Abstract: The coexistencialism is different to panarchy and inherit from the modern conception of capitalism in the sense that the existence of a central state structure is considered to be necessary in order to define the rules of the game.
We can classify the activities of the state in two categories:
|Activity which has a protective action which are done unwilling by necessity or for ssafety of the territory,|
|Activity in order to conduct actions for an improvement of the social condition of the citizens.|
In the protective activities, we can include the action done by the army, the police, the ministry of foreign affairs, the ministry of environment, the civil law. These institutions took protective measure in order to avoid disorder due to the excess of human being. These institutions don't need to be creative. They only need to be reactive to a dangerous situation. In this case, it is preferable that the role is the charge by an institution which has a monopole on a territory. There is no interest to have multiple military powers in a country. The improvements of the efficiency of the army donít have any long term advantage. It would only increase the risk of a civil war.
On the opposite, all institutions which conduct social actions don't have any reasons to have a monopole on one territory.
Since the invention of the private limited company 400 years ago, the capitalism economy starts and was managed by competitive structure: companies. The capitalism systems conquer many aspects of the human activity: trading, good manufacturing and services...
During the same time, the government assures his activity of regulator (law, police,...) as well as the protection of the territory,... In order the facilitate trade and tax collection on a territory, government concentrate their monetary policy on a central bank who have an independent status.
Then, the development of the research in sociology and economy offers solution to make decrease the risk of poverty in the society: education, welfare, action to help the social integration of the poor. In order to finance these social programs, the state decides to use the same system than the one use to finance the army: tax.
As these activities has been financed by a stable source of money tax, these social structure become rigid. Only the head of the government who manage the budget and decide of the level of taxation could decide to make a change of structure. The state government has limited time to conduct those changes and no time to gather the information to estimate the validity and the effectiveness of the alternatives. The state government fear social approval and so it has no personal benefit to engage itself in a deep change who in democracy can endanger his future.
Author: Hector Archytas