I think the majority of readers of this column encountered the opinion that there are “two systems” or two “models of society”. The first is the “order” system, supported by orders and compulsory taxes, the second is the “freedom” system, the free market, self-organization and other liberalism.

The whole political discussion in this model comes down to the choice between these systems..

In its most familiar form, it looks like a choice between “socialism” and “capitalism”, but we can easily see the same choice in opposition to “free market” and “government regulation” and in the most general form “order” and “chaos” (as amended by the respective frameworks, of course). Solid supporters of each system, calling for choosing one, are considered radicals, and a sign of wisdom is a call to “take the best from each system.”.

Actually, most of this discussion is dedicated to “finding measures”, that is, some kind of ideal balance between the “order” personified by government orders and the “chaos” personified by the market. When you hear about that, you need to learn from one or another country, saying usually implies a certain balance, which, in his opinion, is exactly achieved in this place..

The interesting thing here is that by default the majority implies that the “chaos of the market” is not viable in its pure form and needs to be taken care of by the emperor state.. That is, it even seems so that from a coherent system of order we single out certain areas or areas where, in our opinion, the “elements of the market” can work, but, of course, under the supervision of the state. It is the state that seems to be an ideal system that we are trying to improve and bring into it the “market elements”, which, it turns out, can give us more benefits than the state in its pure form.. Just need to find the right measure.. And the fact that the state "in its pure form" is quite viable seems to be an obvious thing.. It could itself exist, but it turned out that chaos, in the correct proportion, can also be beneficial.

Actually, the situation is exactly the opposite, and in this small column I just want to formulate a thought, which I have already addressed several times. The fact is that just the “system of freedom” will perfectly live without the “system of orders”, but the system of orders is simply impossible without the system of freedom, it will have nothing to parasitize on. There is no separate “state in its pure form” and, therefore, there is no choice between “state” and “anarchy”, “order” and “chaos”.

If “market”, “chaos”, “anarchy”, “capitalism” are capable of sustainably existing, then the question of some measure of the order of an order is removed by itself, because there is no need for.

We formulate it in several statements:.

“Chaos” or “market” themselves form an order without which no human community can exist. However, this procedure does not imply the existence of a territorial monopoly on coercion and regular taxes collected in favor of a certain group (state).

It is theoretically possible to show how such orders arise and are supported, and this can be done in different ways.

There are “historical examples” of such communities..

It is theoretically impossible to explain the emergence of the state as a natural order, such an explanation inevitably rests on logical contradictions ("the dictionary was before the language") and in the historical absurdities.

The presence of the state does not abolish the "anarchy" and "market", moreover, they are necessary for its existence. "State" and "market" are not different systems, between which you can choose, they are in the relationship of the parasite and host.

There is a choice between the state of life with and without the parasite..

Spontaneous orders of “anarchy” never cease their work, attempts to replace them with government orders lead to victims and destruction. These sacrifices are all the more insistent these attempts.. The history of totalitarian regimes is the most vivid example..

The state in its pure form, that is, completely devoid of anarchy and the market is simply impossible, the existence of such a state will be short and end up in hunger and ruin.