Product: power

Do you think that the state is an organization that provides services to its citizens? But what if it's the other way around?

Barack Obama: DTTO
Barack Obama: DTTO

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.

0 comments

  1. @Dominik
    Examples of spontaneous creation of a legal system are known from history.
    Today, the poor pay for security and many other services of the state. Since we know from economic theory and Bolshevik practice that the state monopoly is lagging behind in any field, why should security services be an exception? It is therefore reasonable to assume that security services would be much cheaper for the poor. If someone did not pay, then, of course, they would not be entitled to provide these services, and if they used this service, they would have to pay for it additionally. There is nothing immoral about this and it is completely incomparable with the current practice of state tax collection. It is possible that the agency would not even force such a person to pay for the service provided, but it would use it as an opportunity to persuade such a person to buy insurance from her, but this is, of course, hypothetical.
    As for the army, historically there were private armies of various cities or estates. Basically, every feudal lord had his own private army. I see no reason why the city cannot keep the municipal policeman for its own resources.
    There is plenty of literature on how a private law society could work. Articles on this topic can be found on mises.cz.

  2. Well, unlike others, I dare to argue with the author of the article. On most points, I agree with your views, Lukáš, but it seems to me that you are encouraging the abolition of the state's monopoly on too large a scale, because I believe that the state should ensure security and ensure the rule of law.
    As far as the legal system is concerned, I really cannot imagine a society operating without it (or rather with the same number as the number of people). I simply do not see it here without a "monopoly" regulation from above (of course there is competition between individual states, because the monopoly is a rather simplified concept - the monopoly in telephone communications still competes with other communication channels, such as the Internet).
    And the defense of citizens, here you have really indicated the effort to establish a private sector. And unfortunately, I simply have to pull out the shabby socialist argument "it's not fair to the poor," because they don't have to have the money to pay for a security agency. I would like to agree with you, but in short, my mind refuses to accept this idea. And how will it be dealt with people who do not pay for the agency? Will a "cop" from a private company verify the identity of the robber before he intervenes? If he intervenes and finds that the robbed has not paid for his services, what will happen next? Will he keep things robbed? - In that case, he becomes a thief himself. Will she just give them to him? - The given field is profitable, services are provided for which money cannot be collected (no one would pay if he knows that he does not have to). Or will it require a one-time fee? - But in this case, it is no different from the state, which enforces its services and collects money. So the moral aspects of things are falling apart.
    I am willing to agree to the possibility of hiring agencies at regional level, that is one of the options. Competition would be created and the price of the service would be reduced, the region or city would, on the basis of a democratic decision (yes, this would have to change the current system of election of mayors, etc., so as not to appoint "suitable people" and various business with agencies) , on which the inhabitants would lose) they chose to whom they would entrust their protection, however, I think that a certain dose of enforcement is necessary (although I would enforce it at a lower level - I am a supporter of decentralization).
    And lastly, there is another form of security - the military. I can't imagine an army secured other than at the central level (after all, every city can't have its own soldiers, tanks and helicopters…). Although I am a pacifist, in today's world, there is simply a need for the state to secure the army (when others have it). So here I am for simple state enforcement at the central level.

    We may agree, maybe not, but since you have rather criticized the current regime, I think it is important to raise the question of 'how can it work better', which you have not outlined too much. To what extent can the market work and where must "totalitarian" (take exaggeration) enforcement begin.
    I wrote my view of the matter, I'm looking forward to yours. 🙂

  3. Rio Preisner in "Americana" and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in "Americans": "Left-wing Thinking: From de Sada and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot" write interestingly about and after the international policy of the USA during the First World War (especially about the desire to destroy Austria-Hungary). “. Of course, they begin with the Jacobin Revolution in France and its influences.

  4. The state serves the ruling class. In our case, the bourgeoisie. So why does the social system work? Holding power by force alone is ineffective. Rulers do not long for social storms and also have something to seduce their mismanagement. The ones downstairs are to blame.

  5. It was the Rotchild, Warburg, Morgan, and Rockefeller banks that financed virtually all parties. An extremely important event from those years is the establishment of the Fed in 1913. It is always necessary to ask "Cui bono"?
    By the way, G. Edward Griffin explains and describes the American military and intelligence doctrine, which is still valid "under a foreign flag" relatively well in his books (freedomforceinternational.org).

  6. Cerny> you are right that many things are not talked about. Fortunately, this is changing fundamentally thanks to the Internet.
    US entry into the 1st World War The war is one of the key events that absolutely fundamentally changed the course of development throughout the 20th century. By any chance, don't you know of a good book or article that deals with that?

  7. Just keep going, great article. The world is really littered with states and as I read somewhere. There is nothing that a smaller group, a community, could not procure outside the state except war. A group of superiors, the chosen or, say, admitted ones is formed and they will be at the top. Gradually, the functions of the state will be strengthened until the complete control of the individual. Therefore, the army, agents but also the prestige of various guards, firefighters and other similar units are strengthening. The serving churches and culture also contribute to this control. All this is pushed in large pieces through the mass media.
    How to get out of it?
    I don't know. But this is the first step. Know about it, talk about it.
    Another tip to persuade people not to watch the mass media, initially maybe a day without television would be ideal. Television broadcasts lies.
    An example from this week.
    The sinking of Lusitania by Germany. The truth is, the ship was loaded with weapons without the passengers knowing. The goal was to engage the Pacific United States in the war to make money and US factories.
    Why don't you talk about it, which we even pay for? etc etc.

  8. I join in praising an excellent article. It is really surprising how many and many educated people do not even admit these alternatives, and during conversations they keep repeating spells like social peace, someone has to watch it, anachia and the like would arise. When I talk to them about freedom, they generally look at me as if I came from another world.

    As you write, they are really well-behaved workers (sheep). I'm not optimistic about this, colleagues with degrees like PhD. they blindly defend collectivism, even though they have no personal interest in it. It almost leads to the idea that the longer the time spent in (state) schools leads to a greater degeneration of free thinking. The crucial question I am looking for in vain is "How to get out of this?"

  9. I read Human Action about half a year ago and I don't think there was anything about it.

    Otherwise, here is a very interesting three-part video on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASODMKCJcsk&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP8381A785EC3453BF

    There was something strange on the eve of World War I. A lot of people were looking forward to the war, they went into it with enthusiasm. But I never wondered why that was. And public education can probably explain it best. It just makes sense from the logic of things. I can not help myself. During the 19th century, private schools flourished and literacy was relatively high. And he should be most interested in the transition from private to public schools sometime in the 60's and 70's, for example in the USA, the UK or Germany.

    And maybe the reason why you can't read much about it is that the state by no means wants you to know about it….

  10. @Kosik - thanks for the recognition (I appreciate it!)

    Ad 1. sv. war - I know only an interpretation of one quote from Mise ("until there will be state interventions and compulsory education, there will be war conflicts between nations") + a kind of general thesis that can be generalized to all state interventions. But I do not know directly about these causes. There is not much to read about it anywhere.

    I would probably look in some text by M. Rothbard or in Mises's work from the 20s or 30s…

    Maybe it's in his Human Action (but I don't know, I don't know, it's almost a purely methodological book). I'm reading the book right now, but I'm not far. When I find it, believe me, I will write 🙂

    Edit: When I think about it, state education = state interpretation of history. Compulsory education (in the hands of the state) could help (not only) German nationalism… But this is only a rough thesis, not substantiated. 🙂

  11. Another great article. Guys, it's all about opening your eyes and thinking. Solving social problems by giving a group of people the power to use violence, giving them weapons, the army and the police is really not ideal. And never will be.

    Question a little from another barrel. Yesterday I discussed beer with my friends about wars and such, and inevitably we got to the 1st st. war, which is absolutely fundamental and its causes. Then I suggested that one of the relatively important factors that helped (if not conditioned) the emergence of the 1st st. war was the introduction of public schools in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century. And they looked at me like a fool… Do you know anything more about it? Any articles? I no longer knew what other arguments to use.

Comments are off.