For the resolution of the problems of a country where its population has coronavirus, the best is minimum or maximum state? In the minimum state, economic power is in the hands of the private sector, in the maximum state, it is the government that controls the economy. In the case of a population that needs to be in isolation, in the minimum state the private initiative dismisses its employees who are in isolation, in the maximum state the government determines basic incomes for the population's survival.
Normally, the minimum state does not have reserve capital to provide income to all the population that is in isolation, while in the maximum state the government requires that the income be distributed. The big problem with the maximum state is when corruption dominates the state, in which case the government will also not be able to support its population.
In the case of China, we have a maximum state that controls its corruption, and seeks to manage a competitive economy, so covid-19 was controlled in China. China, as the controller of the economy and decisions, could forbid the coming and going of cities and applying the budget it wishes for the objectives, and this was an important point for containing the epidemics.
In the case of countries with a minimum status, they do not have control over factories, energy, water or even food. Thus, putting a population in isolation is economic chaos. Each company aims to guarantee its company, and competition with the other company, and so the situation of people is not important for companies, what is important for companies is the profit. Thus the dilemma occurs, work and earn a living with the consequence of increasing the death rate, or being isolated and starving. Thus, in the minimum system, life becomes a secondary factor and capital the primary factor.
In fact, an epidemic puts the minimum state system to the test. To do so, just look at the consequences in countries with a minimal state, and the effect of China. By the graphs, it shows that a state control, when it is not corrupt, is much more careful with the population's life, than the minimum state in which capital controls.
Economists around the world who defend the minimum state have seen this pandemic as a mistake by the minimum state in having economic power to care for the entire population. In the end, it will be demonstrated that the minimum state is unable to take care of its population with the same strength compared to a maximum state like China. The decision lives by companies, or companies for lives, will be the milestone between keeping the economy in a minimum state, or conserving life. If it preserves life, the country that opted for the maximum state, will leave strengthened, in relation to the other countries with the minimum state. Unless a country with a minimal state opts for business over life, in this case the population has to accept many deaths and the risk of death too, so that it can work.
In my view, a maximum state with nullified corruption, and thinking about its population, and the power of the state, is more prepared to conserve the life of its population, than a minimum state with its economy controlled by companies that compete with each other.
0 Comments