Who is the state for?

Many (not only) economic and political disputes are based on a misunderstanding of one thing - for whom is the state here and for whom are we here?

Government Office
Government Office

Is there a state for me, or am I here for the state? A state without citizens is losing its meaning. A stateless citizen is not a citizen, but he still exists - as a human being. Without citizens, politicians and the government apparatus have nothing to decide, because they should not stand. So the answer is simple - the state is here for us. It is not that "we are here for the state," but "the state is here for us."

If we agree on this basic simple basis, we can continue.

If there is a state for us - it is here our property for the state, or is there a state for our property? According to the above principle, the answer is simple - the state is here for our property.

So if there is a state for our property, does the state have the right to restrict us in our property? The answer is simple again - certainly not. If it were the other way around, it would be the same as if the company had the right to direct the customer to direct what he must or must not buy, and this is, of course, absurd.


However, if the state does not have the right to restrict us in our possession, the state has the right to collect taxes? The answer is simple - no.

You can, of course, argue that we pay state services in taxes. Those services thanks to which the state exists, thanks to which there is a "state for us".

However, taxes are a forced payment. Each of us is willing to pay a maximum of a certain tax. What does it mean? For example, not everyone wants to pay the taxes they set today. Some may want to pay more taxes, others may want to pay lower taxes. Well, since someone doesn't want to pay any taxes, the enforced tax is always unjustified and it must be protected by violence so that even those who do not want to do so can pay for it.

However, violence is a limitation of our property. Violence is murder - the restriction of the "ownership" of our lives, violence is theft - the restriction of the "ownership" of our property. Of course, we would then find many more examples, but let us return to the substance of the matter - violence by the state to enforce the payment of taxes turns the whole principle upside down. Due to state violence, the practice is such that we are here for the state. But that's not the way it should be!

For a "tax" to be justified, it would have to be voluntary. The state would become a classic offerer on the market, which would have to be oriented according to the requirements of customers - us. But who among you would voluntarily pay taxes today at the level they set today?

If you answer "I definitely don't" to the previous question, it means one interesting thing - our state gives too little for too much. It means that the state is inefficient - Probably less effective than you.

So if the state has no right to ask you to pay taxes, does the state have the right to force you to have an identity card? Does it have the right to force you to pay "health insurance"? Does it have the right to force you to pay "social insurance"? Of course he doesn't.

On the other hand - does the state have the right to pay for someone else's education with your money? Does he have the right to pay for foreign protection? Does he have the right to subsidize another's business? Does he have the right to regulate someone else's business? He has the right…

He doesn't. He does not have the right to collect taxes from you, so he does not have the right to dispose of your money in any way. The thief will remain a thief, let him do the best thing with money.



  1. Hello, congratulations to another person who revealed the biggest thief deception in human history. The first person to really say how things are.

  2. Lafi, you said it exactly. SERE me !!

    Bedo, I envy you for believing what you write. But that's good (for you). What's worse is that your kids will pay for it.

  3. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who are willing to give up great freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither freedom nor security."

    Every day I see us silently giving up one freedom after another, whether it is internet control, the need to submit a proposal to any office for approval to any assembly, equality before the law, the protection of everyone from everything, not to mention the banknote monopoly.
    As far as the big media are concerned, I believe that they are only tools of propaganda in the hands of their owners.

    If the current state of affairs suits most fellow citizens, let us not be surprised that we are gradually becoming slaves, even voluntarily.

  4. Philosophically and factually, your reasoning is completely logical. But try to tell the socialists who live off the taxes (and especially they - the "poor", which perhaps the socialism should take care of, will come to the last place - never)

  5. The state is here to serve all citizens, not just the rich, and I think it does. The fact that all social benefits and other state-guaranteed services are just bribes so that people do not rebel is, in my opinion, nonsense. The state could use much simpler and cheaper means to achieve this. There is no ruling class that has all the power in the state in its hands. Politicians are still arguing with each other and with other state bodies (courts) and entrepreneurs are competing.

    Although owned by the state, the media remain objective and 99% criticize the state. No propaganda.

    In my opinion, democracy is not just a facade, and anyone who gets enough votes in the elections will come to power. It doesn't work perfectly (eg disadvantage to small parties), but I think the basis is right.

    Otherwise, it seems to me that you probably live somewhere other than me. Of course, I'm not saying that the situation in the Czech Republic is ideal, but it's not really as bad as you describe it.

  6. bedo,
    1. The bourgeoisie. Democracy is just a facade. Anyone can get into politics, but not power.
    2. Those who do not respect the dictated rules, the state can use violence against it. And he does.
    3. The ruling class, instructed by history, cannot antagonize the majority of the population. That's why he sometimes does something "for people".
    4. The media, as a tool of propaganda, is usually, of course, directly or indirectly controlled by the ruling group.

  7. Paeris Kiran,
    Some states are weak or dysfunctional (Somalia, Haiti), so this is an ideal place to live for the enemies of the state.

  8. Paerisi
    in short, stop following the law and you are de facto stateless.

    Otherwise, could you somehow explain the last sentence? I didn't quite understand her. Is "freedom of citizenship" a term? I have looked at the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and there is no such thing as "freedom of citizenship". (I may have missed it) As far as I know, you can only become a citizen of a country that allows you to do so, so there is no freedom of citizenship. But that's just my opinion - I'm not sure.

  9. "You can go elsewhere at any time and cancel this" contract "."

    Mr. Bed, but I can't… I don't want to be a citizen of ANY state. However, the current system does not allow this at all.

    Freedom of citizenship is already trampled on by this principle in most of the world.

  10. Cactus,
    1. What do you mean by the ruling class? In my opinion, there is no such thing, because we live in a democracy and everyone can get into politics.
    2. What kind of violence does the state use against its citizens? In my opinion, none, if we are talking about the Czech Republic and most democratic countries. In the DPRK, for example, it is of course different.
    3. By bribe you mean social benefits? If so, these are quite different things.
    4. The state does not promote itself in any way (in our country) Election campaigns are used by political parties, not the state.

    you talk about the law all the time. The problem, however, is that the state itself makes the laws. According to them, ie according to the law, they are also governed in the collection of taxes. So you can say that taxes are immoral, for example, but by law they simply are.

  11. And to make matters worse, some want a common state for the whole of Europe full of nonsensical subsidies, quotas and exemptions that always serve them to SOMEONE and MOST DANGER.

  12. The state is here to serve the ruling class. That's exactly what he does. That is the reality, whether anyone likes it or not. He has the right to everything he can enforce. Of course, he uses violence against the controlled class. At the same time, he bribes her and thus ensures her loyalty. In addition, it uses propaganda, so that properly massaged members of the controlled class are so aware that they no longer need to be bribed, they act against their interests spontaneously.

  13. What exactly do you mean by the state being here for our property? I don't quite understand what you meant by that, but I don't think the state is here because of our property, but only because of us - whether we own something or not. I would also emphasize OUR ownership - the state is not here for one specific individual but for everyone, including children and pensioners.

    So if there is a state for our property, does the state have the right to restrict us in our property? The answer is simple again - certainly not.
    I think this answer is wrong. Of course, if you are an extreme right-winger, you may have a different opinion, but I don't think most people would agree. It would mean caring only for oneself, without any help to less fortunate individuals. For example, if you don't have very wealthy parents, you probably can't pay for a teacher and therefore study. This and many other things are paid out of taxes, and without them our society simply could not function.

  14. That's why I wrote the contract in quotation marks. But it is still true that if you think it is economically disadvantageous for you, you can go elsewhere at any time and cancel this "contract".

    To security: The market for it exists and I think the state is at its highest level. It offers you, among other things, security and you pay for it. If you think you would pay some organizations for protection, then I think you would return to feudalism, where the peasants paid their masters for protection.

  15. Bedo, stupidity. The conclusion of a contract is a voluntary act, I was not voluntarily born here. I didn't sign a contract with anyone.

    The second part - there is no demand for security?

  16. You're wrong. The state does not enforce or enforce anything after you - only you have concluded a "contract" with him by being born here. The state will protect you, help you in retirement, etc., and you also have certain responsibilities for that. If you don't like it, you can apply for citizenship of another country at any time…
    Otherwise, if it were as you utopianly imagine, ie voluntary taxes, for example, we would return to the structure of society to prehistory, there would be anarchy and only the right of the stronger would apply, because there would be no army, police, etc.

  17. But the state does not protect citizens, the state protects the territory in which these citizens live from other states.

Comments are off.