In society

It's time

May 2, 2014 Sergey Sharov-Delon

That's right now. When almost hopeless. When there are no hopes for the turn to the light and it is already clear that there will be no light at the end of the tunnel - except from the explosion of a powder barrel of the deadline, which was laid at the end of this dead end ... So right now we must deal with the future. With the future we want to build. Without delay. Then it will not be up to it: let's survive - it will have to be built with all his might.

In the meantime, it’s dark - we must understand ourselves, we must talk about where and how we are going to go, we must explain to people our views. So that there are no questions: "If not he, then who?" And “what do you want? What do you offer? Anyway, do you have what is the soul or just criticize the masters? ”

After all, in fact, our opponents are right. It is enough to reveal the program of any opposition party and any movement who bothering to write it, so that everything immediately becomes clear: they are all decisively for all the good and categorically against everything bad. Very cool (especially - very specifically). Thank you very much for the fruitful discussion.

The saddest thing is that even those who seem to agree that they need to clarify the situation and need to draw at least something like a road map, even they consider this business today some kind of optional, still binding, a matter that can be postponed later. It is forbidden. Otherwise, this "later" will never come. Or it will come, and instead of moving, we will begin ... to think with which leg this movement start. If! We will begin to discuss where to eat ..., about the features of national fishing (crossed out) of the mentality, about that Europe or ... - Well, in general, you know.

Actually, everything. I decided that it was time impudently to operate our peculiarity - a passion for discussing irrelevant (but everyone considers it irrelevant, right?) Thus. And I propose some considerations. Their personal ones - beat me only. As a common for everyone - I do not agree to less - a roadmap.

I. Foundations.

I'll start Ab Ovo. I am absolutely convinced that, creating a person, the Lord for some reason (the ways of the Lord is inexcriminate, isn't it?) Made him free. Actually, one of his first appeals to Adam was an explanation from which wood in the garden is possible, and from which (if not forgotten - from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) it is impossible. At this moment, the Lord either suddenly lost his mind - before that he did everything with the creation of the world very well: until now, despite all our efforts, it is quite safe! - Or, on the contrary, he did everything more than by his mind. Because he didn’t cost him anything that a person would not even notice this ill -fated tree (the programmer will explain to you any middle hand how to achieve this). And he said, like, “Boy, don’t stick a finger in a socket” - everyone who has children knows very well what happens after such a ban, even if earlier the boy’s socket was not at all interested in. As I understand it, the first test for profane persons passed successfully. And got what it deserves ...

... received freedom: free will and responsibility for his actions. Have you ever talked with very “right” children? Have you talked? Didn't you feel sick? But with the wrong ones more interesting! They are alive. So the Lord needed just that. And the most important thing is that in this world these people could have love. And for her I need freedom. Because without freedom (including without freedom to love or not to love), love can only be for our native party and the government, which we (those who are older) have passed and remember how the whole thing ended. For the whole further, this is not so important, but for the sake of completeness of the picture, I will say that the Lord, it seems, was needed for people to be able to come to him with love of free will. For what? I have no idea. But for this, he did everything so that freedom and love could exist in our human world. He did not make him convenient and comfortable at all: love and freedom are terribly uncomfortable and difficult, and you have to answer for them in full. He made him alive and interesting.

If the gentlemen atheists and agnostics have reached a prejudice, I dare to reassure that it will be easier further. Only before you get it: it was written not even so much for you as about you. Because even if there is at least some minimum meaning in the discussion on the topic "Russia is Europe or not?" (And America, Australia, New Zealand?), To discuss whether Russia is a country of Christian tradition, there is no point in. Is. And all our deepest ideas about “what is good and what is bad” are based on a Christian worldview. Secularizers of the Enlightenment and their followers, who “N'Ont Pasbesoindectehipethèse” simply removed the cause from the consideration, leaving all the consequences. And their "natural law" turned out to be Christian law, with its indissoluble ligament "personal-pivotal-lobe-and-person-dimensionality."

Everything I wrote above is not an empty preamble. All my understanding of such mundane things as social relations, politics, economics, etc. Bakes on this basis. Several simple and clear conclusions grow from it: individualism is normal, but collectivism is not. The first makes society a derivative of personalities, free people, the second - makes people a derivative of society, destroying their freedom. The first provides an opportunity for such a valuable thing as human solidarity - unity of free choice, the second leaves the sad inheritance of the "trench fraternity", unity of coercion. Exactly also economic liberalism is normal, but socialism is not. The first requires a person to activate free his own will and imposes responsibility for him for decisions and actions, the second - shifts responsibility to the shoulders of society and the state at the cost of restrictions on the manifestation of free will. The first requires a person to resist entropy, the second - allows you to peacefully dig on the side of the lounges.

Then everything is already easier. The state (power), in my opinion, is acceptable only by the one that regulates, and even then “according to our power of attorney”, only the extremely narrow circle of issues, leaving us, people and citizens, to solve the rest according to our own understanding and by mutual agreement. As we decide - we (each of us) answer before God and people. In other words, this is exactly what is called the word “democracy” so sophisticated in recent years: the power, the state, which is responsible to citizens, to which the leading circle of issues is transferred to the civil society controlled by this society, only those that are difficult to solve (the higher the level of power, the more the range of issues falling under its knowledge). Well, for example: the defense of the country from external threats is in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and we will once elect the sheriff-police officers in our village or the area, we will know, who to choose, but it will work badly-we will re-elect. Well, or, for example, this is one of the most important examples, no matter how secondary it may seem - issues of standards and standardization. It is strange enough (and most importantly - everyone is inconvenient), if, say, each plant will cut the thread of its own model: the simplest operation to select nuts to the bolts will become akin to jewelry art. Which, of course, is exciting, but somehow excessively-already there are enough worries. And in schools, probably, it would be nice if some volume and level of knowledge to everyone would still be observed everywhere, if only in order for graduates to compete to some extent to compete for the following steps of education, and simply to study further, and not to constantly make up for the missed school. But should the state (and at what level?) To engage in the schools themselves - this is to solve this. The list is not exhausted. The above - just visual examples.

In order for the liberal policy, that is, a policy based on the freedom and responsibility of citizens, it could really exist, it is necessary to have a notorious civil society. And for him we need citizens, i.e. Taxpayers. Today we do not pay any taxes: 13% of the income tax is taken out by the employer's accounting department, and we do not see them live, and 34% of social payments in general the employer pays for any employee-and none of the citizens see them again. For simplicity: for every 87 rubles of salaries received in our hands, there are 47 rubles related precisely with the salary of taxes transferred to the budget. Or in the real wage fund, a little more than 35% make up taxes. This is a lot - and we do not need to tell us that we have low taxes from citizens! But the main thing is not even in the amount of these taxes: if we want to see citizens, but with them a civil society, all this money should be paid and then to be transferred to the budget themselves. And then people will begin to ask questions: why so much where this money goes and what will the result be? And these questions will quickly turn people into citizens. In any case, many will turn many. And citizens somehow will form a society-precisely because they are citizens. And genuine liberalism does not require salon conversations on this subject, but an unconditional, even (not afraid of this word) forced “o-citizenship” of the inhabitants of Russia.

In the economy, this is the full removal of the state from commercial activities: about any guups and FSUPs, state corporations and pseudo-OoAo can talk with state participation, since the goal of such structures is to make a profit. The above does not mean that the state should generally leave the economy - this is impossible. It is already the fact that it is the State Bank (whatever it is) emitting national currency, a sufficient example of the inevitable involvement of the state in the economy. But not in commerce: profit is not the purpose of the State Bank. It would be strange if the residence of the head of state, the building of the parliament or the state. The archive would not be in state property. But this is non -profit real estate by definition. And commercial, intended for leasing, cannot be in state property - it is not the case of the state (subjects of state, municipalities) enter the market as a obviously nonequilibrium player. The only thing the state can own is non -profit state structures that are fully funded from the budget and are not aimed at making a profit. Including infrastructure objects - on the same non -profit grounds.

In the social sphere, where many difficult problems have accumulated (it has accumulated, since their decision was constantly postponed to the “better times” that had not occurred) the role of the state should also be minimized. Neither the end nor at once to do this: there are disabled people, i.e. People who cannot, even if they want, provide themselves with their own life - and a certain “tax of solidarity” with them is absolutely necessary, if only we claim to be called just people, not like liberals. There are already or almost already pensioners - people from whose earnings their whole lives have been removed money to pay pensions to older generations: they can no longer be pulled by retirement to themselves. And again we need a certain common tax to provide them with life. But further with pensions, you need to draw a line, Deadline: from all income after the date “x”, any citizen can transfer money to his future pension to any pension fund and in any volume (not necessarily permanent) or spend it as necessary, refusing claims for the future old age pension. This is him and only his personal file, whether to invest them in shares or real estate, whether to put on a deposit, to drink, in the end - no one except him in response to his decisions. And for their consequences for him too. In principle, a similar situation with healthcare: it is obvious that “ambulance” should take everyone (and to ensure its functioning, apparently, a common tax is needed), and then each person must decide whether to buy insurance or he will pay for treatment from his pocket. Perhaps general insurance for children is also needed - so that they do not depend on the adequacy of parents. Further - again, everyone decides for himself. And so in almost everything, including with education: on the one hand, a certain part is mandatory taxes plus effective support mechanisms, on the other hand, whether to connect to these optional mechanisms (and, therefore, pay them), the choice and responsibility of each citizen personally.

And one more thing: I think that all social taxes (i.e., the “taxes of solidarity” with disabilities, pensioners, taxes on an ambulance, etc. just mentioned, should be accepted only by a referendum, with a clear public calculation of how many of them will have to pay from each earned ruble, what they will go and how much every disabled person, a pensioner, and then according to the list. And then everyone, looking into the eyes of a disabled person, an ambulance or a teacher, will know for sure: if he lives badly, then this is our common and his personal wine. Because we all solved this issue together and each of us. And not someone for us and behind us.

God sees, I will not insist on the proposed specific decisions now - perhaps there are also significantly better ones! Actually, all of the above - there is only a “seed” and an attempt to clarify the very foundations of a normal life, as it seems to me. And an attempt to start, finally, to talk about these grounds and the practical, specific conclusions and actions that are initiating from them. What I will insist on the end - this is that any proposed solution to any problem should proceed from the primacy of personal freedom and personal responsibility of each person for his own fate. And on the fact that solidarity is the destiny of free people, their cross, their pride and their strength.

One way or another, but all these are quite stringent solutions. All of them require will and responsibility. But “liberalism” and “impotence” are why different words that mean not similar entities. All these decisions require a strict and fundamental departure from today's paradigm of power.

This text is written by me to clarify the grounds. To remember what genuine liberalism is and distinguish it from fakes. In order not to get confused in concepts and not lead to the mantras of salon liberal, who want freedom without responsibility. They are like SUVs next to real jeeps: they look like it, they can only travel exclusively along the roads laid by the authorities.

And the latter is probably the most important thing: in a dying, it seems, the interview with the wonderful Natalya Traubberg said (in fact - this is the nerve of her will): “Christianity is very inconvenient.” Of course, it is inconvenient, because it requires each person personal responsibility to the Lord and does not give concessions. Liberalism - if he is real liberalism! - equally “very inconvenient” for the same reason (and in blood connection with Christianity): he leaves no loopholes to write off everything for circumstances, or the authorities, or the opinion of the majority - he requires each person personal responsibility. Personal. But in return, he gives freedom.


To be continued...


Photo by hedgehog