The logic of the social system

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?

Indian Children (AP Photo M.Lakshman)
Indian Children (AP Photo M.Lakshman)

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.


  1. Citizens pushed away from interfering in their public affairs are presented with a bright and bright future by representative institutions. The opposite is true.

    Citizens of a stolen state will be saved only by a functioning shared democracy without the existence of a president, parliament, government and representative institutions. Instead of the office of the Government of the Czech Republic, an official cabinet may suffice, without the influence of political parties. The institute of the President of the Republic is a complete relic. Replace Parliament only with the Senate of the Czech Republic. All non-consensual decisions in the state will be made by direct voting of citizens at local, regional and national levels, either by voting by those present or by sending a voting sms or e-mail (e-democracy). The party has become a government and that is wrong.

    To carry out the will of the citizens, it is necessary to create the conditions so that the power to implement the proposals is created only by the vote of the population. The official government cabinet will only perform the task precisely with the officials in the definition, as it would under the baton of politicians. It should be possible to check the activities of the cabinet online. Such a democracy could be three-tiered, local, provincial, national. Every citizen should be able to submit proposals, because everyone has a share of power, otherwise things are resolved in the agreed usual way. If the proposal does not reach the required number of votes, proceed according to plan. Foreign policy is based on consensus and the constitution of the population, contradictions or other proposals are discussed on the basis of the number of votes. The investment plan is created from the needs plan. The needs plan will arise from discussions and proposals of the population or the senate, associations, etc. It is a system, a machine for the exercise of the will of the people. A real tool of democracy.

    PS Have you heard that people are a stupid stupid crowd that can only be run by party secretariats? And have you heard that the one who likes you best is not you, but the party? :-)))

  2. Will the man on the ice help you in solidarity if I point a gun at him and force him to help?

    Regardless of the fact that the state has no other money than what it takes or receives from someone. The state does not even have a wind on its own, it is a beggar. All those "public goods" thus arose from the money collected or by apparent theft (nationalization).

  3. The basic assumption in comparison is beggar = state and owner of money = citizen,
    because the state manages general property (roads, environment, education, judiciary, police, health care, waste management, etc.), which the citizen has already partly consumed (to get to the level of making money at all) and partly will need in the future . By no means is he at the level of a beggar. Bismark has already introduced state levies to secure the citizen retroactively in the event of a certain shortcoming.
    You can't count everything in a person's life just for money. Take a different situation - you will fall on the ice and break your leg. Why will a passerby help you and maybe smear your car with blood, but take you to the hospital? Because he assumes that another person would help him in a similar situation. Human solidarity should simply work. Of course, there are those who would pretend not to see a wounded person, but those, even if they were self-rich, belong morally to the bottom. Similarly, those people who find it difficult to give a relatively small "percentage" of their income should be ashamed in favor of things that everyone needs. And if the "percentage" given is a higher amount, they should be all the more ashamed of their greed (sometimes even greed), because without the surrounding human community they would not be able to earn (goods and services must be bought, distributed, etc.)

  4. Lafi:
    "If I am not mistaken, the constitution should serve to limit the tyranny of the majority (democracy). …. Direct democracy has not yet reached us, and it looks like a big delay. "
    Direct democracy is NOT the tyranny of the majority ????? Why isn't it?

  5. Lafi: And what would direct democracy help? That would not prevent the "tyranny" of the majority. The Constitution is a brake, but if it can be changed, it is very dangerous in the case of a strong majority.

  6. If I am not mistaken, the constitution should serve to limit the tyranny of the majority (democracy). The misfortune for us is that it is easy to change in the Czech Republic literally by several elected, but paid representatives. Direct democracy has not yet reached us, and it looks like a big delay.

  7. cover: that's exactly what is the fundamental problem of democracy, that is, two wolves and one sheep decide on the basis of a democratic vote what will be for dinner.
    It is no coincidence that in democratic systems the power of the state and the redistribution of wealth is constantly growing, because the majority of the poor will always want the money of the richer minority. cannot democratically exterminate a minority, or that a majority cannot rob a minority). Such a boundary should be at the level of the so-called natural rights of man (even if brought to the extreme, the state will always violate natural rights, so the extreme situation is a free society without a state)

  8. kaktusak: expropriation also had great support in society. The exemplary punishment for Horáková also had great support. Hitler also had great support - even so much that he won the election. If you meant your sentence as a statement of a rather unscrupulous state - that is, that manipulated people enforce some evil - then of course I have no objection. But if you meant it the way it sounds, think of the definition of democracy as "a state in which two can vote to rob and assassinate the third in a completely legal way" - because that's exactly what you do then.

    And by the way, the author, there is a significant difference between "theft" and "robbery." Theft means that someone will rob you of your property without your knowledge - the wallet will disappear, but you will not notice it. On the other hand, robbery means that someone robs you of that property using violence - ie you not only notice it, but you are forced to cooperate under threat. Of course, the state does not steal, but robs.

  9. kaktusak, david> I recommend reading Charles Murray's book Too Much Good, in which he tries to show from hard data from the USA from 1950 - 1980 that after the introduction of social programs in the mid-60s, poverty reduction almost stopped and this situation continues to this day… It shows that these programs work exactly the opposite, ie they create poverty chud

    "It is right for the state to collect money from people and help the poor for it. This rule has great support among citizens and will therefore be maintained. "- if someone does not support it, then they have no choice… then it is nothing but theft…

  10. From my point of view, you have released a crazy idea into the world. I think it would be very instructive for you to look at countries where no state social system works. You would need training in the style of "prince and the poor."

  11. The company sets the rules. Those who don't like it can try to change the rules, break them, or go somewhere else.
    It is right for the state to collect money from people and help the poor for it. This rule has great support among citizens and will therefore be maintained.

Comments are off.