On what logic is the state social system? In four situations, we will look at what it is like with the functioning of the social system and who actually makes money from it. Is it a recipient of social assistance, a payer, or someone completely different?
Imagine this situation: you meet a beggar on the street. This beggar will try to smile at you, maybe play the accordion, he's nice and - he'll ask you for some duck.
You can give it to him, but you don't have to. But if you give it to him, it is certainly a respectable act. You can be happy - you helped him. The beggar is happy for you - you helped him. Everyone is satisfied.
And now imagine a second situation: you meet a beggar on the street. This beggar he pulls out his pistol and points it at you. He shouts, "Money or life!" In order to preserve your life, you give him the money you have with you. Is it a respectable act? Not. I personally would be sorry for you - being robbed like this. Would you be happy about yourself? Why should you? How will you remember that beggar? Will you be glad you gave him the money? That beggar will be for you first a beggar or a thief?
imagine the third situation: you meet your father on the street, he has a baby with him. The child is about ten or twelve years old. Father begging. He will come to you and kindly ask you for a crown for his children - and you will give it to him. Your father is grateful to you. Everyone is satisfied - You, the child and his parents. Everyone helped each other.
imagine the fourth situation: you meet your father on the street, he has a baby with him. The child is about ten or twelve years old. But the father does not beg - he will come after you and point a weapon at you. He shouts, "Money or life!" You throw him your wallet - he grabs it in a flash and runs away with the baby. You might think - poor baby, that's how he's used as a hostage! That's how his parents abuse him! Who will be the bad guy in this situation - you, the child or his father?
The first and third situations are similar in some ways - you were in the position of a donor, a voluntary donor. There was a "charity event", charity, voluntariness, against which nothing can be objected. Everyone came out of this "event" satisfied.
The second and fourth situations also have something in common - you were in a robbed position. There was a theft. There are many objections to this action - you are the one damaged, you have to defend yourself.
Does the situation change that you are a banker, waitress, cashier, driver…? It doesn't change. You're just as robbed.
The fourth situation is analogous to the functioning of the state social system. The father is in the place of the father, in the place of the child is any recipient of benefits. Any recipient of benefits is a hostage of the state apparatus, any "social tax" payer is robbed. The bad guy it is not so much the hostage as it is you, but rather the one who is actively carrying out this activity - and thus there is a "father", that is, a state.
If the goal of politics is to maximize its power, it is in its interest to have as many hostages as possible so that under the guise of their "children's faces" it can rob others. However in third world countries, the most successful are the beggars who have as many under them as possible children. Justified by his hostages, he is not afraid to set the barrel on you - he knows that you will not defend so much. After all - what if a stray bullet from a fight hit a child, you would still be the killer.
You can argue that this is not the case - that "the state does not aim the main weapons at you". But then I have one piece of advice for you: Try to stop paying the state social tax by saving yourself on your own in worse times. Sure, the originally intended goals could have been the most spectacular, but the only thing that's really happening is what's real.
gun for gun and artificial "poverty"
It is therefore absurd for some to defend the state social system by saying that "it prevents us from being attacked by the poor on the streets" - the state social system is nothing more than transferring this possibility from street thieves to the state. The state social system is thus the same theft, only on a much larger scale, with a more thoughtful and more polished facade.
However, the victim of the whole machinery is not only the robbed, but also the child, hostage. Each recipient from the social system is just the system itself (which is financed by labor taxation) further maintained in its misery. The whole system only helps him to stay on just as badly, and the hostage itself poses obstacles to further growth and development. It makes sense, if by chance the poor man "got rich" and came out of his Plato's cave, he could see what it really was. A politician would lose power and support.
However, the whole thing is many times worse in that There is protection from a street thief. Not before the state, state power and state law.