Do you think that the state is an organization that provides services to its citizens? But what if it's the other way around?
What does today's democracy and state governance look like?
Although this question may seem trivial to us, it is absolutely crucial if we want to say what the state should or should not do, or if we want to shed light on why politicians are doing what they are doing.
What is a state? The state is a monopoly of power over a certain territory. Monopoly of coercion. No one other than the state or an organization authorized by the state (individual) can legally use power or coercion.
What does that also mean? We are often presented with the fact that "the state, it is all of us." Unfortunately, logically this is not the case. If we were all standing, we could all enjoy coercion and power at will.
But we can't. The state prevents us from doing so - the organization of governance, the monopoly of coercion and power. In fact, the state itself is the only truly existing monopoly. Only he and only with his help create real, real, inefficient monopolies. What makes monopolies "monopoly" is precisely the power that the state provides.
The state is a monopoly of power. So power is the real and real product that the state offers. The state does not offer "education, pensions, police" as its products. On the contrary, the fact that the state controls these sectors increases its power. The more industries belong to government officials, the greater the power of the state. State-controlled or controlled industries are state "production factors" that produce the product that the state offers. That product is precisely the power it has to control those industries.
What does it mean? The citizens of the state are not its citizens. We do not receive services from the state such as "security, healthcare, education" - these services are imposed on us. The state needs us to use them. The state needs us to use them. At the moment, if we did not have to take them from the state, the state power would decrease - the state would produce less, it would have less to sell.
Of course, you can argue that you want the state to provide you with security. That you want him to provide education. Let's face it - do you primarily want to have the services available? If so, why should the state provide them only?
If you can't even imagine the possibility that things like "security" (and others) would be provided at all other than by the state, it is the limited perception that can result from purposeful state education. It's logical - it is not in the interest of the state for people to think about alternatives.
It doesn't matter if you see the system as better or worse. The important thing is, if you can see it at all. If not, it's a problem. The state has trained you to be a great worker who produces power for him to order.
From the impossibility of seeing "non-state" provided security, education, health care is just a step to the impossibility of seeing "non-state" food, services, banks, apartments and more.
Every company offering on the market wants to be as productive as possible and gain as much as possible. The monopoly has the advantage that it is not limited by real competition, it can do whatever it wants.
Although "central planning" and state "absolute oversight" may not be the intended goal of the actions of officials and politicians, in the state, in a firm to "produce power," there is no other way out. Although officials can see all their directive efforts as "good" and "positive", a side effect of their actions is state control and management, which is constantly rampant.
Every state intervention, every state procedure, every sector under state control are at the same time an argument for further expansion of state supervision. Why is that so? Well, because if the state already controls "X", why can't it control "Y"? If the state controls education, why wouldn't it control health care? When controls the healthcare industry, why not control the food industry? When he controls the food industry… and what's next?
Then who is the politician?
Is he a representative of the people? No it is not. Politicians (and officials) are "state managers" - a politician is the one who trades in power. It offers power. Who is inquiring?
Various interest groups are in demand. Random - bankers, which fits an endless source of liquidity on behalf of the central bank. Agromagnes, which is suitable for the mandatory pouring of rapeseed into fuels. Railroad workers, which fits a monopoly position on the railway. Civic associationswhich - unelected - fits a share in decision - making and power.
A politician is a trader in power, not a representative of the people. Voters are state "workers of power" who only show their interest in what form of power the state should and should not offer. It's simple. There's really nothing complicated about it.