Andrey Pochinkov: “The economy of anti-wellfare, or how the state trades the fear...”

Entrepreneur and a popular blogger Andrey Pochinkov published a very interesting post in which he examined the mechanisms by which the state subjugates its citizens:

“Simple Political Economy, or Some aspects of the market

Anti-wellfare - is the wellfare inside out, from the use of which the consumer is forced to pay off.

The market is an integral part of the market. Its peculiarity is the use of aggressive violence to "promote the product". Without this, the anti-wellfare turns into an undesirable one; nobody buys it.

It is well known that the state assumes a monopoly on violence. However, monopoly in the real world is impossible. Like totalitarianism, which is just (anti) utopia. The real world is chaotic, spontaneous order reigns in it. Totalitarianism is trying to turn the real world into an ordered rigid structure. Monopoly is one of the tools of this. The complexity of the real world, the lack of centralization, structure in it is the main obstacle to totalitarianism. Irresistible.

The creation of a monopoly is hindered by the law of competition. This is a natural law beyond human control.

Suppose the United World Energy Corporation has taken possession of all sources of electricity. Will it become a complete monopoly? Will all people in the world be forced to turn to her services and pay her money? Not.

Because:

1. It is possible not to use the electricity at all.
2. Alternative energy sources can be used. Build a wind farm, assemble a solar battery, buy a dynamo...
3. A black electricity market will inevitably appear.

These are the simplest manifestations of market laws that save us all from totalitarianism and monopolies.

Similarly, the anti-bad market works. He obeys all the laws of the market. Therefore, the state is unable to secure a total monopoly on violence. There are always private suppliers of antiblock on the market. For example, robbers, thieves, racketeers, scammers, counterfeiters ... They provide competition in this market.

When private suppliers of anti-good drugs take away a significant share of the market from the state, anarchy does not arise (as statisticians say). There is a redistribution of the market anti-good. The most striking examples are not Somalia or the "Seattle commune". War, especially civil war, gives a much better idea of the anti-badge market and competition in it.

War created a state. Contrary to the assertions of the etatists, the state does not arise naturally from within. People have no need for a state. In the Maslow pyramid there is no step "need for the state, power" or "need for external management." In real life, a person as a rule does not need a boss over himself and, moreover, is not ready to pay for the services of such a boss.

It is war and the seizure of new territories that create the power of some people over others. The captured population is forced to buy off the invaders. The alternative is death.

War - international or civil, no matter - it is always a struggle for power. That is, for the redistribution of the market anti-good. This is an intensification of competition in the anti-bad market.

It is paradoxical that this competition is conducted in strict accordance with the laws of the market. Anti-wellfare require:

1. Advertise (for example, through military parades with the "latest technology").
2. Advocate (through rabid media, through agents of influence, etc.)
3. It is necessary to invest in anti-good ("the latest technology" will not create itself)

etc.

The worse the anti-blessing (the more victims and destruction it carries or is capable of bearing), the more willing it will be to buy. A miserable gang of migrant racketeers will never raise as much money for their “services” as the state police can collect.

In their own right, those who say that war is a very profitable enterprise are right. But as a rule, they misunderstand who the beneficiary of the war is. The main beneficiaries are not businessmen who produce tanks, bombs and ammunition. and it’s not the state that pays for the war.

The main beneficiaries of the war are politics, power. War is the largest possible anti-blessing. Therefore, the population pays a lot for it.

No private company is able to put such a great anti-good on the market. History knows almost no cases when the war was started by persons who were not involved in the power of any country in any way. Because private individuals:

1. As a rule, they are not able to effectively sell such a large amount of anti-good (they do not have a distribution network comparable to the state network of institutions),
2. As a rule, they are not interested in war and the production of other anti-benefits. Incentives for creating anti-benefits and competitive advantages in this market sector are available only to participants in the state business project.

In the general case, all people benefit from the maximum reduction in the size of the market for anti-benefits in favor of the benefits market. Since anti-blessing (unlike negatives, who only uselessly use valuable resources) destroy goods, the fruits of the labor of millions of people. And they kill people.

The only way to reduce the anti-bad market to the maximum (destroying it completely is the same utopia as creating a market completely devoid of benefits) is to destroy the state’s largest supplier of anti-good on the market.

Private providers are simply not able to capture a significant portion of the anti-badge market. And their incorporation into the “let's re-create the state” project will be hindered by both competition laws and self-defense of consumers interested in spending money exclusively on the purchase of goods.

The state is not the law of society, as the statisticians say. The state is a business project. This project has its beginning and its end. There are no and cannot be immortal business projects on the market. They are born and die.

The business project "state" sells fear. And its profitability will naturally decline as people become less afraid.

A very significant step towards reducing the level of fear in society was made by Colonel Colt. But the further steps are needed. And everyone must make them himself..."