Let's abolish the state monopoly on the social system!

I was interested in the article Michal Kašpárek on Finmag about the planned innovation in the payment of certain social benefits. I understand his disagreement with those cards and I agree that this is an expensive nonsense that only leads to the buzzing of those who receive benefits. The only solution is: get rid of the state monopoly on the social system.

Poverty - where does it come from?
Poverty - where does it come from?

People have to get cards (something like payment cards) from which they will draw social benefits. The cards will pay directly.

According to the ministry, this will allegedly lead to less abuse of benefits and their greater control.

However, the whole system has many of its "buts" - but what if they don't have a payment terminal in your village? But does anyone have the right to control your spending? But doesn't it rather lead to the calibration of those who receive social benefits?But but but… But who will supply the technology? But won't it turn out with Opencard?

I agree with Michal Kašpárek that the planned card system is unworthy of people (more in that article on Finmag). It's about humiliation people who were often very unlucky - and now they will have a Big Brother.

Let us abolish the state monopoly

However, the whole problem is practically unsolvable today. According to its advocates, the social system is a system expressing solidarity and compassion for the people who do not do best. I wish that were the case!

However, the cards reveal the true essence of the whole system - it's not about system "Solidarity and compassion", but o bachelor enforcement system. Cards are just a balance of power.

On one side they are payerswho simply must to contribute to the social system - the state threatens sanctions. On the other hand, they are recipientswho mohou (do not have to) receive social benefits.

On the one hand, it stands as bachelor with a whip in his hand, who shouts at you: "Pay!" On the other hand, there are recipients of benefits who still applaud the whip crack and enjoyed a gentle caress - at least some compensation for previous difficulties.

So it is clear that if the payers cannot cancel the whipping, they try at least transferred to the recipient. The bachelor takes another whip in his hand and starts cracking in all directions.

In fact, a state monopoly on the social system is not a monopoly of solidarity and compassion. It is a state monopoly like any other - on the one hand, it is the theft of our resources through taxes for the benefit of beneficiaries, on the other hand, it is about making a watchman for the poor and sick. For the pseudo-benefit of payers.

That need to pay points to the inefficiency of the whole system: you have toto pay, because no one would probably put money into the state system voluntarily. It's about forced state monopoly and I'm sure that Without this monopoly, there are many much better ways to help people in need.

The system is immoral

Is theft ethical? The theft is right? It's not. Is it moral to bachelor citizens? Control what they eat, what they buy and command their lives? It's not. It is unethical, inhuman, unworthy of human dignity. Immoral.

The state is just a means to an end. What goals? Political goals.

The state social monopoly is so only a tool for politicians to bribe voters and securing voters - with money for all of us. It doesn't matter if we are talking about limiting a monopoly or extending it, you will always get someone's voice.

The bigger the monopoly, the more room there is for populists who will look for the ultimate culprit who causes all evil. For example, the "cigars who do not work and annoy us for our money." The greater the state's social monopoly, the greater the desire to seek a final solution social issues. It doesn't matter if it is a final solution to the fascist (or nationalist) or real-communist direction.

The social system is thus only a toy in the hands of politicians. Real the goal is not to help people, on the contrary. Real the goal is to upset people so that populists can gain votes more easily. The poor and sick are - unfortunately - only puppets in this game.

An unethical, immoral system unworthy of human dignity degrading human individuals to mere puppets and annoying company. Source of conflicts. This is a state monopoly on the social system. Mushrooms solidarity.

System inefficient

The social system in the hands of the state is - like any other state monopoly - highly inefficient. Take a look at Czech Railways. Do they seem effective to you? This is also a state monopoly and the reasons for inefficiency are the same for both monopolies.

Take such employment offices (which I generally consider to be part of the social system) - more unnecessary institutions for a person to look at. These are offices that people look for work in employment offices. There are already private companies that are much more successful in finding jobs. At the same time, there is a system on the Internet that works for the unemployed free.

Even when it comes to unemployment and health risks, there are much more effective options - either insurance that no one has to pay, which is why the insurance is effective (less music for less money) or real solidarity between people. You know, for example, what they used to do unions? They took care of their unemployed members.

A side effect of the non-existence of that state monopoly is even more interesting - the social system in its breadth forms part of our budget. Whether we are talking about pensions, health care, social benefits and transfers of all kinds, the point is if these expensive and inefficient state institutions were not there, there would be no need to pay taxes. It would make labor cheaper and taxes lower. People would have more money left, they would either have higher salaries or a greater supply of jobs. None of this is a negative effect!

No need to interrupt right away

However, the state social system does not need to be abolished immediately - it is enough to abolish the de jure monopoly. All you have to do is allow people to leave that system, do not continue to pay into it (ie illness or claim claims from that system) and let it continue to live its own life.

I am convinced that over time, the state system would die of its own inefficiency. And I'm sure we wouldn't either he was not missing for his unethicalness.

The question, however, is what the last days of the system would look like - at a time when the system was heavily in deficit, there were no payers and recipients received so little, politicians would probably use their power positions and create a state monopoly again - they would take a whip and a spool with it would force you to pay into the system again.

How to prevent this, it I really don't know. I can only hopethat private organizations forming a new one really solidarity and ethical social system they would see the threat of their own liquidation, and with all their might they would eventually prevent the re-creation of the state monopoly.

Let's start treating ourselves like people and please get rid of the state social monopoly.

And for those who will accuse me of being a "rich guy" who would let his parents get caught (etc.): I'm half Roma, I grew up among them. I spent a large part of my childhood with my grandparents (with a pension of 7 crowns), because my mother had nowhere to live. From the age of 000, I practically feed myself, because it was simply necessary. I know what poverty is, I know what it is to suffer. I know even worse life cases very well.

But thats why I am calling for the abolition of this system.

Note that the social system is often defended by people who do not even know what it means to really suffer. He is often a hypocrite. I understand those who defend the system and really suffer as well. Usually it's really good for them - and that's what I want to abolish the system for. I believe that without him, they would do better, because there would be much better ways to help them.

Before you accuse me of being a "rich antisocial," realize the position you are talking to me in. I often know better than you what poverty means, what it means to have nothing to eat before paying. Therefore, forgive your personal outbursts. Thank you.


  1. "Paying taxes is not theft, it is completely voluntary."

    Are you from Antarctica or where? Have you never worked in your life?
    Try not to pay the tax if you are an employee or entrepreneur, and then see what it is voluntary…

    "We, the majority of citizens, have decided that taxes will be collected and applied in a certain way, for example to the social system. Who doesn't like it, just don't pay. "

    It was not the citizens who decided, but certainly the parties. Citizens chose the parties that "revealed their cards" only after the election… If you want to stay in this society, in this state, then you have to adapt to these conditions. Payment of tax and other things is not voluntary…

    "When the state is weak, its functions are replaced by private individuals. Then mafias, blood feuds, godparents appear, the individual's dependence on any community is complete. Today's relatively extensive personal freedom is the product of a strong welfare state and high taxes. "

    It would work if the state and the mafia were in opposition. Lenze neratas with "godfather" status infiltration…

  2. re: cacti
    explain to me how I am personally liberated by the fact that 45% of my earned money is not decided by me but by a corrupt civil servant?

    the mafia can work privately in the same way as in connection with the state, I see no relief in that instead of harming a private person to another person, we are harmed today by the state collectively… for rations (except that joining the church , while you do not choose the place of birth - and therefore, within the support of REAL FREEDOM, only the basic minimum rights and obligations should be associated with the place of birth)

  3. to kaktusak: "Paying taxes is not theft, it is completely voluntary." - I hope it was meant as a joke…

  4. The state does not have a monopoly. Social care can be provided by anyone, such as churches, etc.
    Paying taxes is not theft, it is completely voluntary. We, the majority of citizens, have decided that taxes will be collected and applied in a certain way, for example to the social system. Who doesn't like it, just don't pay.
    When the state is weak, its functions are replaced by private individuals. Then mafias, blood feuds, godparents appear, the individual's dependence on any community is complete. Today's relatively extensive personal freedom is the product of a strong welfare state and high taxes.

  5. @MP - I'm not saying whether or not someone will allow someone to leave the social system (from direct payments - ie the abolition of the obligation to pay social, and therefore health). I say that would be enough. The state system would at that time be in direct competition with the private system. The effectiveness of the private system would destroy the state system (in a competitive "fight"). But as I write further, the question is, if such a possibility arises, how long would it last…

    EDIT: ad ir / relevance: is the economic objection to the state monopoly irrelevant, that it is ineffective in what to do? For example, is this objection irrelevant to ČD? If so, then from an economic point of view, almost any objection to the state is irrelevant…

  6. @MP

    1) inefficiency - there is certainly a difference between what the system does and what it actually does. It is reprehensible what it really does ("The state social monopoly is thus only an instrument of politicians to bribe voters and secure voting votes - with the money of all of us."), But also in doing what it has (giving social assistance) is highly inefficient. Slam like a hit.

    Inefficient in the sense that if this state system were to disappear, it would lead to a reduction in redistribution, tax cuts and the same money we could help many more people in private hands (higher wages / more employment / more investment / etc).

    Soc. The system is also immoral for the same reason as all other taxes - it's about theft. This objection is relevant, as is the objection to the inefficiency and real behavior of the system.

    From an economic point of view, the system is inefficient. From the point of view of ethics and morality, it is an unethical and immoral system. From the point of view of my political convictions, I cannot agree with this system. These are three different views, for which there are three different justifications.

    I do not see an irrelevant objection - only objections that belong directly and only to the social state monopoly and objections that are common to all state monopolies. Not irrelevant. To judge the state and its systems from the point of view of economics, politics, morality and others means to judge them from different angles.

    The economy is value-neutral, so the objection "… only an instrument of politicians to bribe voters and secure voting votes - from the money of us all" is irrelevant to the economy, but not to a moral or political view.

    This needs to be realized and taken care of.

  7. Lukas Kubec:
    You write terribly broadly, and many irrelevant objections. In all this, the idea, which I consider to be an ABSOLUTELY BASIC objection to the social system, has almost disappeared. You put this idea somewhere in the middle of the text:
    "The state social monopoly is thus only an instrument of politicians to bribe voters and secure voting votes - with the money of all of us."

    I consider this, and only this, objection to be relevant, and the others only obscure the essential one. If the system is only intended to corrupt part of the electorate, there is no point in blaming the system for "inefficiency". what does this objection mean? That the system is "inefficiently corrupt"?
    You write:
    "Just let people out of that system."
    - it is absurd to assume that politicians will allow people NOT to pay taxes, not to pay contributions to their corrupt system. The whole system works in such a way that the recipients of benefits will ALWAYS vote for compulsory payments to the system, because they draw from the system. The whole system of democracy is based on the fact that individual groups of voters keep other groups in check, and only politicians benefit from it. In a democracy, voters are slavers "to themselves."

  8. It probably won't be possible to cancel. But how would you like this way of managing income taxes and subsidies?
    The state monopoly remains, but as an application. No humiliating windows with officials and dividing borders.

Comments are off.