But they go about it all wrong by ignoring reality.
The reason I have this opinion is because almost everyone I know is a statist. They aren't intentionally evil. They simply haven't thought through the things they support and advocate enough to see where they lead.
In most cases, they probably want the same things I want: the health, safety, and prosperity of themselves and their loved ones. They just haven't acknowledged that the way they go about trying to ensure these things is evil- they cause harm to the health, safety, and prosperity of others who aren't important to them.
The problem is everyone is someone else's "other". Statism becomes a big cannibal feast where no one is going to come out whole.
The nicer, and more rational, choice is to recognize that everyone has an absolute right to do anything that doesn't violate the life, liberty, property, or "pursuit of happiness" of anyone else. It's the only way that doesn't create a victim. It's the better alternative to being a statist.
-
.
Statism will work, Kent, once someone figures out how to change human nature.
ReplyDeleteDon't encourage them! Mengele was an amateur.
Delete"once someone figures out how to change human nature."
DeleteThey have figured it out - kill everyone who doesn't submit.
And yet, even in that case the human hunger for liberty always arises among some of the survivors, or their descendants.
DeleteInstead of killing those who don't submit or that get in the way, why not kill those that WANT power and actively seek it? I see the desire for power over others a flaw or defect. Perhaps genetic. Since statists and end to be eugenisists too I'm hoping the see the wisdom in exterminating themselves. You know, for the children.
Delete858x70
Statists do not have good intentions. Maybe some useful idiots do.
ReplyDeleteStatists are power mongers and control freaks. They want control. They want what THEY want and nothing else.
Perhaps you use the term "statist" more narrowly than I do. To me a "statist" is one who believes that "government" (of any sort) is a legitimate human activity. Yes, that includes the Reagans and Obamas, but it also includes those who don't like any government, but still believe it to be somehow "necessary". Some of them don't want control, they just think it's sometimes justified.
DeleteGod instituted governments among men... he did so with the nation of Israel while wandering in the desert in the book of Exodus.
DeleteI wont use Romans 13 as an example because the apostles themselves were disobeying the law of their nations by worshipping Jesus, so their submission to earthly authority as they mention there is suspect.
Anon: If this is true, then it would be that god "instituted governments" in the same way he created Satan and Hell and rabies and ebola. Because Satan offered Jesus political power (the temptation in the wilderness) and Jesus rejected it, knowing where it comes from. It's existence doesn't prove it is good or justified, and certainly doesn't mean you should wallow in it.
DeleteBut governments existed long before the Exodus- they have been around since the first thief decided it was easier to put down roots and "tax" his victims than to risk his life in the occasional raid.
And Romans 13 is a particularly bad example for more reasons than that you mention.
There are two types of socialist. The ones who want the best for everyone and haven't yet figured out the whole thing is a monstrous lie, and the ones who know it's a monstrous lie and work the system for all they're worth for their own selfish purposes.
ReplyDeleteThere's no helping the type II's. Ignore them.
Luckily the type I's outnumber them about ten to one. The fact that they have good intentions, of the kind the road to hell is paved with, is in fact one of the most useful tools you have when debating libertarian ideas with them. You have common ground! You both want the best for everyone! Build on that. When the argument is about methods and outcomes rather than aims, it can take the heat right out of things. You won't win them over every time, but you might get them thinking.
Following up on D. M. Mitchell's comment; I've always thought that the central flaw of socialism is that to work, it needs better people. However if you have better people, you don't need socialism in the first place.
Statism becomes a big cannibal feast where no one is going to come out whole.
ReplyDeleteGood line! Very true.
There are many authoritarians with good intentions, but not all.
ReplyDeletehttp://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2009/05/authoritarian-mindset.html
Yep. Some are just plain evil.
Delete"Statism becomes a big cannibal feast.."
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand made this exact point. I took to referring to Statists as cannibals of the human spirit.
I wish I could believe that, but I believe statists know exactly how they're destroying Western nations. They simply believe historical social injustice requires that hegemonic nations be 'adjusted' so the 'less fortunate' can have a chance to prosper. Obama meant it when he talked of spreading the wealth around, individually. He also meant it in terms of nations, spreading the power around, literally. Economic power, political and military and soft power. He's not exceptional in this, statists generally believe injustice against hegemonic powers today will bring greater equality tomorrow. Any risk is worth taking to achieve that. I don't call that having a good intention. It's a fundamental evil of morally judging a person simply by his group affiliations. Social Marxism is stronger today than it was 50 years ago ....
ReplyDeleteAs Kent notes, Stephen, that's just one type of statist...the egalitarian. Hitler was a statist too, and he didn't believe everyone was equal. Mugabe was a statist too, and he just wanted to line his pockets as full as possible.
DeleteIndeed, it's that last sort of statist that's the most common. Loot is the nearly ubiquitous motivation of statists, top to bottom. There are some genuine egalitarians, but they're few and far between and tend to be feel-good "progressives" who haven't the foggiest idea what the real world is like. You can rest assured that neither John Kerry nor any of the Kennedys, to name two obvious examples, genuinely believe that everyone is, or ought to be, equal. Same for geniuses like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson---they love being "special" and they particularly love the loot.
Probably, you're imagining that people think like you would think if you acted like them. But you don't act like them and the truth is that they have their own (so-called) reasons.
People seem to be misunderstanding exactly what a statist is.
ReplyDeleteA statist is someone- ANYone- who believes government (governing of other individuals) is a legitimate human endeavor. That includes every president ever, as well as every cop, every "public" school teacher, and every voter. If you think any government imposed on anyone is "justified", it includes you.
Some are worse than others, of course, but if you believe it is OK to tell another person how to live their life, and think it's OK to "tax" anyone at any amount, and think there is anything "The State"- any state- should be doing, you are a statist. Yes, "social Marxists" are statists, but so are Tea Party Republicans and even Libertarian Party members. Obama is a statist, as was Reagan. As is Ron Paul (unless he has since renounced his previous statism, which I might have missed).
See why I am not throwing every statist under the "intentionally evil" bus?
I hate to think of myself as a statist, but with this definition, I can't avoid it. how do you resolve something where someone willingly transgresses against another without some form of formal state? when individual A does not consider their actions to be harmful to person B, but person B does.
DeleteWhen has "a formal state" ever prevented someone from transgressing on someone else? The best that happens is that one transgressor is traded for another. The worst is that the transgressor joins the formal state in order to do the transgressing with almost zero chance of being held accountable, and thereby removing the option of using self defense against him without bringing the entire apparatus of The State down upon his victim's head.
Delete"when individual A does not consider their actions to be harmful to person B, but person B does"
Can you give a specific example? Absent an example, I can say this much: Is Person A initiating (starting) the use of physical force against Person B? If so, it doesn't matter if Person A considers his actions to be "harmful" or not- he has no right to do it. Is Person A taking/damaging the property of Person B? If so, he has no right to do so and is in the wrong no matter whether he considers his actions "harmful" or not. Or, is Person B simply offended by Person A's actions but not being attacked or stolen from? If so, Person B needs to mind his own business.
the neighbor decides to burn away his poison Ivy on a windy day, on the edge of his property. genetic engineered proponent plants wind pollinated crops near gmo opponent with neighboring land. man upstream builds a dam to supply electricity, and stops drinking water. or regulates waterflow to prevent flooding which inhibits my rice crop. I may or may not agree with state decision, but it gives a non violent venue for trying to resolve such conflicts.
Delete-Logan
All those are property rights issues. You would be within your rights to take action to protect yourself and your property. Those actions might include violence.
DeleteHow does a state resolve those without violence? It can't. The state solution is always one of violence, or at least the imminent threat of violence. In fact, with "laws", the penalty is ALWAYS death.
And, all those property violating scenarios are much more likely to be carried out by people calling themselves "government" than by freelance bad neighbors.
food for thought for sure. while I can find personal examples to agree, and none to disagree, it still feels like a leap to abandon the concept government, entirely. for the time being I will have to accept that to some degree I am a statist too, like those I consider evil. maybe only a theoretical statist for a hypothetical potential state, but still a lingering attachment to an ambition to ensure cooperation.
Delete-Logan
Somehow my reply ended up an orphan. Well, it's down there somewhere. LOL
Delete"...but still a lingering attachment to an ambition to ensure cooperation."
DeleteIf you're interested, that's your root error. When you say "ensure," you mean "force;" there's no other way to ensure anything in anyone else. This is precisely the opposite of "cooperation," which can arise only through choice.
What you undoubtedly mean is, "I very strongly wish that people would cooperate." Well yeah, but that's just a wish. The fundamental question is whether you want to force everyone to go along, in order to force a few to go along. And worse...if you say that it might be right to force someone else to go along, you are implicitly acknowledging that it might be right to force you to go along.
The trick of the State is to pretend that there can be some standard by which all the rational people go along, and all the thugs get stopped. But as we see, it doesn't work out that way---what happens is that those who believe in using force thrive, while those who strove to be rational in the first place, become slaves of the thugs.
That's what happens when you ignore hierarchy. In a social context, not initiating force against others is THE supreme principle. Violate that and it doesn't matter what derivative goal you were seeking; it's automatically doomed to failure.
Libertarians are one of the biggest Statists, they destroy good States because they deny human nature as well.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose we have Country "A" who has struggled up through the thousands of years to join the Civilized Nations. It is full of high I.Q. Whites. Let's call it Switzerland.
Let's take Country "B" who is a hate-filled, low I.Q. cesspool that has for thousands of years, tortured, mutilated and sold each other and torn down Chiefs in Blood. It is full of Low I.Q. Blacks Let's call it Somalia.
Libertarians believe if you just teach the Somalians rational thought, then all will be Skittles and Rainbows. They demand open borders thinking that the thought of Civilization will "rub off" on the incoming hordes. This has never been the case. What you get is Detroit. A devolution of Civilization and a fleeing of the people who built the civilization in the first place. It has always been thus, all through history. Open borders Libertarians are just as bad as Liberals as they really believe people are interchangeable economic units, rather than the animals they are, just as Rand did. Marx denied that the tone of civilization existed at all, Rand believed that the tone of civilization could flower anywhere people could make money. The truth is, according to Putnam, a homogenous race is more important than any other factor in Social cohesion, social trust and happiness. The Norwegians have high happiness factor with high taxation. But put two different races next to each other and the more civilized flee. They can't leave their houses open, they fear after dark and their women get raped.
Yes, many Libertarians are statists. Not to the degree that Democrapublicans are, but many Libertarians (and some libertarians) are not anarchists, and those are the two choices: anarchist or statist. You are either one or the other- but there are degrees of statism.
DeleteBut you are preaching collectivism (a different thing than statism, although they usually go together) and racism- "countries" don't struggle; individuals do.
The only thing "Libertarians believe", by definition, is that no one has the right to initiate force (attack someone who isn't attacking or robbing you). That's it.
There will never be a Utopia. Not in Libertopia and certainly not under any government (as shown by statists trying to "get it right" for 5000+ years and failing every single time). The only thing "incoming hordes" (or homegrown politicians/thugs) will ever understand is that I have the absolute human right to defend myself and my property with deadly force from all violators, and no "law" can ever infringe that right.
Detroit is the result of too much government. Somalia is the result of too much government. I don't advocate any government, other than self government- which can never be imposed by anyone on anyone. All you can do is defend yourself from those who initiate force and theft. Who is a bigger danger to my life, liberty, and property? The independent migrant from Mexico, or the local bureaucrats and cops? It's the bureaucrats and cops who make up rules (they call them "laws") that punish me for defending myself and others from attackers of any origin. I don't care who you are, where you were born, what your IQ is, or what government papers you possess- all I care about is whether you want to attack and/or steal. Borders have zero to do with that. If you believe States have property rights which trump private property rights, you are a statist. You may not be as severe a statist as someone who believes The State can own individuals and their bodies, and dispose of them as it wishes (even though "States" also have no wishes- only evil individuals calling themselves "government" do) but it's just a matter of degree, not a real difference.
"Libertarians believe if you just teach the Somalians rational thought, then all will be Skittles and Rainbows. They demand open borders thinking that the thought of Civilization will "rub off" on the incoming hordes. This has never been the case. What you get is Detroit."
DeleteTeaching isn't enough; they gotta want to do it.
And you're right, without even realizing what you're right about. Get an area with enough rational thought overflowing, and it'll pull the whole world along, like for 100 years.
But hey, everyone sees what they wanna see. I'm from Detroit, Kent, and I watched half a century of it up close, and I pay attention. You got it exactly right---"Detroit [the slice that 10mm sees] is the result of too much government." I could tell you story after story after story, but you got the gist of it...it's that and nothing else. NOTHING else; it never is.
Mr. Auto, in spite of your obvious disdain for the intelligence of blacks, your theory about racial cohesion being a primary determining factor in the happiness and prosperity of a group of people should reveal the biggest problem with Somalia: intervention by white statists. The geographical area called Somalia, the lines on maps made by white people from far away, have severely undermined the social cohesion (traditions, customs, laws) that existed there for thousands of years. Further, these invading forces did so for the purpose of exploiting the resources, the land and the people who lived there. So I wouldn't be so cavalier in dismissing the potential capabilities of Native Africans for organizing social organizations that can prosper and be peaceful.
DeleteWhat I am not getting is why people get offended at being called "statists". If you aren't an anarchist you are a statist. And, as I pointed out in the post, I believe more statists have good intentions, even if they support the wrong thing.
ReplyDeleteI don't get bothered by being called an anarchist or an atheist- I am what I am and I see no reason to feel ashamed or embarrassed. Because I don't feel any guilt over what I am and what I advocate. It would be silly for me to flip out over being called what I am, wouldn't it? If it bothered me, I might need to see it as a sign I need to change something so I wouldn't be upset by being acknowledged for what I am and what I (don't) believe in.
I don't think anything can ensure cooperation. Certainly not "the State". If someone is "cooperating" at gunpoint, they aren't cooperating. I am very likely to find a way to cooperate- until and unless someone involves The State. That is a declaration of war against me, and my cooperation goes right out the window at that point. I may do the minimum to avoid being murdered, but the person who got the state involved had better always watch their back from that point forward- it would be better if they just avoided me as I will be trying to avoid them. I won't lift a finger for that person ever again, and will look at them as someone willing to have me killed instead of working toward a peaceful solution.
ReplyDeleteI think reality of the state makes it a little hard to see my hypothetical ideal state :) I see it limited in size to something like a home owners association, and limited in power to you can't live inside the group fence if you can't agree.
DeleteI can't find any realistic examples of this, my every experience with the state says you are right, however many experiences with neighbors also tells me without a collection of rules to guide people we can't live in close proximity. (I now live 5 miles away from the nearest village with a population under 1,000. anarchy would suit me just fine) but hypothetically to keep technology running, to maintain life as most of the six billion of us know it, some people have to live in close proximity to each other, and need some means of ensuring mutual respect. right? you may well be willing to find a way to cooperate, but do you have enough faith in humanity in general that you'd be willing to live with what you want?
-Logan
I'm not a fan of home owners' associations, either. (Not a surprise, is it? LOL) As long as the rules were all known before anyone bought a house there, and no changes could ever be made without unanimous consent, then I suppose it would be OK. Not for me, but "OK". The only time I was ever involved with a home owners' association, no one informed me one even existed until they decided I was in violation of their rules. I ignored their threats, although I did move away as soon as I could.
Delete"...without a collection of rules to guide people we can't live in close proximity"
Sure. But "no Rulers" doesn't mean "no rules". There are Universal rules of Natural Law: don't initiate force; don't take or damage property that isn't your own. Anything else needs unanimous consent before being imposed- and it never has it.
"do you have enough faith in humanity in general that you'd be willing to live with what you want?"
That's a bit of a trick question, but yes. I have faith that people will act in what they see as their own best interest. I am responsible for making it in their best interest to not violate me (or any innocent person around me). It has worked very well in my life so far. On the other hand, I don't have enough faith in humanity to give anyone "political authority". They WILL abuse it, because it is in their interest to do so. Those most inclined to be thugs- yet smart enough to hedge their bets- will gravitate toward those positions of power and "authority". They will also set up the "system" in a way which insulates them from the consequences of their actions. How "safe" is it to shoot a dangerous cop or politician- even though it is obviously self defense? Not very.
But, like Thomas Jefferson, I am willing to deal with the inconveniences of "too much liberty" rather than those of too little.
"Faith in humanity"...FOR WHAT? Very, very few people are thieves or thugs, and they just gotta be stopped. If you don't stop them, they win and you lose; that's all there is to it. That's outside the realm of human behavior, if one takes being human as being conceptual and volitional.
DeleteAs for the rest, who cares? We care now because people have swallowed the utopian fantasy that if we just force everyone to do what's reasonable, then we'll have Heaven on Earth. But as I noted above...if you do that, then it's doomed to failure because forcing people is the OPPOSITE of being reasonable. Hierarchy.
One of the nice byproducts of a group of individuals all accepting the NAP as the supreme principle, will be the realization that the things that bother them so much now--HOA rules are a great example--simply aren't worth bothering about. It's worth a lot of aggravation to know that your willful choices aren't going to be physically obstructed. That's the implicit message in the "Force isn't fraud" argument...tough noogies if somebody hoodwinks you out of something; it doesn't matter in the big picture, the big picture being your life. Be wise enough not to get hoodwinked. Lying to people is wrong for a whole host of reasons, chiefly the damage it does to the liar, but it's still not force.
"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends."
ReplyDelete-- Isabel Paterson