State and T-killers

    Time after time, in different topics and in different articles, on different resources, I see from many people about the same point of view. This point of view looks something like this:
    I am a citizen of the country, therefore, the territory of the country that makes a profit (through mining or through the use of territories), partially belongs to me. In addition, I pay taxes (both directly, through personal income tax, getting a salary, and indirectly, buying goods with VAT in the price), so part of the money in the budget is paid by me, and I have the right to take into account my opinion about spending this money and I have the right to make decisions on the management of the country, since it is necessary that these decisions are made in the interests of citizens.
    This point of view seems to me wrong. A jester would be with her if she were simply wrong. But in the conditions of modern society, it seems to me to be significantly harmful to humans, interfering with the understanding of the principles of interaction with the state and creating the feeling “I have the right, but they don’t give me”, which affects productivity: it’s difficult to work successfully and enjoy life, if the feeling is constantly hanging, that you haven’t been given what is supposed to be.

    Disclaimer. Read, this is important.
    Firstly, under the cut, a large (40k characters) boring text with almost no pictures. Even if his controversial theses are not taken into account, he still remains big and boring. Please close the article if you are not able to keep concentration and context in long posts, and do not try to comment if you did not close - this will bring grief to both you and me.

    Secondly, you may not like the theses and the meaning of this text. Up to the burning remains of a chair. I realize this, and declare right here, at the beginning: the theses are unpleasant. The theses differ from the vanilla perception of the world, which many of us stuffed in schools, books and the family. Please close the article if you are not able to at least consider the opponent’s point of view and respect the fact that he has his own point of view.

    Thirdly, I declare in advance that I do not claim to have a truly correct understanding of the processes, and I do not claim that I am right. If you think I'm wrong, you can argue with me. If you do this reasonably (I remind you that a personal example is not an argument) and from a position of logic, as well as, given the two overlying points, I promise to listen to you. If not, don’t be surprised that I’ll start to scoff at you or say “you are a fool” and stop engaging in dialogue.

    Fourthly, I beg you to refrain from discussing any specific political situation. As soon as a discussion of theoretical considerations on how a system canwork, we move into the practical field, we, as a rule, make two big mistakes: we begin to discuss specific events without having complete information about them, and we begin to give our own examples as evidence. Such a discussion is irrational, and does not lead to an interesting result.

    Get to know each other. A green cell is a T-killer. A t-killer is a type of lymphocyte that, if it sees a certain protein on the surface of the cell, leans against it, makes a hole in it, and puts enzymes in it, which start indiscriminately crumbling everything inside the cell. The cell says “well, I’m not going to work in such conditions” and launches apoptosis. In fact, the cell can be more accurately asked to commit suicide, there is a special mechanism for this, but it is more reliable: suddenly someone has already taken control of the cell and is not included in its plans to kill itself?

    Why this excursion into biology, if we are here about politics? And to the fact that on such a model example it is very convenient to show mechanisms that work in completely different areas.

    If you carefully look at the initial point of view, you can highlight the main points:

    • The profit that the territory belonging to the citizen brings, and the taxes that he pays, allow him to be considered a shareholder or investor of the state
    • The state should take into account the opinion of shareholders / investors regarding the expenditure of money that it contributed
    • The state should take into account the views of shareholders / investors in organizational decisions
    • Decisions are made in the interests of citizens, which means that they cannot do without the opinion of citizens, because apart from them, no one can express it.

    Let's start deconstructing theses from the very beginning.

    Whose budget is it?

    How does an ordinary person who is brought up in a relatively modern society argues? He who gives money can make decisions. Then a person considers how much they make up 40% of his salary for a year, is horrified how much money he gives to the state, and begins indignantly writing comments: “the rocket was built with my money, it fell, let the designers answer for it!”, “The deputies are paid salaries out of my money, they should protect my interests, and not all garbage ”,“ ILV is kept with my money, I want to take part in what needs to be blocked and what is not necessary. ”

    In fact, inaccuracy is at the very beginning of the argument. An ordinary citizen is not a state investor. The term "investor" has a clear meaning: it is an entity that voluntarily gives a certain amount of money in exchange for a part of the company, hoping that it will be able to make a profit (through the sale of this part at a higher price, or in the form of dividends).

    Ordinary citizen:

    • He does not have the ability to decide whether to give money to the state or not: if he does not pay taxes, bailiffs will come to him and take them by force.
    • Does not receive profit from invested funds.
    • In exchange for his money he receives not a share, but quite understandable and measurable services: on the development of laws, on their observance, the work of an arbitrator, on ensuring protection of himself and his property, social guarantees, medical care, a guarantee that the neighboring country will not seize Tomorrow is his city and house, infrastructure services (parks, roads, courtyards, lighting) and so on. You can discuss the price / quality ratio and the need for these services (someone wants a pension, and someone would rather save for old age himself), but the fact remains: the services are provided, and are provided in exchange for some share of the added value that each generates citizen.

    Thus, a citizen is not an investor, but represents something like a buyer in a store or a subscriber for a certain service : he is money, he is a product or service.

    However, this does not prevent our citizen from declaring that even when buying in a store, he indirectly pays the salary to the cashier, and therefore, the cashier must have something for him (be polite, for example).
    So, in the case of the state, the same principle applies: indirectly paying salaries to all state bodies, a citizen is sure that they owe him something.

    This thesis is just as untrue as the previous one. Of course, buyers generate store profits, and salaries are paid to sellers from this profit. Does this mean that buyers pay salaries? Not.

    The store pays the salary. Yes, he pays her out of the money that he receives from customers , but he pays the store. Under the contract with the seller, the store takes part of the profit that the seller generates (the store’s net profit for the month, say, a million, five employees, which means that each of them generated an average of 200 thousand profit), in exchange for:

    1. Guarantee of salary payment: it does not matter if there is profit or not profit, salary is paid for working hours.
    2. Social guarantees: you cannot force a person to work for more than 8 hours if he does not want to, and you cannot take and fire a person in one day, because he wanted to.
    3. The stability of the company as a whole: a small store may pay more, but may close tomorrow. In a large chain store, you can work as long as you like.
    4. The ability to “use” assets: the premises in which the seller works, the equipment on which he works, the brand in which money is also invested, and which generates a flow of buyers and so on.

    In this context, we are interested in the first point, which means that regardless of the current profit of the store, the seller will be paid the same salary. Today we have a million profit, six months later, in the low season, expenses of 200 thousand. The cashier, however, received 30 thousand salaries, and so does. Where do they get paid when there is no profit? From stock of money or investor’s pocket. If buyers formed the salary, it would float from 200 thousand to zero, which not all people agree on.

    The store takes all the profits (part of which, of course, the employees created), but in return it guarantees employees some things, including paying salaries beyond the desire of buyers to come to the store as a whole, and paying salaries to sellers in particular.
    Thus, buyers do not pay salaries to sellers, simply because before the salary falls to employees on cards, it is considered the means of the store, which the store decides how to dispose of - give a premium, or not give, buy new equipment, or save money for a rainy day.

    The case where the consumer forms the payroll of employees almost directly is the case of waiters in a cafe, where tips make up a serious amount in salary.

    When was the last time you tipped a government official? ILV staff? Working Roskosmos? Maybe, at least, the director of a public school? Obviously never. Moreover, the situation “a citizen gives money to a public servant” is interpreted very, very definitely.

    Thus, as soon as your money (and in fact, the money of your employer) at the time of payment of salary fell on the account of the Federal Tax Service, they ceased to be someone else's and became state. Precisely for the same reason as in the store: on every ruble there are no and cannot be marks “1/1000 part of this ruble must be given to the salaries of state employees”, because these salaries are formed in a completely different way, much more complicated, and are not provided taxes of citizens, and a state obligation to pay. Such an obligation is a risk, for which, among other things, the state takes part of the money for itself (more precisely, not part of the money, but the right to dispose of this part).

    In addition, “I pay you a salary” implies not only this risk, but also a conscious decision about whether to pay it or not. Obviously, a citizen paying taxes cannot (and does not want, believe me) decide on which part of the money he needs to spend on public sector wages, and which - on the purchase of new chairs for the city hall.

    The final result of this section is the thesis that the money in the budget is state money, and even participation in the formation of this budget does not make it possible to say that this money is not state money, but a citizen.


    These are T lymphocytes that attack a cancer cell. Really handsome? Wait, there will be about them.

    Does the fact of paying taxes give preferences?

    Well, the citizen will say. “I pay taxes, so I have rights, right?”

    No, not at all. You have rights as a citizen, regardless of whether you pay little taxes, pay a lot of them, or don’t pay at all. If you don’t pay taxes at all, either directly or indirectly (you live in a makeshift tent in the forest, don’t work, eat berries, make pants from birch bark, have no property, and don’t buy anything), then you still have the same rights like any other citizen who pays taxes more than you. From your decision not to pay taxes to the state, it is neither hot nor cold: tax collection is a probabilistic process in which any small deviations are leveled out simply because there are a lot of people. If you somehow, for example, having hacked the FTS base, make sure that you don’t pay taxes, the state will not even notice this, just like a store will not notice one person,

    The fact that you bought goods for 10 thousand in the store does not give you preferences in relation to another customer, that you bought 100 rubles: respect for all customers is the same, and that’s right, otherwise going to yogurt tomorrow morning will stumble upon the rudeness of the guards .
    This does not happen because of universal justice, but simply because, on the scale of the store’s turnover , both the buyer who brought 100 rubles and the buyer who brought 10 thousand are equally small .

    However, as I said, there is no universal justice, and as soon as the buyer begins to make at least a few percent of the turnover, the attitude towards him immediately becomes different. Up to this border, everyone is equal, after - some are still more equal, nothing personal, only business .

    It’s just difficult to bring one or two million a month to the store, and already bring at least a tenth of a percent to the country's tax budget ...

    Total: preferences in the form of rights are given not by the fact of paying taxes, but by the status of a citizen. He also obliges to pay taxes on his income, but rights and taxes are not directly connected with a causal relationship. It is possible to get preferences from the fact of paying taxes, but only to dozens and hundreds of people in the country.

    And then T-lymphocytes. Soon we will write about them too.

    Opinion of citizens

    - Good. But since the state acts in my interests, it should take into account my opinion, right?

    Let's leave the first part of the thesis for a snack, we will deal with the second. "The state must take into account the opinion of all its citizens." Sounds good, right? But if we again draw an analogy with the store, everything becomes a little strange: "The store must take into account the opinion of all its customers." It’s not very clear what resources to listen to all buyers, and it’s not very clear why: after all, the average buyer has no idea about the work of the store, about the product matrix, about the impact of the calculation on revenue, about the share of payroll in profit, about agreements with tenants, and so Further.

    Despite the fact that the offers “bring goods X” may be at least 50%, it may bringunprofitable from the point of view of the store, despite the fact that these are real wishes of living buyers.

    Therefore, take into account the opinion of all: a) it is impossible, b) pointless. You can take into account only the opinion of groups of people and only on those issues that have already passed the "primary filter" in the form of decision-makers and therefore, with sufficient information.
    It makes no sense to ask customers "what product to add to our assortment." It makes sense to highlight several positions at the management level by preliminary analysis, the expected profit from which is the same, and here it is up to the customers to decide for themselves whether they need tomatoes from Astrakhan or cucumbers from Tambov.

    The same mechanism operates in the state: in the vast majority of cases, citizens are given the choice of several equivalent (for the state) options, according to the principle "we are interested in your opinion, but solely because we do not see the difference between the options."

    This is not done because the state is bad, or because it does not care about its citizens. This is done because citizens are not specialists in state administration and do not possess the necessary information.

    It is impossible to solve at the level of citizens the question "is it necessary to build a bridge on the other side of the river." Just because only a few citizens have an idea of how much this bridge, what traffic will be across this bridge, which construction company will want to build a sleeping area on the other side, how much this bridge will unload part of the roads in the city center in five years, and so on.

    Even if we interview all citizens, the answer received will not differ very much from randomness: when answering a question, citizens will take into account the factors “I have a mother-in-law living there, I don’t need”, “I think it's better to build kindergartens”, “I want a beautiful bridge ”, and others, about the same level, completely ignoring the factors that really have to do with the bridge. Not because citizens are bad or stupid, but simply because the process of handling these factors is the same job as any other, it needs to be studied as well, and just like for any other job, it’s necessary to have some skill, quite a large amount of knowledge.

    A welder is not required to have knowledge about medicine, and a citizen - about managing the country, this is normal, and moreover, this is one of the goals of creating a state: to enable everyone to do what he can do better.

    It is possible that the welder knows better than the deputy what to do in a particular situation. But there are too many welders for there to be an easy way to distinguish this “best knowledgeer” from thousands of others who know worse. Moreover, the difficulty arises by no means from the problems of verifying the ideas of welders, but much earlier - at the moment when thousands of people have to be listened to, spending resources that are not commensurate with the final benefit.
    This state of affairs leads to the fact that even such an action (just having the opportunity to tell your point of view) in relation to a large system must be earned: having evidence of your competence (diplomas, academic titles, expert recognition), having the opportunity to influence the system quite strongly ( managing, for example, a large factory or holding), or in any way representing the interests of many people (organizing people with the same interests, or becoming so authoritative for them that they will support your opinion).

    Total: while living in the state, you have the right to respect, to social guarantees, you have the right to express an opinion within the agreed limits, but the ability to tell the state (department, officials) how they are better off working is not a right, but a privilege.

    The interests of citizens (and finally about the T-killers)

    Now we turn to the final part: to the thesis that the state acts in the interests of citizens.

    Oh, this is a very interesting thesis!

    This thesis is traditionally strong in Russia, where authorities are called the "servant of the people." In whose interests do servants act? In the interests of those whom they serve, i.e. of the people.

    Such a logical chain has three weak links: government representatives do not serve, but for the most part work, work for the good of the people, but for the good of the country, and the interests of the country and people may not correspond (or even conflict) with the interests individual citizen (or even a group of persons).

    Several years of socialist ideology and several revolutions and system changes, in each of which the population was explained that the previous government was evil in the flesh, and now, when it was thrown, uh, let’s heal, it led to a slightly distorted perception of officials and leaders of higher echelons . But what is there, to a distorted perception of the very structure of the state.

    The point of view about the primacy of man - that is, "land to peasants, factories workers", that the state is only an auxiliary tool for the efficient use of resources, has become normal.

    A person, of course, can assume that the purpose of the store is to provide the population as a whole, and his beloved, in particular, with products, and will be somewhat right. But, if we are not in socialism, the purpose of the store is much more prosaic: making money for its owner.

    If we throw away the annoying example of a store and return to the state, keeping in mind the idea that the object operates exclusively in its own interests, we can easily form the function and interests of the state as a whole: survival and growth (through territories, population or sphere of influence) .

    The thesis is controversial, yes. Controversial in that regard, which explains what can be explained in other ways, which has been done quite successfully for decades.

    But I like this explanation because it eliminates the need for additional entities.

    The classic thesis that the state acts in the interests of people, when faced with reality, begins to crack, and a fair amount of glue is needed so that it does not crumble completely:

    • Prerequisite: The state acts in the interests of citizens
    • Fact 1: The group “citizens of the state” includes both the LGBT community and those who like the Internet without restrictions
    • Fact 2: The state passes laws that infringe on certain groups: on blocking sites, on promoting homosexuality
    • Conflict: the state must act in the interests of the citizen, but does not act in the interests of the citizen
    • Conflict resolution: there is a certain entity in the state that, due to its motives, prevents the state from effectively satisfying the interests and needs of citizens

    The explanation is formally consistent and has its own logic. However, as I said, this is achieved by introducing additional elements into the initial postulate in the form of a certain group of people who managed to get into power and do their bad deeds there to create obstacles for ordinary people. For example, they steal money, and they want to block resources so that this information does not leak everywhere. Difficult, but acceptable.

    However, according to the principle of Occam’s razor, one should carefully consider those explanations that do not need to attract additional entities. Actually, such a long introduction was written only in order to try to convince the reader that the next option should at least be considered .

    Formulating the “goal” of the state as “survival and growth”, one can explain, for example, censorship much easier: it is an instrument to ensure the integrity of the state. These actions may run counter to the goals of individuals, but since we are untied from the need to consider following these goals in the explanation, we should not be bothered in this case.

    For example, almost every one of us loves our body. He feeds him good, quality food, which has enough protein to build new cells; doesn’t take drugs (well, or at least it isn’t heroin-injected , or at least it doesn’t do it regularly); once a year checked by a doctor; treated if still ill; sleeps enough; does exercises in the morning; crossing the road, looks around; not too overworked at work, and so on. A huge bunch of actions that spend energy that are aimed only at making the body feel good.

    An organ, possessing a separate consciousness, and knowing about these actions, may decide that it is in his interests: the protein in food provides him with building material, the sport and a healthy lifestyle provide enough blood flow to supply him with oxygen, the doctor checks whether there is a tumor that can kill this organ, and so on.
    The body (let, for example, be the heart) decides "I provide the body with blood, so they take care of me so much, I am important."

    From the point of view of a person, he cares about health in general, and he does not care about this particular organ, much less at the cell .

    And if this person has an inflamed appendix, then he goes to the hospital and cuts him to hell. The apparition develops a dissonance (not for long, but it arises): how was it that they took care of it a week ago, but now they took it, cut it off, threw it away, and even caused the whole body any inconvenience: the sore hurts, the hospital feeds with porridge, underneath it’s duck walks, a scar on his stomach will remain.

    From the point of view of the body, everything is logical: health and life in general are more important to us than temporary inconvenience, scar and personal feelings of the appendix.

    T-killer attacking a cancer cell

    Finally, back to the T-killers. While reading this entire article, the reader most likely already forgot what it is, so I’ll remind you: this is the type of lymphocyte that kills infected body cells.

    All that other cells from the T-killers see is how they come and kill the neighboring cell, although it seems to have done nothing of the kind. If you take and ask the random cell “Do you need T-killers”, she will answer something like “No, not needed, some troubles from them, my brother died so, I'm afraid they will come to me tomorrow. Why do they exist? And xs. Corruption, probably . ”
    What is most characteristic, the cell is right, they can really come and kill tomorrow, and there is a chance that by mistake. Absolutely logical position.

    And from the point of view of the organism as a whole, this mechanism is one of the most important, which does not allow tomorrow to die from any disease.

    Now he asks the citizen if he needs ILV. No, not needed, the citizen answers us. They blocked the site, traffic sank at my store, I can’t enter the site with kittens, some troubles from them. Right? Right From a citizen’s point of view, the work that ILV does on the Internet is harmful. From the point of view of the state, everything can be the other way around.

    Of course, this is just an approximate analogy that should not be taken literally. I do not draw a direct parallel between ILV and immunity: I know more about immunity than how ILV works and moreover, what is its real role in ensuring the stability of the state. I do not know, therefore I will not say that it is important for this stability. However, I will not say the opposite.

    But it is absolutely certain that if tomorrow it is necessary to drive the citizens to camps for the survival of the state, they will be driven. Without anger at citizens, without hatred, just "sorry, it turned out, it is necessary." Just as if you discover a tumor, you will go for chemotherapy and endure nausea, indigestion, abdominal pain, loss of hair and other troubles: life is more expensive. Hair is a pity, but it is necessary.

    Who will decide that it is necessary to drive citizens to camps and make them work there? And no one, the system itself. In the countries at the current stage of development of society there are no more people who can make serious decisions alone. This is possible within the framework of a pure monarchy, which is now left well if a couple of pieces in some African outback.

    Such a structure is not formed by someone, just as no one has consciously formed an immune system in your body. Just such a structure is the
    only one suitable and effective for managing a large number of people.

    Just because when you are 5 people, you are equal. When you are 20 people, with some stretch, too. When you are 100, you need a leader if you wantBe together. When you are a billion and you have managed to stake a piece of the globe behind you, you need a complicated system of hierarchy and synchronization, otherwise such a mass of people will quarrel among themselves, and then with their neighbors.

    And in the conditions of the Earth and human beings with human consciousness, the only viable option for such a structure is precisely an organization that can protect and continue itself, creating tools for itself that allow it to do this.
    If you like, then such an organization of society is the result of evolution, since all the components for evolution are: variability (new people and new ideas get into society), selection (some societies survive, some not) and heredity (people leave and create new societies, copying the strategies of survivors).

    And this organization has and uses many tools for its own benefit: the “propaganda” tool uses the vulnerabilities of the human brain and consciousness, forcing him to make decisions that are disadvantageous for him, but beneficial for society (what propaganda uses was intended to preserve the population as a whole but the state reoriented the mechanism a little), the “army” tool uses people who can make decisions that are unfavorable for themselves, to protect other people and the integrity of the country, even at the cost of some of these people oraya will die in the process. The censorship tool, using, for example, the desire of some people to impart their own point of view to everyone, reduces the number of ideas in the information field that reduce the effectiveness of propaganda.

    See what’s the matter? A particular censorship decision maker may want anything. Perhaps he is just a hidden gay, and he is enraged by gays, so he is trying to ban propaganda. It does not matter. More importantly, he acts mainly in the interests of the state, therefore he was “taken out” to this place, and he is sitting there steadily, contributing to his rejection of homosexuality in his fight against gays, and as a result, increasing the birth rate (we remember that the goal of the state is to increase ) The fact that a particular girl will be unhappy all her life because she is afraid to tell someone that she likes girls more and will be forced to marry a guy she doesn’t really want, the state does not care, much more important, that this action increases the total fertility rate.

    Where is the information stored about what the system wants to achieve and what it needs to do for this if it does not have a specific person who makes decisions?

    Everywhere .

    Remember the classic experiment with a group of monkeys that were hosed?
    They were given a box of banana, and if someone wanted to pick up this banana, everyone was doused with water. Water is cold and nasty, and the banana remained in the box. Then they replaced half of the group with new ones, and when they wanted to grab this banana, the rest quickly explained to them that it is better not to touch the banana, it will not be possible, everyone will not be very. Then the group was updated again - and this time the entire old squad was removed, letting in completely new ones instead. The procedure “no, you can’t touch a banana, I tell you” was repeated, and the group began to consist of monkeys who were never doused with water, but who clearly know that you can’t touch a banana.

    Some knowledge arose, meme. Knowledge of the necessary behavior, not dictated by the environment: all these monkeys can be transferred to another cell, and this will still work. It is not dictated by specific personalities: it is possible to replace the subjects, and all the same, the behavior will continue. A separate monkey is not a carrier of behavior: getting into a cage where you can touch a banana, it will touch it. A banana and a box can also be replaced, after all, so the carrier of this behavior is not a banana .

    What is the conclusion? Behavior is a property of the system. It is this system of a dozen monkeys. The mechanism of the emergence and preservation of this behavior is emergent - it arises only when there is a group, and disappears if there is no group. But as long as the group exists, this mechanism works so clearly that the desired behavior by itself falls into the heads of each of the monkeys, and remains there.

    What is still interesting - the specific ways in which this behavior gets into the head are not very important. They can be different for each monkey: someone looks at how other monkeys take bananas from the feeder, but they don’t touch the one in the center of the cage, someone near the monkey who holds the paw will bark at someone higher male. A system consisting of many subjects receives another emergent property - the ability to convey information to each member in the most appropriate way. This property is obtained due to the interaction of many agents that are united by a single behavior. Each monkey acts individually, trying to convey to the newcomers the idea that it is impossible to touch a banana, and trying to convey it as it sees fit. If it does not work out for the first monkey, it will work out for the second. It will not work for the second,

    UPD : Thanks to a5b , who warned that such an experiment did not exist, and this, in fact, is a fake , only very famous. I did not delete the paragraph, since it is necessary to understand the structure of the article, but I apologize for using an example as an argument that was not true. Whatever the thesis of the article, several overlying paragraphs should be considered based on a beautiful story, and not on a real experiment: agree if you are satisfied with my argument, and not because it is a confirmed scientific study.

    Of course, this is a very, very simplified example. In the real world and in real communities consisting of thousands of people, everything is much more complicated: there are more subjects, cerebralization rate is higher, the degree of abstraction is greater, as well as the number and complexity of objects that a person can operate on.

    But the meaning remains: the knowledge of the system and its behavior is smeared with a thin layer over the heads and thoughts of people, it is invisibly present in the information field: books, movies, educational documents, stories, tales, discussions in the smoking room and anecdotes.

    The same mechanism operates in large companies: the company always has its own culture and behavior patterns. Looking from the side, you do not see this. Reading the memories of working in the company from some person in your stream, you will recognize a piece of culture, distorted, filed through the prism of perception, small but a piece. When you come to work in this company, you begin to listen to colleagues ’conversations, meet with them in a smoking room and at lunch, begin to understand how they say about bosses more often:“ this asshole ”or“ earring, bastard, smart ”.
    A thin film of culture and a code of conduct in the company, its principles and aspirations stick to your mind, and within the framework of this company you begin to act in the same way as your colleagues: prefer to take risks and run projects if it is held in high esteem, or sit quietly and not argue with the boss, if you have a couple of stories in your memory of how upstarts were fired. Carefully clean the crumbs in the trash in the dining room or not take care of them, because the cleaning lady will clean them.

    You can allow these pieces of behavior to arise themselves or to impose them on purpose (which requires understanding, control, and effort at several levels). But you cannot specifically create or try to prevent the creation of a system: it arises itself if there are conditions for this.

    From this, by the way, another funny fact follows (in addition to gay propaganda): since the media field is formed by the media, bloggers, radio and cinema, a working ban on the mention of a phenomenon (in general or in a specific context) reduces the frequency of this phenomenon.

    As the concept of “bribe taker” is created in the media day after day with news and jokes about the concept of “official”, the proportion of people who will begin the career of an official in the hope of getting rich on bribes will be greater. In a way, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy - everyone knows that officials take bribes, and the more they talk about it, and the firmer the knowledge, the more officials really start to take them , as in the story about the prosecutor’s general, that “everything’s shining from the head to the shoes. "

    Total, on this and the last point: the state does not act in the interests of citizens, but acts exclusively in its interests, survival and growth. Since the state is an emergent structure of a higher order (obtaining entities and properties that are absent from the simple sum of members), but consists of citizens, many actions of the state are aimed at the quality of life of members of this state, which makes it possible to think that the state acts in the interests of citizens. This is not true, as is the thesis that the body (which is also an emergent structure in relation to the cells of which it consists) acts in the interests of its cells.


    Now a little about what I actually wanted to say, and why I wanted to say it.

    I oppose the position described at the very beginning of the article, for a reason, out of a desire to protest. It's just that this position is not as useful as is commonly believed. And moreover, I have the opinion that such a position has negative utility, i.e. makes a person’s life worse.

    In psychology, there is such a thing as frustration. Frustration - this is a mismatch of desires with existing opportunities. Every time a person takes the position “the state owes me”, but not receiving what the state, in his opinion, owes him, the person experiences frustration. A small fraction of this sensation is useful because it leads to active actions or defensive reactions, but in the case of constant, ongoing frustration, it acts negatively, creating a feeling of disappointment: in oneself, in people around, in the country. An attempt to change the situation by moving to another country is doomed to failure: after several years spent in attempts to naturalize, a person discovers that it turns out that the same mechanisms operate in another state. Is that state. employees smile more affably.

    To exclude such a situation, it is necessary to change the very principle of thinking.

    The state is not an employee. The state is not your business partner. Just as you cannot hire the company you work for, and you cannot say that the company that pays your salary is your business partner, you cannot apply these ideas to the state.

    You do not choose the state in which you are born. By the time you gain full self-awareness and a sufficient level of abstraction to qualify for a conscious choice of at least something, you are already a citizen of a particular state. Moreover, you have already grown up in it, having absorbed its cultural characteristics and having built your personality in accordance with them, and these cultural characteristics will remain with you for a very long time.

    Even planning to move, in most cases, you really can’t choose your own state: as a rule, you have a list of several countries that are ready to accept you subject to a number of conditions , and not the countries line up in the hope of getting a specialist like you.

    In recent history, I know only one case (not counting some anecdotal cases of virtual states), when a certain group of people was so tired of everyone around with their desire for their own state, that they were allowed to create it. What followed was the closest approach to “choosing a state for yourself,” when a couple of dozen people created the state. It was insanely complicated preparatory work, very decisive actions, a large share of luck, and the heroic work of these people for several years after that. And also, a very specific thing is that this group of people has clear self-determination.

    Changing the principle of thinking is difficult and unpleasant. Just yesterday, a man had an ephemeral, but still the right to something, and now, only one night passed, and the man seemed to give up this right. Refusing something is difficult and painful, even if this something belonged to a person only in his head.

    But a person who did not do this is like a cancer patient who claims that all diseases are God's punishment, and that the ways of the Lord are mysterious.

    It’s a shame to admit that you got sick because you led a bad lifestyle. But without this, it will be much more difficult to recover.

    If you write down all the pros and cons on the tablet, it turns out that the recognition still has more advantages:
    VeraIt is enough to just
    believe and pray.
    Your troubles do not
    depend on you , on all the will of God
    Die soon
    Scientific approachThere is a chance to recoverIt must be recognized that cancer is the
    effects of smoking.
    You must stop smoking and
    start running in the morning.

    Differences between the position "the state should take my opinion into account" from the belief in God with cancer, that you can live with this position for a very long time. True, with a constant feeling of disappointment.

    In the case of the disease, a person can begin to act proactively and make informed decisions only after taking the position "I am to blame for my troubles, and I can fix it."

    Living in a state, and having no other choice, a person can begin to act proactively only after he accepts the thesis that he cannot demand from the state those things that are not appropriate for him. Only after that the mental focus will shift from “what way is better to demand what I owe” to “how can I get what I want and what I can offer in return.”

    In most cases, however, it turns out that in return for the opportunity to broadcast their ideas about leadership, a person does not want or cannot give anything useful.
    However, the realization of this is also the right position, leading to some ... reduction of sturgeon requirements.


    Also popular now: