What is a Statist?

Politicians are all the same. They promise reforms then reform their promises. ~ Leonid S. Sukhorukov

Upon the Nolan Chart are four points. They are, of course, Liberal and Conservative, Libertarian and Statist.

The four points are endpoints on axes of what one might call good government. One is a moralistic and attitude balance, the other is a behavorial and organizational balance.

We all know the other three points on the compass, and their tired, jingoistic tunes. But what is Statism?

The bluntest definition would be?”belief in the importance of the power of the state over an individual”. But this would be not entirely accurate.

A better definition:

A person who believes that the power of the unified state is needed to correct the failings of human greed, ignorance, tribalism, for the furtherance of the nation?as a whole, regardless of constraint. The good of all is more valuable than the desires of any one individual.

There are many people who find that idea horrifying. They proclaim loudly that our country was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, indepdance, justice, blah blah blah.

Please, get your facts straight. This country was founded on the mailed fist of governmental power. It was founded on the imperialistic designs of a group of people fed up that they were being oppressed, and so they came here, drove the inhabitants off their land, cheated them, revolted against their government, nearly lost until they decided to unify and fight together, and could only be called a country when the ridiculous Articles of Confederation were laid aside and a true federal central government was constructed.

Spare me the sanctimonous whimpering about the noble proclamations of people such as Jefferson or Franklin. The country was founded on taking the land from the natives, on slavery, on the rich landowner running the show, on “freedom” as a byword to operating however you pleased as long as you had the power to buy someone. Politics in this country for years was bought and sold. The Civil War was about the tarrifs and profits to be lost with the end of slave labor, not out of any pious concern for the well being of the black people who's lives were destroyed. The annihalation of the American Indian nations, the cruel mistreatment of Chinese and Korean workers in assembling the trans-national rail lines, the insipidly blatant land grabs conducted during the Mexican American war for no better reason than to support slavery… must I go on, I haven't even gotten to the 20th century yet.

You are in a Statist land. High-sounding proclaimations aside, the power of the United States does not lie in it's freedom of the press, or it's freedom of religion, or it's right to bear arms and form militias. It does not lie in misty historical documents we attempt to make fit entirely unprecidented situations.

It lies in the unified might of a nation that was built by conquest and war, made powerful by conquest and war, who became a superpower by conquest and war, who spends most of it's money on conquest and war, who leads the world in military technology, and who will only continue to be relevant if those terms are kept.

A statist merely acceds to reality rather than trying to draw some sort of noble veil over what we are. What perctange of the population votes? Do they care? What percentage of the people can even name all ten amendments to the Consitution that form the Bill of Rights?

Statism does not pretend that the power of the federal state should be suborinate to the tiny chunks that comprise it. The reality of our nation is that we are powerful because of the centrality of the government.

You don't have a right to privacy. I can find out your information, where you work, your social security number, and all other kinds of information whenever I like. If you magically made the internet go away, I could still spy on your house with a dozen devices that could pick your conversations up from the vibration in your windows, track your earnings through bank transactions, or worse. Only a state where such things are tightly regulated and controlled can stop that.

A right to bear arms? What good does it do you? The purpose of the amendment was to keep your weapons so you could FORM A MILITIA, not to defend against criminals. If we had a truly stronger government and a national police force with increased power, the criminals would be GONE — and without any worry about criminals getting their hands on weapons, who would care about your guns? No one.

A right to free speech? Have you LOOKED at the media recently? This is what you plan to die for, so Paris Hilton can take up the news? So we can hear the hatespeech of racists, or *shudder* watch Tom Cruise talk about Scientology? The idea behind it — not having to watch what you say — is fine. What about when your free speech is bad for the nation? What about when we have traitors supporting Iran, saying it's their constitutional right?

There are so , so many things wrong with the whole political landscape aside from Statism I don't know where to begin. To claim anything besdie a strong national government — MANY times stronger than the one we have now — is bad is , to a statist, denying reality.

A statist belives the central power of government to regulate everything compensates for your losses. We have all these liberties — and they are abused. They lead to problems, they lead to crime, they lead to hate and division.

A statist sees a goverment that has no fear of terrorists because it can track every single person in the country real time. I don't *care* if the government knows what I do. If you do , you are living in the past.

A statist sees a government that has no fear of recessionon because it allows free markets but supported with the full power and revenue of the government, who can create work for all the unemployed., that can absolutely stabilize the money markets and create value. (Ideally, a government would be able to leverage public monies on other world stock markets and investments with a return.)

A statist sees the nation free of racist, sexist, religionist thought by simply giving such things no legal outlet. If you allow such ideas freedom of expression, they will never die.

A statist sees only one firm boundary — the home. A statist thinks everything else should be the responsability of the state. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business — but when it goes beyond that in any way, it is the state's business.

A statist realizes this is a global world, and multiculturalism and multinational corporations require something a bit better than a 200+ year old document to guide us into the future.

There are those who say that Liberalism addresses ineraction and humanity, that Conservatism addresses tradition and morality, and that Libertarians value freedom and liberty. So be it.

Statism addresses ORDER and POWER.

If this was a statist environment, the enviroment would be cleaned up. The borders would be sealed off. The poor would be put to work, the homeless educated and gotten jobs, the middle class would have no fear of having a lack of social security, and the rich would be secure in knowing that they have the loudest voice since they would bear the heaviest tax burden.

If this was a statist government fully, you wouldn't have outsourcing and illegal immigrants taking your jobs, or companies placing their factories in some slum in Mexico rather than making jobs for honest Americans.

Liberals will give you compassion and say that gives them the right to tell you how to think and act, and that if you don't you are a hate monger and a bigot.

Conervatives will talk about morality and God and tell them that gives them the right to tell you how to think and act, and that if you don't you will go to Hell.

Liberatrians will go on and on about freedom and liberty and tell you that if you don't think and act the way they say you are giving up your freedom and you will suffer.

Statists? We'll just tell you what to do, how to do it, and let you get on with your life.


Logical Premise

Senior Research Analyst at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas
Former Lead Ops Analyst for HMS
Former Lead Statistical Analyst, BNSF
Former Internal Revenue Officer, IRS

Latest posts by Logical Premise (see all)

Comments

  1. Nicholas De Laat says

    Please call my friends radio show.  He also works for me as a political columnist.  The phone number will be 307-682-1270, and he is on from 6-10am mountain time.  you can listen to him live at boldrepublic.com.  Please call his show, I want to see if you really have the information to back this up.

  2. Gatspy says

    Your better definition is (statist) the same definition and actions written by Lenin and his Vanguard of the Proletariat to bad he died and Stalin came to power to murder millions and create a communist government just like you have outlined as statist. Our Federalist government includes federal power and state power and states allow for local power and that makes for a lot of freedom for specific areas of a society. You can have multiculturalism in the sense that people are free to move and live with those that they feel comfortable around. Not that I believe that multiculturalism will work, because it has not worked anywhere in the world unless a strong government (statist exists) like Titos Yugoslavia (168 different Nationalities all kept in check with a police presence that you proclaim would be good for America). Realists believe exactly the way that a statist believes about human nature. The problem I have with your thought is that a few leaders can be like “human gods”  something like Plato’s Philosopher Kings and that is probably the bases of statism. Regardless how America was created and in many of your historical outlooks may have some truth to them their are many historical books that can shed a better light on how America was formed. First of all, it was the Dutch, Spanish (mostly), and French who through disease killed a majority of the Native Americans. The British Anglo-Saxons in a Christian manner when possible tried to save the Native Americans. Unfortunately  we were forced to kill many for the growth of country and the move Westward. Yes, America is a very warlike nation who has been fighting since our founding. Many Americans would of stopped at the Spanish American War and thus, not move into imperialism. But, as an offshore balancer (see Mearsheimer “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics) we were forced into two world wars in order to keep a multi-power world and after World War II we ended up with a bi-polar world. Now as a Unipolar power America needs to stay out of war and it has not been able to do that because of the people put into power in America and that is a whole other argument (power politics in America). One can only hope and Christ willing that Man gods or intellectuals as psychotic as you and other satanists (I meant statist). Thank God, We have our guns to protect ourselves from individuals like the statists when revolution does come to us due to Social Liberalism or Libertarianism.
    God Bless America   

  3. Solid Snake says

    A statist is anyone who advocates for there to be a state, not just some massive centralized state which controls everything, but a state, period. Statists have tried to re-define the term so that it would apply only to people who want some massive centralized state, but they are quite incorrect and dishonest in their attempt to re-define the word.

    A statist is basically anyone who is not an anarchist.

    Try to find a middle between a state and no state.

    Hint: you can’t. Ergo, there’s no excluded middle.

    • unburdened says

      Perhaps you are right that there needs to be a different word, but in the context of the Nolan chart–a Statist is someone who scores in the “statist” quadrant of the chart. Those are people who advocate for a powerful state not a limited state.
      I have no opposition in letting that group choose a name they feel represents themselves better, but to claim that people are “statists” in this forum based on different criteria than the chart isn’t relevant.

      • Solid Snake says

        There is no middle between a state and no state, saying someone is not a statist who supports a state is a non sequitur.

        • unburdened says

          Language is not static. It changes by use and context is always relevant.
          We may describe a “runner” as someone who runs–but if you go to a track meet and they ask all the runners to come to the field, they would only be asking for a specific subset of runners to come to the field– the runners who are signed up to participate in that meet.
          Perhaps the Nolan chart should change the name of the “statist” quadrant of the chart to appease those who see things only in there fundamental condition, but in this context I think it is pretty clear that the term does not include everyone–just those in the subset.

          • Solid Snake says

            It has nothing to do with language. There is no middle between X and Y. If you support Y, you are a Yer.

    • LogicalPremise says

      That’s akin to saving anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal, or anyone who isn’t a Christian is a Satanist.

      Are you truly that dim that you think everything is black and white? Someone who wants a government may want a weak government. That doesn’t mean they think a government can answer all questions, nor does it mean they are anarchists.

      People like you who think they can be clever by playing with words have nothing to offer in any constructive discussion. What lessons are we supposed to take from this pearl of wisdom you’ve shared with us?

      That anyone who isn’t an anarchist is a statist? Liberarians, conservatives, liberals, Pastafarians? Anyone who doesn’t believe in the utter and complete idiocy that letting people run around with no governance or controls whatsoever is a great thing is now a statist?

      You’ve got two brain cells kid. Clearly,one is lost and the other is out looking for it. Do us all a favor and throw your keyboard away.

  4. ImperialSun says

    Loved this article! Myself, I feel like a mix of statist and conservative. Or perhaps I’m just a Christian statist.

    Libertarianism isn’t a logical ally for anyone who supports good values and ethics. People like Ayn Rand loved big cities, modern art, individualism and atheism. Libertarianism allows institutions like the family, the nation, society as whole, to be challenged and destroyed by dangerous individuals such as revolutionaries, libertines and cult-leaders. Anyone who is against having people starving (for both ethical and practical reasons, reward decent citizens who work and don’t let them be exploited) but don’t want cultural radicalists like feminists, queers or multiculturalists disrupting social order should be a statist.

    My vision of society, as a christian and as a humanist, is a society where the decision-makers are the “elite”, people who know what they are talking about instead of political bluffers and liars. These people grant decent citizens a basic safety, somewhere to live, work, food on their table, a police force and an army to protect them, some vacation etc. In return, decent citizens work and do as they are told. Those who don’t are punished, but should be given a way back into society once the debt is payed. Surveillance is extensive, since those who do no wrong have nothing to hide. Religious organisations like mine, the Catholic Church, as well as the eastern-othodoxy and high-church protestantism, who respect law and authority are allowed. Cults who are a threat to society aren’t, so those who like individual liberties don’t have to worry for cults were children are mutilated and so on. Immigrants are only allowed if they agree to be assimilated, and if there is a need of them (if the nation needs more of a certain competence). Everyone is happy. I don’t see the problem.

  5. unburdened says

    I find it interesting that you recognize that it was by the power of the state that the founders utilized slavery and massacred the natives–and still seem to think that a strong state is in the interest of the people.

      • unburdened says

        I am responding to the scenario that the author uses.
        I am also learning from history. When there is a strong state–people get abused by the state. They become oppressed, enslaved, imprisoned, and murdered by the state.
        I can’t figure out why it would be in my best interests to be involved in an organization that acts in that manner towards people who aren’t seeking to harm.

  6. kreator says

    I honestly could not even get through the grammatical errors of this ridiculous article. Go back to school, kid.

  7. Richard Nixon says

    Here is a revised, grammatically correct version:

    Politicians are all the same.
    They promise reforms then reform their promises. ~ Leonid S. Sukhorukov

    Upon the Nolan Chart are four points. They are, of course, Liberal
    and Conservative, Libertarian and Statist.

    The four points are endpoints on axes of what one might call good
    government. One is a moralistic and attitude balance, the other is a behavioral
    and organizational balance.

    We all know the other three points on the compass, and their
    tired, jingoistic tunes. But what is Statism?

    The bluntest definition would be?” belief in the importance of the
    power of the state over an individual”. But this would be not entirely
    accurate.

    A better definition:

    A person who believes that the power of the unified state is needed
    to correct the failings of human greed, ignorance, tribalism, for the
    furtherance of the nation? As a whole, regardless of constraint. The good of
    all is more valuable than the desires of any one individual.

    There are many people who find that idea horrifying. They proclaim
    loudly that our country was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy,
    independence, justice, blah blah blah.

    Please, get your facts straight. This country was founded on the
    mailed fist of governmental power. It was founded on the imperialistic designs
    of a group of people fed up that they were being oppressed, and so they came
    here, drove the inhabitants off their land, cheated them, revolted against
    their government, nearly lost until they decided to unify and fight together, and
    could only be called a country when the ridiculous Articles of Confederation
    were laid aside and a true federal central government was constructed.

    Spare me the sanctimonious whimpering about the noble
    proclamations of people such as Jefferson or Franklin. The country was founded
    on taking the land from the natives, on slavery, on the rich landowner running
    the show, on “freedom” as a byword to operating however you pleased
    as long as you had the power to buy someone. Politics in this country for years
    was bought and sold. The Civil War was about the tariffs and profits to be lost
    with the end of slave labor, not out of any pious concern for the well-being of
    the black people whose lives were destroyed. The annihilation of the American
    Indian nations, the cruel mistreatment of Chinese and Korean workers in
    assembling the trans-national rail lines, the insipidly blatant land grabs
    conducted during the Mexican American war for no better reason than to support
    slavery… must I go on, I haven’t even gotten to the 20th century yet.

    You are in a Statist land. High-sounding proclamations
    aside, the power of the United States does not lie in its freedom of the press,
    or its freedom of religion, or its right to bear arms and form militias. It
    does not lie in misty historical documents we attempt to make fit entirely unprecedented
    situations.

    It lies in the unified might of a nation that was built by
    conquest and war, made powerful by conquest and war, which became a superpower
    by conquest and war, which spends most of its money on conquest and war, who
    leads the world in military technology, and who will only continue to be
    relevant if those terms are kept.

    A statist merely accedes to reality rather than trying to draw
    some sort of noble veil over what we are. What perctange of the population
    votes? Do they care? What percentage of the people can even name all ten
    amendments to the Constitution that form the Bill of Rights?

    Statism does not pretend that the power of the federal state
    should be subordinate to the tiny chunks that comprise it. The reality of our
    nation is that we are powerful because of the centrality of the government.

    You don’t have a right to privacy. I can find out your
    information, where you work, your social security number, and all other kinds
    of information whenever I like. If you magically made the internet go away, I
    could still spy on your house with a dozen devices that could pick your
    conversations up from the vibration in your windows, track your earnings
    through bank transactions, or worse. Only a state where such things are tightly
    regulated and controlled can stop that.

    A right to bear arms? What good does it do you? The purpose of the
    amendment was to keep your weapons so you could FORM A MILITIA, not to defend
    against criminals. If we had a truly stronger government and a national police
    force with increased power, the criminals would be GONE — and without any
    worry about criminals getting their hands on weapons, who would care about your
    guns? No one.

    A right to free speech? Have you LOOKED at the media recently?
    This is what you plan to die for, so Paris Hilton can take up the news? So we
    can hear the hate speech of racists, or *shudder* watch Tom Cruise talk about
    Scientology? The idea behind it — not having to watch what you say — is fine.
    What about when your free speech is bad for the nation? What about when we have
    traitors supporting Iran, saying it’s their constitutional right?

    There are so, so many things wrong with the whole political
    landscape aside from Statism I don’t know where to begin. To claim anything besides
    a strong national government — MANY times stronger than the one we have now —
    is bad is, to a statist, denying reality.

    A statist believes the central power of government to regulate
    everything compensates for your losses. We have all these liberties — and they
    are abused. They lead to problems, they lead to crime, and they lead to hate
    and division.

    A statist sees a government that has no fear of terrorists because
    it can track every single person in the country real time. I don’t *care* if
    the government knows what I do. If you do, you are living in the past.

    A statist sees a government that has no fear of recession because
    it allows free markets but supported with the full power and revenue of the
    government, who can create work for all the unemployed. that can absolutely
    stabilize the money markets and create value. (Ideally, a government would be
    able to leverage public monies on other world stock markets and investments
    with a return.)

    A statist sees the nation free of racist, sexist, religionist
    thought by simply giving such things no legal outlet. If you allow such ideas
    freedom of expression, they will never die.

    A statist sees only one firm boundary — the home. A statist
    thinks everything else should be the responsibility of the state. What you do
    in the privacy of your home is your business — but when it goes beyond that in
    any way, it is the state’s business.

    A statist realizes this is a global world, and multiculturalism
    and multinational corporations require something a bit better than a 200+ year
    old document to guide us into the future.

    There are those who say that Liberalism addresses interaction and
    humanity, that Conservatism addresses tradition and morality, and that
    Libertarians value freedom and liberty. So be it.

    Statism addresses ORDER and POWER.

    If this was a statist environment, the environment would be
    cleaned up. The borders would be sealed off. The poor would be put to work, the
    homeless educated and gotten jobs, the middle class would have no fear of
    having a lack of social security, and the rich would be secure in knowing that
    they have the loudest voice since they would bear the heaviest tax burden.

    If this was a statist government fully, you wouldn’t have
    outsourcing and illegal immigrants taking your jobs, or companies placing their
    factories in some slum in Mexico rather than making jobs for honest Americans.

    Liberals will give you compassion and say that gives them the
    right to tell you how to think and act, and that if you don’t you are a hate
    monger and a bigot.

    Conservatives will talk about morality and God and tell them that
    gives them the right to tell you how to think and act, and that if you don’t
    you will go to Hell.

    Libertarians will go on and on about freedom and liberty and tell
    you that if you don’t think and act the way they say you are giving up your
    freedom and you will suffer.

    Statists? We’ll just tell you what to do, how to do it, and let
    you get on with your life.

    • unburdened says

      Its a very nice premise, it just has one fatal flaw.
      The creation of a strong state, does not make people moral nor does it correct the failings of human greed or ignorance.
      There are still people who run the state and those people have the same tendency to human failings as everyone else. Furthermore when people are given more power, they tend to abuse that power.

      You seem to be making the argument that the force of the state is justified for my benefit–but this only includes the occasions when that force is being used in a direction I approve. Your own account mentions how the state was used to the destruction of many people–it is how the state became so strong.

      What is missing is an argument for why I would want that to continue. It may seem very appealing to have the power of a strong state behind me–when it is in my control, or moving in the direction I want. However, when I am the one being oppressed, it has very little appeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *