Economics and Human Rights


From the book by Andrey Sokolov, "Economics and Human Rights"

"Economics and Human Rights" is a book about how the observance of human rights affects the economy.

Permissions. More important than respect for the law can only be respect for the rights of people.

"Protection is a good label for bad deeds."
Milton Friedman.

“If you accept archaic laws,
which restrict freedom,
you end up destroying your own economy ...
Ultimately, freedom and privacy will win ... "
Pavel Durov

At the end of the 20th century, economist Milton Friedman formulated how regulatory procedures violate human rights in his article “On Freedom”: “A US citizen who, according to the laws in different states, is not free to work in his chosen field, if he has not secured something a patent or a license, in the same way is deprived of a significant share of freedom. "

If we look at licenses, state control and permits from the point of view of psychology, then we can talk about the “subconscious” emergence of the need for these restrictions.

This "subconscious", and perhaps consciously, the desire arises from the desire to maintain the status quo, to leave everything "as it is".

At the same time, the same people who want to keep everything "as it is", at the same time want to live better, richer, have more opportunities, useful goods, medicines, food. But this is impossible without changes.

Restrictions hold back both the development of society and the development of the economy.

If you look closely, the more limited and regulated a sphere is, the slower it develops.

In the Middle Ages, the church forbade the dissection of human bodies and the study of anatomy. And the development of medicine actually stopped for about 1000 years.

In the twentieth century, those industries that were least limited and regulated - cybernetics, genetics, physics - developed most actively. And there were computers, iPhones, the Internet, alternative methods of obtaining energy, genetic engineering. New cheap or affordable goods, products and services have emerged.

But as soon as restrictions were imposed on genetic engineering, for example, on cloning, the use of stem cells, the creation of new treatments immediately slowed down.

Whatever sphere of human activity we would not consider, we can easily find confirmation of this pattern. In aviation and shipbuilding, pharmacology and agriculture, heavy or light industry.

Restrictions imposed through licensing are equivalent to censorship in the media, restriction of freedom of speech.

The economic effect of such restrictions is as destructive as censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech are destructive for society.

Society is uneven. It consists of a majority committed to "stability", customs, the status quo, and "others" - people who seek change, who are not satisfied with the existing situation.

These "others" are not always innovators. You can change it in different ways.

A criminal, a terrorist, a tyrant, a corrupt official also “changes” the world “for himself”, harming people and the economy.

But there are other “others” - innovators who create new goods and services, discover new laws of nature, invent new methods of treatment.

Distinguishing the former from the latter is quite simple. The first, "reactionaries," appeal to extremely simple emotions - fear, desire for greatness, and the public good. Striking examples of such "reactionaries" are not only terrorists, bandits or corrupt officials. This category includes, for example, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao or Pol Pot. The vector of their activity is destruction.

The "innovators" include Sikorsky, Brin, Gates, Einstein and others. The goal of "innovators" is to find the truth, to create something new. The vector of their activity is creation.

Thus, the activities of the "reactionaries" are aimed at violating human rights. And the activities of “innovators” are aimed at ultimately improving people's lives, increasing their well-being and respecting freedoms.

Limiting the influence of "reactionaries" on society is quite simple. And they are all described in this book. It is enough to observe human rights and "reactionaries" will have no field for activity.

The legalization of weapons will limit the possibilities of bandits, terrorists, tyrants. Legalizing drugs and prostitution will deprive bandits and terrorists of funds. Removal of licenses and other restrictive laws and procedures will make it impossible for officials and politicians to curb economic growth and discourage innovators.

The same cancellation of restrictions, licenses, and a soft migration policy will allow “innovators” to create new goods and services faster and cheaper that improve people's lives and lead to economic growth.

And this is exactly what the majority, who declare their commitment to "stability", want the best cars, airplanes, computers, cheap products, effective drugs. In reality, what they need is not stability, but a new iPhone, a car and a long healthy life. And this is exactly what “innovators” create when they are not hindered.

As you can see, respect for human rights leads to a decrease in the number of "reactionaries" and an increase in the number of "innovators".

What can this lead to? To the fact that people will live and enjoy life up to 200 years, fly on excursions to other planets, walk on safe streets and do what they like, while robots will perform routine work.

The countries' restrictive regimes can be compared to an army parade ground, a regular park, and virgin nature.

In this case, the economy, residents and business should be understood as living nature - plants and animals, and by regulatory forces, licenses, restrictions and officials - human influence on the landscape.

In a country with an “army parade ground” regulation, any initiative, innovation, idea has to break through the concrete. In these conditions, both plants and animals die out. Rare units manage to break through. There are not very many such countries now, but you can remember about a dozen.

In a country with a “park” regulation, everything is arranged not for the sake of animals and plants, but for the sake of pleasing the gaze of the ruler (or collective power). Trees are trimmed, flowers are planted in a row. Both animals and plants live in cramped conditions. But some kind of life is glowing. The economies of most countries are like “parks”. Hence the enormous costs of government officials. Only what is permitted grows and only up to the "permitted" level. Gardeners maintain "order" not for the sake of people - plants and animals - but for the very principle of order, for the sake of pleasure and by order of the ruler. Collective or sole.

In reality, this is not "order" at all, but limitations.

There are currently no countries with "virgin nature" regulation. However, only in these countries any idea, business, or citizen has a chance for self-realization, growth and development. A chance to find your niche, resources for growth. Both the tiger and the beetle. And by a blade of grass and by a tree. In both plants and animals.

The hands of officials and lawmakers are constantly reaching out to adjust something. In this case, the wise statesman must beat himself on the hands himself. Otherwise, the blow will follow either from the residents or from the economy.

The economic and political aspects of life have one important difference.

The economy has, in a sense, unlimited capacity. Those. the ability to create any number of economic entities. For example, an unlimited number of cafes or shops in a city.

In this case, it is the opportunity that is important, and not the financial success of these entities.

Politics, on the other hand, has a different property - finite or limited capacity. One president, tens or hundreds of parliamentarians, one law, one mayor, etc.

Thus, the economy is able to regulate itself on its own, for example, the cafe will be exactly as much as the residents need and beneficial to the owners. Those. equilibrium will be found. And politics cannot regulate itself and has a tendency to authoritarianism and tyranny. Those. if it is not restrained by the willful participation of people, then it tends to devour any freedom. This is the reason for the unlimited growth of the bureaucratic and ministerial apparatus, an increase in the number of regulatory laws, licensing, certification requirements, etc. Gradually, it turns into a regulated economy that is tied hand and foot, which stops growing and begins to wither.

By limiting the economy, politics, as it were, devours itself, because restrictions lead to a decrease in income, wages, taxes, and investments. That is why, for the sake of self-preservation of the state, power, budget revenues, it is necessary to abolish the maximum number of imposed restrictions. And this means phasing out all licensing procedures. To gradually cancel all certificates and licenses for any kind of activity or product.

A necessary condition for limiting the growth of a cancerous tumor of policy intervention in the economy is the actual separation of the economy from the state, a ban on intervention and regulation, which must be prescribed by law. Perhaps even in the Constitution. The economy should not ask the official for permission.

Not only the citizens of the countries face restrictions and prohibitions. There is a category of residents who are subject to additional restrictions. Just like African Americans during the period of segregation in the United States, serfs in European monarchies or the Russian Empire, collective farmers, Soviet times. This category of residents is called immigrants.

Quite often, immigrants face such problems as:

  1. Work permit.

  2. Requirement of legalization of education documents, or even non-recognition of education received in another country.

  3. The requirement to pass again driving and other exams.

  4. The requirement to know the language of the new country.

While this may seem fair and protecting the rights of residents of the immigrant country of entry, it is actually not.
The bans and restrictions imposed on immigrants have a depressing effect on the economy, and therefore on every resident of the country. Including citizens whom these prohibitions supposedly protect.

Without dwelling on the economic component of the harm of these prohibitions, since many well-known economists have written about it many times, we will consider it from the point of view of human rights.

1. The need to obtain a work permit for immigrants leads to direct discrimination of this group of people by their place of birth, which means a violation of human rights. And not only an immigrant. A citizen of the country to which the immigrant arrived is also limited in his choice. In order to hire the specialist he needs, he has to go through additional bureaucratic procedures and prove to people who do not understand anything in his business that the employer needs this immigrant-specialist.

Any arguments in favor of the permissive nature of the employment of an immigrant are economically unprofitable, because as a result, the cost of the final product for the citizens of the country increases, the need for inspections and permits is a violation of the presumption of innocence of both the immigrant and the employer, is discriminatory, as to the employer and to the immigrant. Any third parties, papers and organizations in this process increase the cost of the employee, and therefore the final price of the product. All these costs are non-productive. All permits are issued by people who receive a salary from money earned by the employer's business and the immigrant. But, unlike a businessman and an immigrant, they do not count this money, because they do not earn, but only receive in the form of taxes.

2. Requirements for legalization, confirmation of education documents, as well as non-recognition of the education outcome received in the country is the same nonsense.

These requirements imply that a certain education in a certain country is incomplete, if not completely insignificant. And there is something else - correct education.

Very familiar motives. In the 20th century, theories of the superiority of one nation over another were very widespread. For example, in Hitler's Germany.

And this is exactly the case. Requirements for legalization, confirmation of a diploma, or even complete non-recognition of the education received are banal chauvinism. There are “white diplomas” and work for people with “white diplomas”, and there are “black diplomas” and places for “black” jobs. Segregation in its purest form. Of course, covered with lofty words of concern for the nation. Well, these words are not new. They were actively used at one time by the Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels.

Thus, one can clearly observe discrimination of one group of people against another and violation of human rights.

Is it really beneficial for the citizens of the country?

Of course not. Reduced competition leads to higher prices and directly affects the costs of citizens.

Lack of recognition of education, skills, intelligence of immigrants and their non-admission to work in various fields directly reduces the variety of goods and services, hinders the emergence of new goods and services. Deprives the citizens of the country where the immigrant has arrived of choice and prospects.

It turns out that, according to lawmakers, the citizens of the country are so stupid that they cannot themselves determine from whom and what services and goods they buy, what quality and at what price. And only the inhabitants of heaven know this - the officials issuing permits.

Directly related to this issue is the need for certification and licensing of specialists.

These requirements apply to all residents of the country, and harm from these requirements also affects all residents.

Of course, not all restrictions are harmful and violate human rights. The freedoms and rights of one person cannot conflict and limit the rights of another person. An example of such a restriction is traffic rules that limit the speed of cars in cities. Restriction aimed at ensuring all road users the right to life, health and movement.

However, most of the restrictions invented by lawmakers, in one way or another, violate human rights and harm the economies of countries. And the task of the authorities is to lift the maximum number of restrictions that complicate people's lives and hinder economic prosperity. And the task of people is to demand from the authorities the abolition of encumbrances, prohibitions and restrictions that violate their rights.

Consider the hypocrisy and harm of licensing in the most regulated areas - licensing of doctors and teachers.

These two areas are constantly the subject of speculation by statesmen. Covered, of course, by the high rhetoric of caring for children or the health of citizens.

However, the more unsightly the ban, the higher the rhetoric and the more hysterical the arguments.

In this case, all arguments are broken down in an elementary way by one simple argument.

Legislators argue that licensing doctors and teachers improves the quality of health care and education.

If this argument were even 1% true, then there would be no complaints about bad doctors or teachers.

After all, all doctors and all teachers, all schools and hospitals are licensed.

And everywhere there are bad teachers and doctors. Licensed and certified by these same officials.

Bad teachers, bad doctors, but with the correct diplomas and other pieces of paper. And they work badly. They know - little. But to be able to legally treat or teach you need to have the same pieces of paper. And not at all talent, hard work and knowledge. So the official said, so the legislator decided. We decided for the consumer. The consumer is not intelligent. Only the statesman is wise.

Obviously, this method of fighting for quality is wrong. But humanity continues to jump on this rake for many years.

And bad doctors continue to harm the health of citizens, and bad teachers inflict psychological trauma on children.

Let's take a closer look at the situation.

In both education and medicine, there are many methods, many paths for learning and treatment. The license implies that this path is one, only, correct, cutting off all others, i.e. narrowing the choice for the consumer.

Who will be the best teacher of a foreign language - an immigrant, a native speaker, or a person who studied it from books? And even leaving aside the obvious answer, why does the state assume the right to decide what is best for a particular citizen? Why is this violence?

And if you recall the examples of successful private uncertified schools in Harlem, mentioned in the chapter "Taxes", where teachers worked without licenses and without teacher training. Recall the various circles and sections where readers themselves learned from non-certified teachers, but talented and enthusiastic people who wanted to pass on their skills and knowledge to children. And if you remember the teachers of higher education, who do not have teacher and teacher education licenses. Then the absurdity of demanding diplomas and licenses from teachers becomes even more obvious.

The same is with medicine. How to certify a Chinese doctor who brought his treatment methods to Europe? Deny patients access to these techniques? For there is no chance to license something that is not approved by officials. There are no officials who would understand at least something in the methods of Chinese medicine.

The licensing requirement deprives the patient of the right to calmly choose - whether to be treated by a Chinese, whether to use his methods, or prefer more familiar doctors.

Why is the head doctor of the hospital, the director of the school, the head of the company so guilty that he is deprived of the right to independently determine who and for what job to hire? Neither the official nor the member of the licensing committee is responsible for the activities of firm, hospital or school. This is the director's area of ​​responsibility. Requirements for licenses and any other documents deprive the manager of the opportunity to choose the best specialist, and the consumer - the best service.

Why is the citizen deprived of this choice? Why was he so guilty before the authorities?

Prohibitions and absurd demands mean that citizens still actively use all education and treatment options when they need it. Illegal, of course. Or leaving the country. Another stupid law makes normal people criminals.

It is completely incomprehensible what is the high meaning of state regulation here? If only the officials are fed? Give them something to regulate?

At the same time, the violation of the right of citizens to health and education is clearly traced.

Let's look at the situation with licensing doctors and teachers from a different angle.

The IT industry has a very strong effect on our lives now, and therefore the work of a programmer or other IT specialist can be compared, if not with medical practice, then with teaching - for sure. However, the overwhelming majority of programmers did not graduate from specialized universities, many do not have university degrees at all, and there is no need to talk about licenses. And the higher the quality of an IT specialist, the less variety of proof and permissive pieces of paper he has. And nothing ... the world has not collapsed again. Moreover, it is actively and productively developing.

Let's bring prohibitions, permits and licensing to the point of absurdity, because they are absurd.

Then it turns out that it is necessary to prohibit the use of knives or to license every housewife. After all, a knife is a potential murder weapon.

Prohibit, without a doubt, sex - after all, as a result, a criminal can be born. This is easy to prove - all criminals were once born to mothers.

Delusional argument?

No more delusional than the arguments for licensing professions, certifying tables, cans, chairs, etc.

Try these inhibitions on yourself.

So, as a result of the activities of deputies and other lawmakers, you were forbidden to have knives, axes, a drill, a baseball bat, a pry bar, a nail puller, an ice pick at home, and, of course, you were forbidden to have sex.

Do the deputies have the right to do this? Do you find any of their arguments valid?

But for some reason, people consider it permissible to certify the products they buy (others are prohibited for sale), licensing of doctors, teachers, builders, lawyers, etc.


3. Such incidents include the requirement for immigrants to take driving and other exams again. Let us analyze the situation using the example of the requirement to retake the exam for the right to drive a car. In many countries, drivers from "third countries", including those with an amateur license, must pass theoretical and practical driving exams and obtain national driving license 6 months after entering the country.

If suddenly the reader does not know, then in all countries the traffic rules are the same. There are, of course, certain differences in signs, lanes, but absolutely all the rules are rules adopted on November 8, 1968 at the UN conference in Vienna. All national road traffic regulations are a translation of an international law, the "Convention on Road Traffic".

Thus, by obliging the driver to re-take the theory and driving, he is forced to re-take what he has already passed. This is, of course, a highly illogical requirement.

But the violation of the legislators' logic does not end there. Retaking exams from an immigrant is not required immediately, but after 6 months of driving on the roads of the country.

Those. For 6 months he knew the rules, knew how to drive a car and his documents were legal. And after 6 months he suddenly forgot everything, and the rights turned out to be illegal.

What is it? Discrimination, chauvinism or stupidity of legislators?


4. The requirement to know the language is one of the most awkward legal requirements for foreign specialists and immigrants. And for a very simple reason. If the work is low-skilled, then, as a rule, the set of words is small, and maybe you can explain yourself with gestures. If the work is highly skilled, then what prevents an immigrant from sharing his salary with a translator, thus creating a job for a citizen of the country?

Taking into account the technological progress, when very soon in any phone or player there will be a synchronous voice multi-translator, the requirement to know the language of the country of entry becomes generally archaic.

To be honest, the requirements for language proficiency, the requirement for a replacement of rights, confirmation of education are banal chauvinism.

The requirement of immigrants to confirm their diplomas, retake their rights, take a language exam is humiliating in relation to a person. It is humiliating to prove that you are a man and not a camel. And this is a direct violation of the human right to dignity. And a direct violation of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence.

It is unlikely that an apologist for licensing, confirmation of a diploma and other permissive (in fact, prohibitive) procedures will answer in the affirmative to the question whether the presence of a diploma and a license guarantees the quality of services of a doctor, lawyer, teacher and others. He will either have to lie (which, however, he can easily do), or admit that there is no guarantee.

And if the procedure does not guarantee the result, can the procedure be wrong?

At the same time, licensing, as well as other prohibitive methods of regulating (depressing) the economy, are not at all new and have been known since the Middle Ages. All varieties of guilds, castes, estates are nothing more than licensing and confirmation of a diploma, translated into modern language. And their goal has always been the same - to limit competition, raise prices, increase the incomes of “insiders” and prevent “outsiders”. Those. all the same discrimination and banal cartel collusion that worsens quality and raises prices for the consumer.

Thomas Edison's lack of schooling does not in the least prevent us, and the prohibitive officials, from using light bulbs. However, Edison did not even finish school. He had no licenses, no certificates, no official permission to invent. And schoolteachers (licensed and certified) considered it "limited."

By the way, Hippocrates, too, would not have been able to present licenses for medical practice to the inspection officials.
Copernicus and Galileo, of course, would never have received an astronomer's certificate, because in the Middle Ages it was believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and not vice versa.

Mendel, too, would hardly have been able to obtain a license as a geneticist, taking into account theological, not biological education.
Maybe you need to somehow get out of the Middle Ages? This is the 21st century.

Road accidents are organized by licensed drivers. Medical errors are made by certified and licensed doctors. Licensed and certified teachers teach poorly and mentally traumatize students. At the same time, healers, homeopaths, shamans and charlatans do great without licenses and exams, and thrive perfectly, do their own thing, satisfying the demand of the population.

At the same time, all these licenses and permits feed a lot of officials who do not produce any goods or services useful for citizens, but for some reason have the right to decide for the citizen where he can receive treatment and study for his own taxes.

Infants may have more freedom of choice than the country's adult citizens.


As an example, let's take a look at far from the worst, and perhaps one of the best control and licensing systems - the FDA - the Food and Drug Administration.

This institution employed 14,824 people in 2012, who ate $ 4.36 billion from taxpayers in the same year.

It seems what could be more important and noble than caring for the quality of the products and medicines that people use? According to the Nobel laureate in economics Milton Friedman, more important than such concern can only be the liquidation of this institution. He proposed this in 1973.

What is the danger to people from the results of the work of this institution? It would be logical to assume that the work of these 14 thousand officials reduces the likelihood of harm to a person with medicine or food, and reduces the risk of death. However, everything is exactly the opposite. According to Friedman, as a result of the FDA's work, the cost of developing drugs has increased a hundredfold, and the time for introducing a new drug has increased fourfold (to 25 years). Such changes have made it unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases. And besides them, no one will do this. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people suffering from hundreds of rare diseases are deprived of the possibility of treatment. The health of these people is on the conscience of FDA officials.

Delays in officials' approval of other drugs also cost patients health and lives. So in the UK, several drugs were approved that prevent death from complications of myocardial infarction. In the United States, according to data for 1979, none of them was approved. And the FDA did not allow English medicines for use either. The result is 10,000 deaths annually from complications of a heart attack. These lives are also on the conscience of the FDA.

Not a single careless manufacturer, not a single terrorist, and few aggressive warriors inflicted such damage on their fellow citizens. Of course, it must be stated that the FDA's activities in declaring “caring for people” in fact violate a person's right to life, health and deprive him of the right to choose a way to improve his health.

Why is the activity of this institution, which is far from the worst against the general background in the USA and other countries, so ineffective, expensive and dangerous? Why does an official, protecting a consumer, actually harm him?

Everything is very simple. If an official prohibits something, then he does not risk anything. The chair under it won't wobble and the salary won't evaporate. But if he allows it, but makes a mistake, then he may lose a warm place.

It remains only to be surprised that despite the prohibitive vector of officials' work, pharmaceutical companies managed to register many drugs in the 20th century that saved millions of lives.

And it remains only to be horrified at how many drugs were not developed, were not registered, and were considered economically unpromising due to the high cost and duration of the licensing process. To be horrified at how many people cost their lives and health as a result of the prohibitive activities of officials.

At the same time, the presence of a huge number of licensing, controlling, supervising and fining officials and authorities did not in any way reduce the number of charlatans, folk remedies, all kinds of panaceas and magic pills. Some of them are produced under the guise of dietary supplements, the part simply extends bypassing any pharmacies, shops and authorities.

Should we continue to insist on the wrong path of licensing, banning and regulation? Of course not.

Is there a chance to get rid of this link, which is causing enormous harm to both people and the economy? Of course not. And that's why. There are many officials and they want to eat well. The presence of an official in the manufacturer-product-consumer or service-consumer chain doubles the cost of any product and service. Those. the salary of any person could buy twice as many goods and services, if the control of these goods and services was not carried out by an official.

Maybe it's time to start licensing deputies and other lawmakers? Require deputies to confirm their diploma in economics, since they are adopting economic laws? Maybe it is worth introducing licensing of officials with passing the economic minimum and an empathy exam?

If you collect all the stupid and meaningless laws passed by the kings, parliaments and senates, all the laws that caused harm and suffering to people, the laws that led to a decline in the economy, you get a small library, the number of volumes in which will exceed the thickness of any encyclopedia.

Actually, this argument is quite enough to illustrate the wisdom of the legislator.

Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, American writer, emigrant from St. Petersburg, Alice Rosenbaum (Ayn Rend), Austrian economist, Nobel laureate in economics Friedrich von Hayek and American economist, son of emigrants from Hungary, 1976 Nobel laureate in economics Milton Friedman and many others in at various times insisted on the inadmissibility of interference by politics and the state in economic relations and objected to state regulation of the economy in any form.

Their words were not very well heard.

Their advice was not well followed.

But it was thanks to their words that the iPhone appeared, on which you read this text, the car you drive, the stove on which you cook, and the medicines with which you are being treated.

If they were heard better, then science and economics would already have reached what is described in science fiction novels.

And today robotic cars would drive everywhere on the roads, and robotic taxis and buses would fly over the roads, flights to other planets and colonies on Mars or the Moon would be routine news, and people would get from Alaska to the Maldives in 1 hour, "spare" organs (heart, liver, lungs, teeth, eyes, arms and legs) would be grown in test tubes and changed in the operating room as they wear out, and the average life expectancy would increase manifold ...

But ... voters are waiting for freebies, politicians want votes, and society prefers the status quo.

Now, from an economic point of view, the state is a territorial monopoly. Moreover, the monopoly is rather primitive. It has privileged slaves - officials and everyone else - unprivileged slaves. The state dictates the rules and prices for all economic relationships by issuing laws, licensing, certification and control. Private enterprises and people are forced to buy state services of education, health care, etc. at exorbitant prices. In almost any service of the state, more than half of the cost is a markup for officials. Those. if an individual or a company would provide services of a similar quality, then their price would be half.

This can be illustrated by the example of the construction of social housing in the United States, when the cost per square meter, built by the state, was twice as high as the cost of similar housing built by a private owner.

The state, as a monopoly, produces violence in the first place. Violent licensing (eliminating competition in the market), forcible tax collection (after all, it would never occur to anyone willingly to pay for a bad product at the price of a good one), coercive (through taxes, permits) setting prices for consumers and businesses.

Since, apart from violence, the state does not really know how to produce anything, then when an overproduction of violence occurs in one country, it spills out and spills out into a war with another state.

The state jealously guards its monopoly rights. First, in the area of ​​violence, i.e. the production and sale of weapons, the protection of public order, the determination of the cost of goods and services (licensing and taxes). Secondly, in areas that do not seem to be related to violence: education, medicine, social programs, including pensions.

The second point is interesting because there seems to be no need for the state to spend its energy on these areas of activity. But if the state had not covered up its aggression with a fig leaf of patronage and concern for society, then people would have destroyed this power long ago. That is why the image of a benefactor is so important to the state, giving people health, education, pensions and social programs. Those. this is nothing more than a publicity stunt, PR.

Of course, the state needs the image of a benefactor only as a way to legitimize its own violence. Therefore, he is not very concerned about the quality of education, health care, the size of pensions or social benefits. If only they were. If only you could loudly declare your concern for society.

That is why the state is extremely unprofitable for the emergence of private schools, private clinics, independent savings of citizens, public social initiatives without state patronage.

They are not profitable because the presence of this alternative will easily demonstrate to people all the inferiority of the state educational or pension system. Tear off the fig leaf of the patronage with which the state covers up its inefficiency and propensity to violence.

Therefore, any private clinic, any private school is subject to high taxes. Therefore, people, before paying for private services, are first forced to pay government taxes, even if they do not use them. Therefore, licensing requirements are imposed on private medical and educational institutions. This reduces their number and leads to higher prices for services. Therefore, the contribution to the pension fund from a person's salary is very high. All this was done so that a person could not afford to pay for private education or treatment, so that he did not have the resources to accumulate a pension on his own, so that the state could continue to exploit the myth of the care and social orientation of the authorities.

And privileged slaves - officials are on guard of this myth. For it is not the noun "slaves" that is important to them, but the adjective "privileged", which allows them to command other people.

Those. the state, like any monopoly, tries to destroy a competitor in the bud. And like any monopoly, it incurs exorbitant overhead and management costs. This leads to higher prices for goods and services, and to ineffective management. But this is getting away with the monopoly, since there are no competitors. All competitors are abroad. And hence the fetishization of borders and citizenship.

Restricting competition restricts economic development, slows down technical and scientific progress, reduces the well-being of people and hinders the growth of this well-being, and harms the economy. But the state does not care about this, since the real goal of the state is not in the prosperity of the economy or science, but in the preservation of power.

The sacralization and fetishization of borders, nations and states is a direct consequence of the essence of the state as a monopoly. This, and not anything else, is the reason for the legislative violation of human rights and restriction of freedom of choice. Of course, this is nothing more than violence. For the state does not know how to produce anything except violence.

But there is a way out and a hope, since the state consists of people. And in itself nothing more than an empty sound and a colored spot on the map. All laws and restrictions are invented by people. People, on the other hand, choose legislators who introduce new bans or cancel old ones. People are lazy to analyze, prefer the status quo and approve of prohibitions, each of which harms them. Defects of analysis, inability to calculate the consequences, passion for control and regulation, discriminatory and chauvinistic views are nothing more than the result of poor public education, where everyone walks in formation and wears the same uniform.

It is not so easy to discern the truth through the veil of state education. And, nevertheless, it is worth striving for.

Basically, one historical example is enough to understand what actually stands behind licensing, certification and other government approvals.

When the illegal trade in alcohol, due to the repeal of "Prohibition", ceased to bring Al Capone superprofits, and the huge burdensome fleet of trucks required some use, Al Capone bought a dairy plant in Chicago and equipment for marking the expiration date of milk. After that, he lobbied for the adoption of a law on the sale of milk only if there was an expiration date marking and became a monopolist in the issuance of this type of permits.

Of course, both Al Capone and lawmakers argued this as a public good, so that only fresh milk was sold. But in reality, it was all about money. After all, no one interfered with Al Capone's trade in milk before, during the "dry law", no one interfered with fair competition, offering customers fresh milk with an expiration date as opposed to unmarked milk. But this would not give monopoly and superprofits. And the law gave it.

And the state, introducing any certification and rechecking, is doing the same. After all, the state has a huge "park" of idle officials. After all, the right to license gives the state the right to a monopoly. And super profits.

Rejection of the wrong direction is the first step towards the right path. Refusal from a discriminatory system of permits, licensing, certification and other requirements is the first step towards full observance of the human right to work, freedom of choice, life and health.

Licensing and other procedures do not lead to quality improvement. The only and quite natural result of such laws is an increase in the cost of goods and services and a decrease in the choice of a suitable service or product.

The advocates of prohibitions, morality, and licenses most of all like to appeal to public opinion, the benefit to society, the public good, etc. However, this is nothing more than the usurpation by a small group of people, or even by one person in general, of the right to speak on behalf of someone else. This approach is nothing more than dirty trick and manipulation that mimics the opinion of the majority.

The fact is that at the moment in the world there are approximately 7 billion different public opinions, benefits for society, morals and benefits.

And there are about 7 billion people.

And even in the same country, in the same city, on the same street, in the same family, the concepts of public good, morality, and benefit can be radically different. And there is no greater myth, greater nonsense than public opinion.

In the extreme, such people as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung acted as vivid spokesmen of public opinion, the good for society, public benefit and morality in the near historical perspective. In the Middle Ages, this role was assumed by the Holy Inquisition.

Perhaps those who like to express public opinion, advocates of prohibitions and morality, and advocates of public benefit should remember well whose footsteps they are following.

Violations of human rights harm not only the person himself, but also those around him. At the very least, moral damage. And more often it is material or even harm to health. After all, where the rights of one person are violated, the rights of another are inevitably violated. It's like an epidemic. The laws are the same.

And always violations of human rights are accompanied by ritual dances of champions of morality around public goods, public opinion and benefits for society. And these dances always end in human sacrifice.