Sawaari samaan ki khud zimmedaar hai. The state is a subscription you cannot cancel part 1 (Series)

OpinionPoliticalSatire

The single most expensive product you own

Let's start with a Tuesday, and a very regular one at that. why not

You wake up as you usually do, maybe even a little later than usual, there's no hurry. The watchman's been at the gate a man you pay, by the way, not the government, but hold that thought, and he's already let in the cook and the driver. You go to work on roads that are decent apart from a pothole or two, usual stuff, no one bats an eye at that. Sometimes there is a traffic constable who leaves you alone, a politician might be visiting you think to yourself. Your kid gets to school without incident. Your money sits in a bank that isn't looted at gunpoint, and even if it is, the money is insured.

The first problem of the day arrives at evening, what would you eat to satisfy that craving you know is responsible for the belly fat? You order something from the healthy snacks section on a quick commerce app and it comes to you within 10 minutes.

You come home, watch some TV, eat something, maybe you even hit the gym.

So far nothing dramatic has happened. Congratulations. A boring and uneventful day is the single most expensive product you own but what does it cost?

Now, a lot of you might relate with the scenario and that's fine but this life is not everyone's life. For a large number of Indians (and non-indians too), the watchman might not exist, the commute might be more potholes and less road, the constable might demand a bribe, and the home might not be a safe place. So when I say "ordinary day," please understand that I mean your ordinary, you with a disposable income and a car, and fees and bills that clear on the first of the month. Don't confuse your Tuesday with everyone else's Tuesday, but don't forget to enjoy it because you probably earned it.

Why does this uneventful life exist

Okay, so let's start with the obvious question. Why doesn't the watchman just rob you? Why doesn't the driver take a detour and rob you on a secluded road? Why does the constable, who could genuinely ruin your afternoon, choose not to? why did the delivery boy poison your food or take your stuff?

The answer is actually pretty simple, It's because we follow something called the "Social Charter", and it means that you wont break certain rules and laws and behave a certain way and in return, everyone else will do the same and that ensure something we call "Collective security," The state ensure that everyone follows the social charter. That is job number one of the state, yours and everyone else's. The state also does other jobs like building roads and infrastructure and making sure you have access to their resources via trade but none of that matters without collective security.

A state that cannot ensure collective security is called a failed state. People still live and sometimes thrive in failed states, but their watchman can rob them, and their driver can kill them unlike yours.


What if the state disappears tomorrow

What if the state actually disappeared for a day or two?

We will live in a liberal utopia where everyone would just mind their own farms.Well I wish.

But what would really happen is the most organised, most ruthless, most heavily armed group in the area will walk in and take over and ruin everything that is good and jolly. Sounds far fetched but there are certain ideologies that are waiting for exactly that, waiting to hit hard and seize power from the state if it is ever weakened.

And they are not coming for the poor first. Oh no no, the poor man is not worth the trouble at all. They're coming for you with your gate and your watchman and your car, your gold, your daughter's school fund, your bank's locker. Everything from your jolly Tuesday gets seized in the very first week. Doesn't matter what ideology they claim, but it will probably have a certain religious undertone and a surprising number of weapons for a supposed grassroots level un-coordinated organic movement.

So yes. The state does matter if it were to happen tomorrow. I'll give the government that much credit, grudgingly, before I take it all back in the next section.

So the government is protecting me, why should I change that

You pay for Netflix, or maybe you don't, but you probably pay for one of the other dozens of OTT platforms and they have all gone down the gutter with their forced ads. I for one dont want to pay for a service to watch a movie and then watch 2 back to back ads on a platform I pay for and no I won't buy the new higher tier they introduced that's without ads because the current plan I have used to be the highest tier not so long ago. what's to say you won't jack up the prices again with a new even higher tier and we'll be back to square one.

This rant wasnt entirely about OTT platforms, and a lot of you might've picked up on where i am going with this but anyways, if the OTT doesnt give me what i want from it, or what it promised me, or if i'm not happy with the service, I can cancel my subscription and be done with it and move on to the other dozens of platforms. No one will bat an eye, and no one will show up at my door to convince me otherwise.

Now look at your tax bill, it's that time of the year so the wound is still fresh and you remember exactly how much you paid but what if you did not like the services this year. Can you cancel your subscription to the state? I'll answer that for you, no, not ever. You can't say "the roads were garbage this year, refund please," or "I didn't feel very protected, switching to a competitor." There is no competitor. There's one provider and it sets its own price, and if you refuse to pay it, then be ready for armed men showing up at your door to handcuff you infront of your family and taking you away.

And by the way this is not an exageration of what will happen, it's just a little simplified.

Why is it so easy to cancel an OTT's subscription? and why cant you do the same with the state?

This sounds like a protection racket. well... if it look like and smells like

If someone was forcing you to pay them and threatened some sort of violence or punishment if you refuse and in return they offer you protection what would you call them?

And where, exactly, have you heard of that business model before?

We have a word for it in India. It's called hafta wasooli. A local goon rolls up to a shopkeeper and tells them "You will pay me every week, and nothing will happen to your shop... nothing except from me, obviously, and if you ever stop paying me, I won't let you do business here and will beat you up". The threat and the protection in this case comes from the identical hand, now maybe the goon is actually protecting them from some danger but that becomes irrelevant now.

I'm not calling the government a criminal gang here, and I'm not saying that just to protect myself legally or otherwise. In fact I pointed out how the government or state is actually beneficial for you. I'm just pointing out that the shape of the deal you have with the government is structurally the same operation as hafta wasooli, just run at a much bigger scale, that makes it feel dignified instead of extortionate.

Sit with that. It should bother you. It's meant to.

So where does this leave us? and what am I trying to say here

Well first, A world with zero government is not liberty, infact it's actually the opposite where whoever's most violent will take everything you own.

And secondly, a world with government looks atleast structurally, exactly like a protection racket you're legally forbidden to cancel.

Now nobody sensible pretends this puzzle has an easy answer. And very frankly, if someone tells you that they have an easy answer they're definitely selling you something, most probably a new subscription.

This exact puzzle is what a chain of thinkers — starting with the philosopher Thomas Hobbes 400 years ago, have spent centuries fighting over.

Is there any way to get protected without handing the protector a monopoly on your money and a permanent "no cancellation" clause?

That's next. Let's talk about privatising defense on an individual level in part 2

---