Readers of these notes know how reverently I hold the state. Not a day passes without me saying some nastiness about this outfit, reposting an angry demotivator, or otherwise undermining the foundations.
Therefore it is not surprising that some people ask me about the reasons for this attitude toward such, it would seem, respectable institution—a attitude so unpopular in these parts. There are also those who say approximately the following: “You,” they say, “invented a universal enemy in Marx’s capitalists, on whom you can hang all sins, and you reason in the spirit of Vasily Ivanych Chapaev—let’s kill all the Whites, and we’ll live well.”
It seems to me that it is very important to answer this claim. After all, it really may seem that we are simply talking about replacing one world evil that did not live up to expectations with another promising a new world evil. So they say, take it, substitute “state” for the word “capitalists” and be happy, because you get a new culprit for all that is good.
Let’s begin with Marx. Before Marx, no one had heard of any “capitalists.” He did not invent the word itself, but Marx invented class theory and, accordingly, defined a place in it for capitalists. That is, “capitalists” emerged from the dark depths of Marx’s dialectics—they are a product of theory, I would even say a cosmogony (however suspicious that word may sound). In this cosmogony there is the inexorable course of history, objective laws of social development, successive formations, and other such things, as well as comrade Marx, who explains how everything is really arranged, where everything is going, and how it will end.
Conclusion: if the cosmogony is mistaken, then capitalists can relax, for they are not guilty of anything.
Unlike Marx’s claims against capitalists, my claims against officials stem from simple observable facts, the existence of which cannot be disputed. Regarding their interpretation, of course, one can create theories, but the facts themselves are not a theoretical construct or part of one. These questions can occur to a person who is not familiar with Marx or any ideas in the social sciences, because these questions are purely utilitarian. They sound something like this: “Why must we obey the orders of a group of people calling themselves the state and regularly give them part of our income?”
There are no answers—that is the whole problem. There are only pathetic variations on the theme. The first variation is that if people are not forcibly deprived of money, there will be no law enforcement and other blessings. This answer is wrong, because it assumes that people do not need law enforcement and other blessings, since they can be provided only by forcibly taking part of their income. I think few would agree that law enforcement is not needed. However, even if we assume that some people were truly unable to part with their cash to such an extent that they asked other people to forcibly take their money for their own good, it is still completely unclear on what basis their decision concerns me, you, and the rest of us.
Another answer is the variation “that’s how it historically developed.” However, “that’s how it developed” is not an answer. “Developed” does not require orders. It “developed,” for example, to give up seats to the elderly on public transport. No one forces or punishes, but it is considered correct. If the state had “developed,” there would be no criminal articles for tax evasion, but there would be voluntary contributions. If it had “developed,” we would now be observing private courts, private police, private issuers of private money, living a miserable life on the sidelines of progress, since they, of course, could not withstand competition with what “developed.” But we observe none of this. On the contrary, in most cases we observe direct prohibitions of this activity.
Another variant of “that’s how it developed” is the theme of the “social contract.” They tell me, the constitution is, as it were, a contract… Stop, stop, stop. A contract is concluded between parties entering into a deal. Here is the buyer, here is the seller, and here is the contract between them. But what do we actually have? We are in perfectly clear financial relations with the state. It takes, we give. But where is the contract? The constitution does not fit this role at all. The constitution works something like this. Imagine sellers who, on behalf of the buyer, concluded a “contract” with themselves and, on its basis, regularly and forcibly take money from the buyer, offering in exchange only their own monopolistic “services.” What would you think—how quickly would a normal judge declare such a contract void? And do not tell me that “you cannot conclude a contract with each individual person.” Why not? You do, after all, take money from each person, you don’t get lazy.
The point is, unlike Marx’s “bad” capitalists, whose qualities are part of some theory, my little officials are bad for a completely objective reason. To view them this way, no cosmogony, metaphysics, or mysticism is needed. You simply need to ask a simple, utilitarian, I would even say everyday question: “Guys, what are you doing here?”
I simply want the people calling themselves the state to show me the contract under which they act, and my signature under it. And until they do, I am fully within my rights to consider them a gang of robbers and thugs, and to treat them accordingly—which I also advise you to do.