I don't use the term "statist" in an attempt to start a fight, I simply know of no other word to designate those who believe that "government" is a legitimate human activity. Substitute your own word of choice in the title if "statist" offends you.
I would really like to hear from some people who think I am completely wrong. If you really believe that government control is superior to individual liberty, then try to convince me. Don't bother trying to convince me it is possible to balance the two or that government control does not negate individual liberty, because that would be pointless. Although, if that is really what you believe, go ahead and state that for the record. I will not agree with you or believe you, but it is important to know where you stand for the debate.
If you can't make that argument, but know someone else who can and would be interested, send them a link to this post and invite them to speak their mind. I would really like to know where I am wrong, if I am wrong.
.....................................
I have a bit of time this AM before I go out and split wood. Had a couple comments elsewhere and I couldn't resist the earnestness of Kent today.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of literal argument (knowing that my own personal conclusion is similar, if not identical to Kent's on any given day).
While it may in fact be true that government amounts to 'control', using the term in direct opposition to individual liberty is problematic. It comes off as instantly hostile and pejorative, where in fact many would claim that is a derivative effect of the original intent or purpose. While of course everyone accepts individual liberty as the highest ideal and something to be advocated.
Thus, one might be able to point to a past ambition like the Constitution and say, " Hey look we agreed to the following and we expect government to protect and preserve individual rights and property." Of course the whole idea of consent comes into play as the great Crispin Sartwell outlines, but the utilitarian or Hobbesian might interject, we need a little force and control in order to inhibit the most base human behavior. One might include a discussion of Locke or Rosseau if an incorporation of property or the nebulous 'general will' comes into play.
Without too much exposition, we might include discussion of Hegel's State, Rawl's 'veil of ignorance' or perhaps a little compromise from Nozick on mutual defense arrangements. Of course refuting Rothbard's claims in the Ethics of Liberty is often countered by claims of public goods theory and externalities as American software engineer Brian Holtz has suggested . . .
The point is that the body of thinking on these matters can be more vast and advanced than a simple dichotomy that appears on its face to be false (ie control v. liberty).
Of course this is why I do recommend Sartwell's recent effort in Against the State; An introduction to anarchist political theory. It's cheap and a relatively quick and unencumbered reading, unlike the Hegel's and Rawl's of the universes.
I'll skip the existential input from Kierkegaard and assume Camus doesn't apply.
Best,
Eric
OK. I have mulled this over for a while. I am trying to see the point of "control vs. liberty" being a "false dichotomy"... but I can't.
ReplyDelete"Liberty" means doing what you want. Obviously you shouldn't "do what you want" if what you want is to violate the rights of others. You can either control yourself, or someone else will need to step in at that point.
"Control" involves stopping people from doing what they want. Regardless of whether their "wants" include violating the rights of others or not. This is what government is established to do.
So, I still see a dichotomy.
If it were a "good government" it would only stop one from doing what one wants IF that act would violate the rights of someone else. Yet, no government anywhere at any time has limited itself to that.
Governments are notorious for acting as though "the people" are subject to the rules the government has made, while the government (by which I mean the individuals that make up the government) are not subject to those same rules to the same extent. Is this just a quirk, or is it simply a basic feature of the state?