home Sewerage Why is political power "evil"? Why is government power needed in a country? Why is government needed?

Why is political power "evil"? Why is government power needed in a country? Why is government needed?

Why do people need power? It would be interesting to get more answers to this question.

Let's answer with a comment? Just write too much first, and then look for the answer.

And in the next issue of the magazine I will ask this question to the children. We often ask them non-childish questions, and they tell us a lot of interesting things.

For example, we recently asked children why people need money. The answers were predictably touching: “ People need money to buy milk"(Vasilisa, 4 years old) – to the philosophical: “Money is needed so that the rich people who invented it can have a good life.”.

Or one sixth grade boy answered: “Money is needed to verify a person. Someone who is self-interested will betray friends for the sake of money, and someone will sacrifice money for the sake of something higher: friendship or love.”

We have good children.

One day we asked them why people fly into space. So what do you think, why?

The children came to the conclusion that we fly into space in order to move there if life on Earth becomes completely unbearable.

It can become unbearable for many reasons. As a result of the cooling of the Sun. Release of fixed carbon (gassing). Or, for example, due to high cost. When one has everything, but a million others have nothing to do with it. And somewhere on distant planets you can probably live by your own labor...

Yes, but we still need to get to those planets. Is the problem solvable? The children are convinced that it can be solved.

I don’t know about you, but when I learned about the death of nineteen satellites as a result of an unsuccessful rocket launch at the Vostochny Cosmodrome, I immediately, at the same second, at the same instant, remembered the corruption scandal with which its construction was associated.

It's like one plus one. Press the button and get the result. Got...

Let me remind you that in 2015 the deadlines for putting the cosmodrome into operation were “postponed” (that is, disrupted), and this happened against the backdrop of a hunger strike declared by its unpaid builders. If missed deadlines are quite common, then “lost” salaries and a hunger strike at an important government facility are a shame.

A shame for the state. Unless, of course, the space industry is a state matter. Because now we don’t have anything state-owned. Everything private is “with state participation”...

But even share Shame is an unpleasant thing.

I clasp my fingers on my stomach and lean back more comfortably in my chair, thinking: how would I feel and how would I behave if one of my subordinates disgraced the magazine that I head?

The thoughts that come to mind are mostly bloodthirsty.

Let's say my Ivanov fixes it. Kick him, the viper, so that he flies with a rooster crowing! Although... stop. Where can I get another Ivanov? Good employees don't run around the streets for free. I'm used to Ivanov - at least for this reason he seems good to me...

Maybe lower his salary? So he, the bastard, will get bored, start to work worse... He will sabotage...

So it turns out that I, other than swearing, have no means against Ivanov-Saprykin. And all because there is a shortage of personnel.

They say (I haven’t seen it myself, I won’t lie, but I have heard) that the government has the same problem. There is no one to appoint except Shoigu. So, it was not Shoigu who was appointed head of Roscosmos - and here you go.

And, for example, Stalin and Beria did not have a personnel shortage. For some reason.

However, we know why. When Stalin was secretary of the Central Committee, he had the nickname Comrade Kartotekov - for his love of catalog boxes. There he collected dossiers on party members and systematized them: who was with whom, under whom, how he distinguished himself... And most importantly: who is capable of what.

I was engaged in what is called “working with personnel.” Knew people. Thanks to this, he defeated Trotsky, Zinoviev, and other luminaries in the struggle for power.

Stalin continued to retain his love for personal affairs and keeping files; they say he had a special “personal locker” that secretaries were not allowed to work with.

Agree, against this background the phrase “We have no irreplaceable people” sounds completely different. We thought the villain meant “we’ll shoot everyone without flinching,” but the phrase means something completely different. “Everyone has someone to replace them.”

As they say in football, “there is depth in the squad.”

However, Stalin did not say this phrase. Many spoke (both Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and Roosevelt in 1932), but Stalin did not. He owns another phrase: “Personnel decides everything.”

How does a “cadre” differ from an irreplaceable specialist? Because “specialist” is a concept that is “too human.” There may be a good specialist, but a bad person, for example a thief. Or maybe he’s a good specialist and a wonderful person, but he drinks heavily... And so on, a million options.

And the impersonal “frame” is a certain unit that will ensure the result. Whether due to the fact that he is a good specialist, or due to the fact that he does not steal, it does not matter, but he will provide.

And nineteen satellites with a total cost of a small city will fly where they are supposed to.

And the pool in the summer house in Miami will finally be lined with normal Carrara marble, and not this disgrace...

Oh. That's not it, sorry. It flew in from another hemisphere.

So, people who answer the question of what power is needed for are usually divided into three groups.

The first group is old women. They don’t try on power. And the question is understood as follows: what is a municipal deputy or social security service for? So that the pension is paid, so that the ice is sprinkled with sand on time in the winter... That’s what it’s for.

The second group are people who studied well. Even at school they were taught to answer “what is correct,” and not what they think. And they will say that power is needed to regulate the processes of resource distribution. Well, that, in general, is so.

And finally, the third group, to which I think most of us belong. These are “themselves with a mustache”, independent thinkers. They will say: power is needed to have more opportunities. For example, more money. To buy more milk for yourself with this money.

How did you answer?

I’m afraid that our current problem is that the “third group” makes up the majority not only among readers and writers on the Internet, but also among the people in power themselves. And as long as this is so, the satellites will fall, “and the huts will burn and burn.”

How long this will last, I don’t know. Hopefully not for very long. Let's see. You will definitely have to ask the children.

P.S. Yes, so what is power really needed for? Many of those who, to one degree or another, are endowed with it or strive for it, say that they need power - because they enjoy having power. They like to "decide". I like it when something depends on them.

The way I understand it is that power is like creativity. People don't become artists and writers to make money. (Or receive subsidies from the state for writing and art.) Just because you want to. And then... You can turn out to be a good artist, you can turn out to be a bad one. The main thing is not to be an artist for the sake of money.

It would be interesting to get more answers to this question. Let's answer with a comment? Just write too much first, and then look for the answer. Why do people need power? It would be interesting to get more answers to this question.

Let's answer with a comment? Just write too much first, and then look for the answer.

And in the next issue of the magazine I will ask this question to the children. We often ask them non-childish questions, and they tell us a lot of interesting things.

For example, we recently asked children why people need money. The answers ranged from the expectedly touching: “People need money to buy milk for themselves” (Vasilisa, 4 years old) to the philosophical: “Money is needed so that the rich people who invented it can have a good life.”

Or one sixth-grader boy answered: “Money is needed to verify a person. Someone who is self-interested will betray friends for the sake of money, and someone will sacrifice money for the sake of something higher: friendship or love.”

We have good children.

One day we asked them why people fly into space. So what do you think, why?

The children came to the conclusion that we fly into space in order to move there if life on Earth becomes completely unbearable.

It can become unbearable for many reasons. As a result of the cooling of the Sun. Release of fixed carbon (gassing). Or, for example, due to high cost. When one has everything, but a million others have nothing to do. And somewhere on distant planets you can probably live by your own labor...

Yes, but we still need to get to those planets. Is the problem solvable? The children are convinced that it can be solved.

...I don’t know about you, but when I learned about the death of nineteen satellites as a result of an unsuccessful rocket launch at the Vostochny cosmodrome, I immediately, at the same second, at the same instant, remembered the corruption scandal with which its construction was associated.

A shame for the state. Unless, of course, the space industry is a state matter. Because now we don’t have anything state-owned. Everything private is “with state participation”...

But even sharing in the shame is an unpleasant thing.

I clasp my fingers on my stomach and lean back more comfortably in my chair, thinking: how would I feel and how would I behave if one of my subordinates disgraced the magazine that I head?

The thoughts that come to mind are mostly bloodthirsty.

Let's say my Ivanov fixes it. Kick him, the viper, so that he flies with a rooster crowing! Although... wait. Where can I get another Ivanov? Good employees don't run around the streets for free. I’m used to Ivanov - at least for this reason he seems good to me...

Maybe his salary should be lowered? So he, the bastard, will get bored, start working worse... He will sabotage...

So it turns out that I, other than swearing, have no means against Ivanov-Saprykin. And all because there is a shortage of personnel.

And, for example, Stalin and Beria did not have a personnel shortage. For some reason.

However, we know why. When Stalin was secretary of the Central Committee, he had the nickname “Comrade Kartotekov” - for his love of catalog boxes. There he collected dossiers on party members and systematized them: who was with whom, under whom, how he distinguished himself... And most importantly: who is capable of what.

I was engaged in what is called “working with personnel.” Knew people. Thanks to this, he defeated Trotsky, Zinoviev, and other luminaries in the struggle for power.

Stalin continued to retain his love for personal affairs and keeping files; they say he had a special “personal locker” that secretaries were not allowed to work with.

As they say in football, “there is depth in the squad.”

However, Stalin did not say this phrase. Many spoke (both Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and Roosevelt in 1932), but Stalin did not. He owns another phrase: “Personnel decides everything.”

How does a “cadre” differ from an irreplaceable specialist? Because “specialist” is a concept that is “too human.” There may be a good specialist, but a bad person, for example, a thief. Or maybe he’s a good specialist and a wonderful person, but he drinks heavily... And so on, a million options.

And the impersonal “frame” is a certain unit that will ensure the result. Whether due to the fact that he is a good specialist or due to the fact that he does not steal, it does not matter, but he will provide.

And nineteen satellites with a total cost of a small city will fly where they are supposed to.

And the pool in the summer house in Miami will finally be lined with normal Carrara marble, and not this disgrace...

Oh. That's not it, sorry. It flew in from another hemisphere.

So, people who answer the question of what power is needed for are usually divided into three groups.

How did you answer?

How long this will last, I don’t know. Hopefully not for very long. Let's see. You will definitely have to ask the children.

P.S. Yes, so what is power really needed for? Many of those who are endowed with it to one degree or another or strive for it say that they need power - because they enjoy having power. They like to "decide". I like it when something depends on them.

The way I understand it is that power is like creativity. People don't become artists and writers to make money. (Or receive subsidies from the state for writing and art.) Just because I want to. And then... You can turn out to be a good artist, you can turn out to be a bad one. The main thing is not to be an artist for the sake of money.

Even good.

Lev Pirogov, publicist, literary critic, editor-in-chief of the children's development magazine "Luchik 6+"

The separation of powers was “discovered” by the Englishman Locke and the French philosopher Montesquieu in the 17th-18th centuries. They said that power always gives rise to abuse, since all rulers want to concentrate it in their hands. Therefore, they proposed dividing the state mechanism into several “branches”. In this case, several centers arise in the state, which control each other and do not allow anyone to seize all power entirely.

This does not mean that they are independent of each other, and that the state is divided into three parts that are in no way connected with each other. No, the state and state power are one, but its bodies have different tasks and can only act within the boundaries established for them.

Associated with the separation of powers is the rule of “checks and balances,” which means that the state apparatus is structured so that each branch of government balances the other two and does not allow them to expand their powers. So, for example, the President can, in some cases, dissolve the State Duma, and it can begin the process of removing him from office, colloquially referred to as “impeachment,” if he commits treason or another serious crime. Those. we can say that the Duma and the President check and balance each other.

In the same way, courts can invalidate decrees of the President of the Russian Federation if they contradict federal law or the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but at the same time the President of the Russian Federation appoints judges of all courts except the highest ones.

Advice. The separation of powers has great practical significance. The widespread opinion that arguing with the state, much less suing it, is useless, was born in those days when all state bodies worked together under a single leadership and enforced the party line. Today the situation has changed, and each branch of government and even each government agency is guided by its own goals.

They no longer protect each other’s interests at all costs; on the contrary, disputes arise between them all the time, including legal ones. Therefore, having not achieved his goal in one body, a citizen can turn to another and receive support there. But in order to skillfully use the principle of separation of powers in your interests, you need to understand the structure of the state apparatus.

Preliminarily about power

Anyone who is subordinate has power, but only the one who is able to force his subordinates to act as he sees fit has sovereign, independent power. If a certain boss demands to do as the law requires, then it is not he who has the power, but the law; if the boss demands to do as his boss ordered, then the power is not with him, but with the one who ordered him. True, any boss has a little power of his own, even a street traffic controller can stop the flow of cars himself and allow another flow to move as he sees fit, but nothing more. Otherwise, he will require drivers to follow the rules traffic and instructions given to him by his superiors.

But in this case we are interested in the one who has absolutely sovereign power in the state, that is, power that is absolutely independent of anyone. In any country that is inhabited by citizens, and not by stupid sheep, there is only one such authority - the people. Here, however, a mistake arises - many people are deeply convinced that they personally are the people. This is wrong. The people are them, and their children, and those generations of a given country that have not yet been born. Naturally, the people, even if they have power, are not able to express their will, and therefore their will must be understood by those who, instead of the people, assume their rights.

There are two such authorities - either the currently living capable population of the country (voters) or the monarch. (We will not take into account any perversions, for example, military dictatorships, since smart citizens do not have them.) If voters have sovereign power, then democracy (power of the people) can arise, since the voters themselves are smart enough and people enough to to turn your sovereign power not for your own personal benefit, but for the benefit of the entire people, that is, for the benefit of all your fellow citizens and for the benefit of future generations. If this is not the case, if the population thinks only about themselves, then they are not people, but sheep, and they will not have democracy under any form of government.

The ancients believed that monarchy was an ideal form of government with one very tragic drawback - under a monarchy, the population stops thinking about their state. (Why should he think if the monarch thinks for everyone?) And the tragedy here is that there is no monarch for a monarch: a thoughtless population can get a monarch who will ensure the flourishing of democracy in the state (i.e., a situation when everyone in it will obey interests of the people), or may end up with such weak-willed scum, in which the interests of the people will be completely trampled upon. Under the monarchy, you can have Peter I, who did an extraordinary amount for the people of Russia, or you can also have Nicholas II, under whom only the lazy did not trample on the interests of Russia.

In more or less big country voters can no longer personally express their sovereign will on all issues on which it is required; sometimes even the most efficient monarch is not capable of this. And then they hire a servant - one who, in theory, should express the sovereign will of the entire people. They hire in different ways: the absolute monarch can appoint such a servant himself, and voters vote for him in elections. This servant is called the Lawgiver. In reality, it can be called differently, for example, \"Supreme Council\", \"Parliament\" or \"State Duma\" and consist of many people, but the number of the legislative body does not mean anything and the legislative body should be looked at as for one person. Let me explain. The legislator expresses the imperious will on behalf of one people - the entire people of a given country, in addition, on any issue the same Duma passes one law, and not 450 laws. The scum in the Duma really want voters to consider them not together, but separately, since this eliminates the responsibility for the adopted law and for the fate of the country from a particular deputy, but we do not have to take into account the interests of the scum who have climbed into the legislators.

It should be said that when in a given country their brains completely dry up and people are too lazy to understand what they are doing in matters of building their state and why they need it, then voters elect the head of the executive branch. This is stupidity, because only a fool would appoint two people responsible for one thing. In this case, they won’t do anything and you won’t find the culprit - they will shift all the blame onto each other, which is perfectly shown by the recent history of Russia. Smart citizens have everything executive branch appointed by the Legislator and unconditionally subordinate to him.

Now the question is - why do we even need power in our state? For our protection and the protection of the people in cases where we, individually, cannot do this. Protection in this case must be understood in a very broad sense: it is protection from an external enemy, and from a criminal murderer, and from a thief, and from illness, and from loss of ability to work due to illness or old age, and from illiteracy, etc.

The question is: how does the government protect us? With our own hands, or rather with the hands of voters. The authorities organize us to protect the people.

The question is: how will she organize us? Laws that set the behavior of the entire people and, as a rule, provide for the punishment of anyone whose behavior is incorrect, i.e., does not contribute to the protection of the people. With the correct behavior - with the kind of behavior that the Legislator sets for us - we pay taxes, we don’t steal, we don’t kill, we go to recruiting stations when summoned, and we even very often cross the street when the light is green. All of our behavior in society ensures the protection of the entire society and, therefore, each of us.

Another question - how does the Legislator ensure that everyone has the right behavior? It’s simple - he punishes for wrong behavior, and if the Legislator really serves the people, then he must do it in such a way that even a scumbag would not want to behave differently from the correct one.

Question: There is only one legislator, and the population of, say, Russia is 140 million. How will he be able to punish everyone? And he hires his own guards - judges. They punish wrong behavior. Again, if the citizens of a given country have lost their brains, then in such a country idiots can freely broadcast that the judiciary is a “separate branch of government” and it, they say, should be independent. From whom?! Well, imagine that you organized a business with your own money, for which you hired a lot of people and tell them (give them laws) what and how to do. You yourself are not able to monitor whether your subordinates are doing what you indicated, and therefore you hire a supervisor. And suddenly some egg-headed professors appear on TV screens and begin to convince you that the warden should not depend on you. How is that?! The orders are yours, and it’s up to some guy to evaluate whether your subordinates are carrying them out or not? And for your money too?!! You will be an idiot not even because you listen to the advice of these wise professors, you will be an idiot just because you did not immediately switch the TV to the program "In the World of Animals." The court, like all other executors, are servants of the Legislator, and in no more or less reasonable country could it be otherwise.

Another question - but there are few judges, moreover, they sit and judge all day long. How do they know who is misbehaving? And two more groups of servants of the Legislator work for them - the police and the prosecutor's office. The former look for people with improper behavior, and the latter accuse them in court, proving to the court that they need to be punished at the request of the Legislator. And if there is a real court in the country, i.e. the court is the servant of the Legislator, then it will not allow the police and the prosecutor’s office to be lazy - it will not allow them to not accuse the criminal (not collect evidence) or present the innocent to the court for punishment. He will not allow it because then he, the servant of the Lawgiver, will not do what his master requires.

The police and the prosecutor's office, like any employees, can make mistakes, this is natural and there is no need to bang your bald head on the parquet because of their mistakes and demand reprisals against those who made a mistake. A soldier, in theory, should hit the target with one shot, but if he missed, then what? - Should he be put in prison for this? Who will fight? And the fact that the court acquits the innocent is not worth blaming the police and the prosecutor’s office for their honest mistakes. Although such mistakes do not make them happy, they understand the ego and will try to prevent such mistakes. It’s another matter when it’s not a mistake, but a crime or hack. Then the court should punish the hacks - by the way, no one has taken away his right to this day to initiate a criminal case, including against the police and the prosecutor's office. That is, when a soldier takes aim but misses, this must be forgiven, but if he huddles in a trench out of fear and shoots in the air, then he must be sent to a penal company - this is sobering.

If we return to the number of criminal murders under Stalin in 1940 and in our time, we should note the difference - then the judges were servants of the legislator - the Supreme Council - and strictly ensured that everyone in the USSR had the behavior that the Supreme Council set with its laws . Those courts, even in front-line Moscow in 1941, acquitted every fifth person, which means that they did not allow either the NKVD or the prosecutor’s office to mess around, i.e., they forced them to look for and accuse the real criminals. Where did the NKVD and the prosecutor's office go? As a result, these bodies cleaned themselves up and cleared the country of criminality to a situation in which almost only domestic murders remained, and, as you can see, in 1940 there were ten times fewer murders than today under the current judges.

Note the key importance of ships. They control that everyone in the country behaves as prescribed by the Legislator - his laws. If the courts do not do this, then there is no power of the Legislator - his laws can be executed only when it is beneficial, and if there is money to bribe the judge, then they cannot be executed at all. But the Legislator exercises the power of the people, therefore, vile judges trample into the mud exactly what is called "democracy", and, accordingly, leave both us and the people defenseless.

One lawyer who attended a lecture by the chairman during advanced training courses Supreme Court Russia Lebedev, told me the following. After the lecture, Lebedev was asked why, given the mass of obviously unjust sentences, not a single judge was punished for this crime? He foolishly blurted out that if cases were initiated under Article 305 of the Criminal Code, then all the judges in Russia would have to be put in prison. But the law requires this!! Why aren't judges convicted of their crimes? I have no other answer - Lebedev does not apply Art. 305 because he knows that if he starts imprisoning judges for deliberately unjust sentences, then soon he himself will be handed the largest shovel in the zone.

The courts are the key node of both the power of the people and our personal security, but we should not start with them - they are still a consequence of another problem. After all, why does the State Duma observe with complacency the lawlessness in the country, the fact that its own laws do not apply? And this is beneficial for deputies - there is no other answer either. Criminal courts allow them to commit crimes, deputies like it and don’t care about the power of the people. Therefore, the courts can be left to second thought, but first of all, we need to work on getting into the Duma those who will restore this power, and those who will provide Russia with normal courts and honest judges...

Yuri MUKHIN,

leader of the People's Will Army (AVN)

editor-in-chief of the newspaper "DUEL"

from the book \"It's a shame for the power!\"

Why is power needed? Here's what Wikipedia says:

Power- the ability and ability to exercise one’s will, to influence the activities and behavior of other people, even despite resistance.

Power is needed in order to manage people, control their activities, and subjugate them to your will. A certain class or group of people controls others and is considered higher in status and all sorts of “benefits” than everyone else - a social inequality that is contrary to human nature.

All power is “evil”; here you only have to choose the lesser of two evils. For example, during Tsarist Russia, the Tsar was God’s anointed. Yes, he often did extremely bad and inhumane actions, but, in general, tsarist power is a lesser “evil” than democratic power, when democracy at this level is completely utopian. It does not and cannot exist, there is only a struggle for power between some alpha males and others. And in war, as you know, all methods are good. Therefore there can be no fair fight. This means that power in this case is “evil”.

But, according to statistics, this was much less evil than, for example, that brought by the “kings” or leaders (Furer) of the Soviet country and then the modern federation.

My personal opinion is that the so-called tsarism is less destructive for Russia, or Rus', than all other forms of government. Yes, of course, this is a kind of replacement of sewing with soap, and you will say: “You are an anarchist, and here you say such things,” but still, no matter what you say, I believe that the leader of the Russian state in the form in which he was there Russian Empire- it's less "evil". There are such lines in the Epistle to the Romans (so that you don’t have any thoughts of reproaching me for this): “All authority is from God.” Yes, this is true, but this does not mean that all the actions of this government are pleasing to God, not all of them, my dears... There is power installed by God, and there is power that climbed onto the throne as a result of God’s permission (of course, on who am I hinting at?).

But I digress. If I recognized tsarism (monarchism) as a more or less suitable system, this does not mean that I am going to contradict my words. Power is evil, and there is no escape from it, no matter how you look at it. Man is free by nature, and therefore any attempts to subordinate his will to himself are a direct crime against him, an insult to him and a humiliation of his nature. Here distinguishing feature anarchism from any other type of relationship between people: with anarchism, a person, if he misunderstands something or cannot organize this or that action, will ask for help from a more authoritative person. Example: a son asks his father what to do in a given situation.

The form of relationships between people is characteristic of all people, both ancient and modern, but modern people there is a lot of misunderstanding due to various factors: for example, zombies through the media and so on. , their own solutions to problems, instead of the person thinking for himself. They feed a person with this information, and the person, due to his laziness, does not even try to resist and instead of getting up and preparing food for himself, he eats everything that the authorities feed him.

I, as an individual, do not need power at all when I live alone, far away from everyone. But as soon as I enter some society, the need for power appears so that I can exist normally in this society, cooperate with it and be safe from it. Is interaction possible without power? I believe that it is possible, but in practice, more often than not, power arises by itself in one way or another in all societies. Therefore, there is a moment of its inevitability.

What are the government's methods of controlling the people? Through subculture and various organizations. The appearance of these is due to the emergence of various unrest and unrest among young people. When the rednecks (in this case, it’s all of us - ordinary people) become smarter and begin to exercise their rights, they realize that not everything is so cool and life is not so wonderful around them. People begin to go on strike, riot, throw anarchist slogans, burn portraits of the government, etc. The authorities have a dilemma: how to calm the raging people with minimal losses?! Eureka! People just need to be distracted from all this and given the appearance that everything is fine! And here culture and art come to their aid. New idols, new cultural objects, new styles of music, films, new means of entertainment, new religious and philosophical movements, new drugs appear. Young people are so passionately passionate about their idols that they simply do not have time or energy left for unrest and awareness objective reality- she lives better in an illusory world invented by advertisers, producers and PR managers.

Moreover, even almost all of the opposition must be controlled by the authorities. And, as such, there is no longer any opposition. No, of course there is one, but it is on the basement level. It doesn't go any further than blogs like this. When some new organization is formed, it is already doomed to extinction. Yes, at first there may be some kind of protest, but then, as this organization grows, this protest will become controlled. This organization will include undesirable elements or threats will come to the organizer (from the Lubyanka, of course). There may be a myriad of ways, whatever, but they really know how to recruit people! And when recruitment is successful, such an organization will experience active growth. This could be the arrest of the organizers, and then their release or recognition of their activities as extremist. In general, any active actions that arouse great interest and respect among young people, raise the authority of the organizer, and most importantly, increase the number of participants. And now all these guys are under control. You can sleep peacefully; if they make a mess, it will be according to our instructions. Well, agree, there is logic in this? This all seems obvious to me. Put yourself in the position of power, what would you do about this issue? And here, it seems, there is both opposition and not opposition at all.