In the previous column we discussed the fact that since Ukrainians like the system called the state so much, they should first consider whether the current version of this system is logical and fit for purpose.
As is well known, the essence of the state is that it forcibly takes a portion of citizens’ income to implement tasks that, as it explains, cannot be accomplished any other way. I am not questioning the existence of certain special public goods (which, of course, do not actually exist), nor am I questioning the coercive nature of extracting funds (indeed, apparently only idiots live here, people who, if you don’t take their money, will inevitably destroy themselves). I am not even questioning the state’s competence in determining what exactly it should fund, and in what volume, with the money taken from us. For now, let us discuss simpler things.
I simply want to draw attention to the undeniable fact that in the redistribution process the state engages in, there are always two sides — donors and recipients. Donors are those from whom money is taken; recipients are those to whom it is given. Let us set aside public goods in the form of roads, police, and armed forces; let us assume their beneficial effects are distributed equally throughout society. Let us look only at those who directly give funds to the state and receive them from it — that is, funds that do not mysteriously evaporate into the air like public goods but can be directly felt as money. We are always talking about specific living people here; no euphemisms such as “support for strategic industries” or the practice of taxing enterprises should obscure the fact that once we strip away all the verbal coverings, we will discover specific individuals who either receive money or give it.
This simple mental operation makes it obvious that the so-called state is also a group of people. Moreover, if in the construction “the state merely redistributes money,” which our liberals so often dare to use, the state appears neutral, then with the approach I have described, it becomes clear that the “state” is primarily a recipient. In exactly the same way, it becomes clear that our holy faith in corruption (the popular idea that everything is bad because people steal) has no practical application. Whether officials steal or not, they nevertheless essentially remain recipients — people who exist at the expense of funds taken from ordinary citizens. Moreover, these same officials organize both the process of taking funds from ordinary citizens and the process of their redistribution. These people have a direct interest in ensuring that the volume of funds taken not only does not dry up but increases. And this, I repeat, without any corruption or malicious intent.
In a democratic country, the state can only increase revenues by increasing the number of other recipients. The more people receive money from the state, the larger the scope of the state’s own operations and the greater the revenues from this activity. Thus, it turns out that a group of people constituting the state finds it extremely beneficial to persuade other residents to receive money from it. These persuasions constitute the essence of the modern democratic process. In practice, of course, things do not happen quite this way. In practice, there are quasi-state groups that fight among themselves for obtaining the opportunities that possession of state power will give them. Sometimes, especially when traditional political groups are discredited, new “people’s” groupings also join the process, but this does not change the essence. The democratic process in practice means voting for who will be our donor this time, and who will be the recipient.
Now we are talking about introducing some logic into this process, because with the existing system, things look, to put it mildly, unfair. It turns out that the recipients — the state and those who receive money from it — can decide in elections who and how much should give to them. The state, as we are told, exists in order to produce invisible but allegedly useful public goods. Here, however, we see a completely different picture — the state, along with other recipients, is engaged in taking and redistributing the funds of those who were not lucky this time.
In order for the state to produce public goods and be maximally neutral, those who do the redistributing and those who directly receive money from them should, of course, not participate in this process and, above all, should not have the right to vote in elections. Only those who give money should vote. That is, officials, teachers at state schools, doctors at state hospitals, judges, prosecutors, police officers, customs officers, military personnel, prisoners, pensioners, and other recipients should not have the right to vote. It goes without saying that these categories should also not pay any taxes.