Topic: Political Literature
Statist Political Theory Left, Center, Right...and Libertarian??!!?by Logical Premise
(Statist)
Monday, February 4, 2008
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of reading a very well written article (and blast me, I can't find a link, will edit this column when I do) written on this site a few days ago talking about the components of Libertarianism.
Statism is no different, really. All statists believe in some core concepts : strong centralized government, transparency, the Constitution as an evolving contract rather than straightjacket, and the need of government to modulate mob rule. (And I don't mean La Cosa Nostra, either).
But beyond those concepts -- and in some areas, within those concepts -- Statists vary widely.
There are two caveats to make in this article, right now:
Most Democrats and neo-conservative Republicans are basically weak Statists. If you don't feel that way now, I understand -- but that's how you're acting.
Statism is not the utter opposite of Libertarianism. That would be a Fascist state. Likewise, the opposite of a Statist government is NOT Libertarianism -- even Libertarians see the need for SOME government. The opposite of Statism is Anarchy.
That being said....
Left Statism belives the government is primarily an enabler of humanity to be guaranteed a minimum of living standards. That is not to say that everyone should be equal. Everyone is emphatically not equal. Some people will become wealthy, some are smarter, better looking, etc. No one should have to lose most of their wealth simply because they are wealthy. Instead, the left statist argument says that since the rich and wealthy enjoy the most benefits in life, they should pay a larger share to ensure everyone can have at least a minimum standard of living.
Left Statists don't buy into imperialism and are usually pretty close to non-interventionists or even pacifists. They think a huge government should focus on the needs and desires of the people first, and the internal economy, and should act as a buffer for the country against the rest of the world. Left Statism does not think the government needs to regulate it's own citizenry that much, but that it needs to tightly control external trade, corporate affairs, and of course, enact signifigant civil rights protections. Particularly in the area of corporate affairs, it would meddle -- government monitors in all buisinesses, making businesses comply with all sorts of economic, ecological and trade controls, and probably a government representative (of the people, haha) on every board of directors.
Left Statists also would make evolutionary teaching mandatatory and basically forbit you to discuss your religion in public where it might offend someone. Eco-controls and environmental controls would be tight. And of course, the biggest thing Left Statists would get around to is outlawing guns. I didn't say control, I said outlaw. Yeah.
Right Statism sees America as a nascent empire, bringing the light of democracy, freedom, liberty, and justice to the entire world. It favors a strong military, a conservative culture mandated by law, and preferably one with a theologicistic grounding or even participation (Judeao-Christian only, of course), and finally, strict internal controls and monitoring. Gun controls? You bet, ballistics testing and required mandatory licensing -- but you could own any gun you like.
Right Statism would use the power of government to establish all those things you here Christian Talk Radio going on about. Round up the gays and deport them. Make illegal immigration a capital offense. Anyone gives us a problem with terrorism, nuke them, invade them, auction off their land and build a "trade partner" there. Limit internal media, control what comes on television, and make sure that there was a friendly enviroment for big business.
People, I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not joking. There are people on the internet who think that if the government doesn't take control of things now, X will happen, where X is anything from "gays taking control of our country" to "immigrants taking over our country" to whatever whacko issue they have that day. I had a guy talking to me the other day saying we should imprison anyone who doesn't vote, and of course, the government should have the right to go through all the ballots and see if you actually voted.
"Center" Statism is actually pretty weak , compared to those to. It can be summed up as "let the government do it's job of coordinating everything, and acting as a central mediator for controversial subjects, and collecting, centralizing and distributing tax money , defending the country, and determining nationwide policy." I don't think that's too extreme, but I *am* a statist and so that's my opinion. Center Statism is something a lot of people actually susbscribe too, but not conciously. It is the default choice, perhaps, of the percentage of the voting electorate that does not choose to vote. Let the government handle it.
The weirdest kind of statists are limited ones. A lot of them sound like Liberal Libertarians, except in a few areas, where they think big-time government controls are perfect. A person who thinks we should get rid of the IRS and Department of the Interior and pull out of Iraq but that the government should have the right to tell property owners nationwide they can't have smoking on their property, or force companies to switch to some eco-safe method due to "global warming", is a limited statist. To me, that's just a sort of intellectual dishonesty, but that is again, my opinon.
A libertarian statist would be someone who only tolerated strong central government controls under tight reign and with strong oversight. Someone who realized that some things need big government but that such things (the military? Interstate highways?) are few and far between, and if there MUST be a big government it should have it's sticky fingers in as few pies as possible. These people used to be kind of common. Most of them morphed into neocons about 10 years ago.
Statists are not a monolithic block anymore than Libertarians are, but most of us do not consider ourselves a political "outlook" or statement, merely the default state of our reality. Centrists try to balance everything out, to find the pieces of each argument that contribute to a greater whole, while Statists often just let the government (which oddly enough is run by centrists more often than not) fix the problems.
Is that the right answer? Who knows? Most here will say no.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, February 4, 2008
Last modified: Monday, February 4, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Wow! You make my Ron Paul supporter perspective sound brilliant with this article. A libertarian Statist? That would be a Centrist, i.e. most DC politicians.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-04 18:38:52
Logical, you seem to fail to comprehend the Republic that our founding fathers had intended. By your definition, our "statist" government (I agree that it is one) is part of any package of government that is a "central power". The way that ours was tried to be structured was based on the principle of SUBSIDIARITY, the thesis being that all decisions should be made at the lowest level of government as possible. Hemce the enumerated powers in the Constitution, something that has been violated ever since we started.
Ivan, I was merely laying out the positions that Statists have.
That being said, Statists belive that what the Founding Fathers laid out and intended was a growing document that would change over time, not limit all future government to it's original dictates.
Furthermore, Statists believe that subsidarity or granularity is a mistake in the Constitutions' design. I don't particularly care what the founding fathers thought. The founding fathers thought of me as property and subhuman, they thought the best thing to do with me was use me as property or else ship me back where others had stolen me from, never bothering to recompensate the people they had wronged. There are a LOT of ideas I don't agree with in the Constitution.
That being said, the President's job is to protect and uphold the Constitution. I encourage everyone to vote for the candidate that they feel will do just that, in the manner they think it should be upheld, based on their own understanding of the issue. This article was simply laying out how Statists in various camps of thought looked at the issue.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.