Are you a “statist”?

Some people are fond of using the term “statist” to describe their political opponents. (I’ve never heard of anyone using it to describe themselves.) For example, in response to a HoCo Rising post on a fundraiser held by Howard County council member Courtney Watson, Bill Bissenas commented that both Watson and Guy Guzzone (her rumored opponent in the next county executive race) are “statists of the highest order,” in Watson’s case “despite [her] efforts to convince folks otherwise.” In response to which Dave Bittner asked Bill, “you use the term, ‘statist’ a lot. Could you define it for me?”

Bill provided his own answer, which basically amounted to an admonition to “look it up” and a recommendation to read the works of Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, and Ayn Rand. I was going to provide my own answer in comments, but since it threatened to run long I’m posting it here. Needless to say, this is my own opinion and not an attempt to speak for Bill or anyone else.

If you go by the “ultimate authority” (i.e., Wikipedia), “statism” is simply “a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that, for whatever reason, a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.” However I think in practice a lot of people use the term more loosely than that, to refer more generally to issues relating to the increased power, scope, and actions of government in lots of different areas, and in this context there are several dimensions of “statism” to contemplate.

While these dimensions are interrelated to at least some degree they are not identical, so people can cherry pick from them to suit their own political inclinations and goals. Here (in no particular order) are what I think are the major dimensions along which you could be “statist” (or not, as the case may be):

1. Supporting high (or at least higher) taxes. But you could lower taxes while at the same time raising government spending if you’re willing to run larger deficits (see items 3 and 6 below), like George W. Bush and lots of other politicians (“conservative” or otherwise) past and present.

2. Supporting such measures as warrantless domestic wiretapping and general interception of Internet traffic, attempts to achieve visibility into or even emergency control over private corporate networks, onerous security procedures for air travel, or general surveillance of suspect populations and groups without specific evidence of criminal activity or intent. For the most past these and related measures have had pretty much unanimous cross-party support since 9/11, with no signs of anything changing in the foreseeable future.

3. Supporting lengthy and expensive overseas military engagements and/or military spending that is arguably often in excess of the real needs of national security. See also item 2.

4. Engaging in “nanny-state” paternalism (see Bill’s past comments on Ken Ulman and the smoking ban in Howard County parks) and various types of interference in the private lives of citizens (see Rick Santorum and any number of other social conservatives in the GOP).

5. Promoting government interference in the economy and general market distortions of various types. This is generally considered to be a specialty of Democrats, but is far from unknown among Republicans, especially when done through targeted tax breaks and/or special protections for favored industries (e.g., copyright and other IP-related legislation).

6. Supporting high government spending and tolerating high deficits (which are often but not always associated with high spending). From a “statist” perspective this is considered especially bad if it’s spending on social programs that are at least partially redistributive in nature. Some exempt targeted tax breaks (which either raise taxes on the rest of us or increase deficits) and various corporate subsidies (see item 5) and/or high military and intelligence spending (see items 2 and 3) from being “statist”, although it’s not clear why they should get a pass here.

If you take items 1 through 6 together, I don’t think there’s a major national politician who’s not “statist,” except for Ron Paul. (And I suspect that even Paul has some “statist” tendencies here and there—though Paul supporters are free to disagree.) I suspect almost all (if not all) local Howard County politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, would also fail the “statist” test. In practice “statist” is often just used as a pejorative term for politicians and policies people disagree with—from that point of view it’s basically the new “liberal”.

Some people who use the term “statist” also come to what I think are silly conclusions, for example that Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc., are “socialist” countries. Canada actually scores significantly higher than the U.S. on the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom produced by the Heritage Foundation, Denmark is practically tied with the US, and both Finland and Sweden are also ranked in the top 25 countries worldwide. These countries are not “socialist” by any reasonable definition (e.g., government control of the means of production); rather they are simply capitalist countries (some of them more capitalist than the U.S.) that have relatively high spending on social programs.

The bottom line is that I discount anyone who uses the term “statist” unless they happen to be principled libertarians and are consistent in their positions on each of the dimensions of “statism” I’ve outlined above. Which is not to say that I think principled libertarians are always or even mostly right in terms of either their policy prescriptions and how they reach their conclusions, but that’s a subject for another day.

Are You A Statist?

 

I put out two articles recently that dealt more or less with the idea of whether or not Libertarians were anti-government and the difference between a true government and The State. Each article builds on the ideas and you can see those articles by going to https://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/are-libertarians-really-anti-government/ and https://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/are-there-really-victimless-crimes/

Today, I wish to continue in the same stream but make it a little more personal. You see, we have been molded to think a certain a way and now I believe that it is time we break that mold. Refusing to do so will only allow you to make the same mistakes over and over again. You cannot keep repeating what you have been doing and expect different results…that is…not unless you change at least one of the variables.

That variable I want you to change is the way you look at things.  I realize not everyone will take this up but it does make sense. After all, we cannot control everything that goes on around us but we can control what we think and feel about it. Those thought processes will change what we do as we realize the truth of what we are seeing.

In that vein, before you can answer the proposed question I should probably define the term so you know what I am talking about. The “statist” believes in The State described in the other articles. The statist believes bad means are necessary to accomplish good ends. They believe that The State should initiate the use of force against citizens to achieve their social norms or social goals. They believe that people who work for The State can do (and get away with it) things that would be criminal in nature for others to do.

Communities, in orderto peacefully survive, rely on people’s empathy, individual conscience and the exercise of the non-aggression principal.  Statism however rejects every bit of that. It is the most anti-social form of regulation against a society, all under the guise of the better for said society. The State uses statism to FORCE it’s will upon the people.  It clearly favors the use of FORCE over the concept of cooperation and persuasion. For The State to use statism, it makes use of what we would consider sociopathic behavior. It makes use of what are otherwise considered criminal actions to enforce its will upon society at the expense of “True Government”.

This use of FORCE to acquire the desired moral fabric of a society is what The State and statism is all about. Many have divided things into two political groups, right and left (more commonly known as conservative and liberal).  Clearly, the initiating of the use of force against an individual or group is neither conservative nor liberal. It is simply the use of FORCE…i.e. breaking the non-aggression principal.

Right, left, conservative, liberal; these labels are NOT correctly applied. It is NOT about left/right politics. It is about The State’s control over the people’s liberties. As we know the terms, leftists, progressives and socialists, always advocate a severely anti-social method to achieve their supposed betterment of society. They do this by FORCING their rules and regulation upon the unsuspecting and unwilling public.

Conservatives and right wingers are no better, they do the same thing with their own policies as they scream and yell against the others. Looking at society today, we can see that over the years The State’s initiation of force upon society is regressive not progressive. Our society is tending backwards toward more despondent people rather than a free people.

When all is said and done, as we look at our current state of affairs, we can see one common thread between all the differently labeled groups. Every single one of these groups is united with the others in their unending love for The State’s initiation of force against the populace. They are surely more united in their use of force than they are divided by the different goals they may have.

This unification makes them all statist. If you want to keep erroneously calling them left or right then you should at least at the word statist to the title. Call the left-statist or right-statist if that makes you feel better. The fact is you need to recognize that they are STATISTS. As such, they want The State to be in control of everything. They want The State to use its FORCE to manipulate the people into The State’s own moral code. They do not want the individual to have any Liberties and want to FORCE the individual to succumb to The State’s will.

 

Are you a statist?

 

With the idea that a principle must be applied in every situation where it can be used, otherwise it is not a principal, ask yourself…do you want The State to control even a single part of moral fabric society? If so, you are a statist.

If the label of “statist” bothers you, then you may need to reevaluate your principles. You should take the time to figure out exactly what you think should be FORCED upon you by someone else. When you come to the conclusion that NOTHING should be FORCED and that it should all be by YOUR CHOICE, you can start changing the way you live.

 

In order to be free from The State, one must first recognize that they are free from The State.

 

 

Yours in Liberty

 

Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)

 

History... Debate: Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (Anarchy vs. Authority)

 

So are you an Anarchist or a Statist? See if you can answer the following 5 questions…

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?