What kind of state do I want?

Many people have already asked me this question. So I present an answer.


I would like to wake up one morning in the free world. A world where I will decide mainly about my job and my salary. A world where it will be purely at my own free will, what option will I choose in my decision. To a world that will not limit me.

I don't want to be a state limited in the choice of options.

I don't want to be forced by the state to subsidize incompetent entrepreneurs.

I don't want to be forced by the state to participate in thefts sanctified by law.

I don't want to be forced by the state To do this, pay for poor health care.

I don't want to be forced by the state to pay for poor social security.

I don't want to pay incompetent officials.

I don't want to standwho takes my money.

So what do I want? The state is robbing us of our money. He takes them "for our good." Is an anonymous official or MP smarter than me? How can he prove it? How can I trust that he will make a better decision about my money than I can?

The state does not decide our money better than we do. The official decides on money that is not for him or for him. He doesn't care where they go.

Politicians, on the other hand, are under a lot of pressure from interest groups. Instead of deciding on laws, legislators decide more about who we will subsidize from our pocket. Without wanting to. And the more money the legislator has at his disposal, the more dangerous his position is for our pockets.

I want to standwhich leaves me free to choose.

I want to standwhere me and everyone else decide for themselves who is effective and who is not.

I want to standwho will protect me and others from theft and injustice.

I want to standthat will allow me to pay for quality medical care.

I want to standwhich will allow me to ensure quality for worse times.

I want to standwhich I will be able to trust.

I want to standwho leaves me my money.


  1. This would be anrchee, anarchy can't work (people prefer predictable violence to unpredictable violence - they would rather create totalitarianism than stay in anarchy). I am in favor of most of these ideas, however:
    The state must maintain a certain monopoly and ensure the defense of citizens (police and army) and the rights (unchanging rules ensuring freedom) of citizens. The question of the size of the army is debatable (personally I would be for fewer soldiers and more technology, including nuclear weapons), the police can be set up at the regional level, the laws are supposed to be only basic, but some money is simply needed to maintain the system.
    Anarcho-capitalism is a nice idea, but some people simply cannot afford protection, we cannot defend ourselves against an attack by another state without a state-backed army, and more importantly, without a rule of law, no system has a chance to survive.

  2. "I want a state that will protect me and others from theft and injustice."
    "I want a state that leaves me my money."

    This contradicts itself, because not even a chicken burrows for free.

Comments are off.