The state has the violence right monopoly. This means that it could offer nothing, but may just take away the property of its subjects, according to its wishes. In fact, the state was involved in it most of its history. And it is still involved in much of the world (‘natural state’ according to North and Weingast). Of course, as it is shown by Mancur Olson, a ‘stationary bandit’ is also concerned (for purely selfish reasons) to create some social goods. But its initial goal is still robbery, extortion.
By default, the purpose of this state is the provision of public goods. But later follow the ‘amendments’ in the other way: because violence has not gone, each one in his place could easily abuse it, directly or indirectly. Only sustained public control prevents a modern democratic state from backsliding into a ‘natural’ one.
The second aspect of the problem is that the transparency and legitimacy are never installed simultaneously throughout society and, moreover, never developed ‘from the bottom up’. Firstly, elites should live under the new law, and this example extends down. So, Vitaly Portnikov properly accents the fact, that ‘people want elites to live under the law, but it itself – ‘by the code of the underworld’. This is quite a natural, necessary, logical and progressive stage of development. And what is important is that before you apply legality to the ‘down’, the laws should be changed from the ‘extractive’ to those according to which the majority is ready to live and consider them useful.
When inciting angry and robbed poor people against the middle class, corrupt ‘tops’ kill two birds with one stone: they divert anger from themselves and weaken those who pose a huge threat to them.
Thus, to give an account to the public should only those who either live on taxpayers’ money, or may be in a position to abuse of state violence – that is trust, which society has attributed to them. And that’s it. No private entities (either NGO or business – no one!) should do anything else. The only exception is their founders or donors. If they want to publish something, that is their right, but in any case not an obligation.
Any attempt to shift the focus from ‘ups’ to ‘downs’ or middle class is a #betrayal. This technology is very well described by Yevhen Bystrytsky. For example, attempts to interpret the simplified system of taxation as a main evil come from the same source. Great players, staying in the shade (well, why should they really show their true intentions publicly?), push ahead as ‘useful idiots’, probably, quite sincere and well-intentioned people who complacently believe in the moral state which may exist for the general well being.
In the tax policy field, the shakedowns on the simplified tax system are being started whenever there is a threat to truly big ‘schemes’. Correspondingly, the shakedowns on anti-corruption crusaders mean that ‘big fish’ feels itself insecure. And it pleases.
Read the full article [in ukrainian]