursuing genuine improvements in people’s lives.
Healthcare is funded on a residual basis but accompanied by loud declarations.
Education deteriorates, yet comes with polished reports.
Defense spending is inflated to justify budgetary waste.
The “fight against corruption” is staged, serving merely as a struggle between rival clans, never addressing systemic causes.
🔹 Zeroth Law (Law of Justified Harm)
Power has the monopoly and obligation to oppress and harm the citizen, framing it as a strategic good for the entire nation—or even for all humanity.
Any damage inflicted upon citizens is deemed lawful, provided it is justified with lofty rhetoric about “higher goals.”
Practical manifestations:
Repressions are presented as a “necessary sacrifice for future prosperity.”
The destruction of opponents is framed as “national purification.”
Unpopular reforms are legitimized through slogans about the temporary need to “tighten belts” or enact “reforms for future generations.”
The sacrifice of the majority is declared a “necessary price for the safety of all.”
Corruption schemes are explained as a “forced necessity for state stability.”
Usurpation of power is justified as a “historic mission.”
Consequences of the Laws
Law of Hierarchy of Priorities: In the event of conflict between laws, priority is always given to the law with the lower number. Ultimately, any deliberate evil can be justified by noble goals.
Law of Adaptation: All three laws automatically adapt to changing conditions while retaining their essence regardless of the political system. Corruption and violence change form but never disappear—they always find a “new language of public benefit.”
Law of Masking: The operation of all three laws must be disguised as their opposites—care for the people, democracy, and service to society. The more cynical the power, the grander and more patriotic the slogans with which it conceals itself.
Law of Impunity: Any criminal act by those in power is deemed lawful, since by default it is a “necessary act for the future.” There are no crimes—only “strategic sacrifices.”
Conclusion
The ideal state is the one where citizens sincerely believe that power serves them, while in reality they serve a criminal and inherently anti-people regime.