A few salient -- or sanctimonious -- arguments by a statist regarding how you can pick out a statist in a time when anyone who isn't a libertarian is considered...statist. by Logical Premise
(statist)
Friday, July 2, 2010
Some time ago, I read an excellent article regarding "How to spot a libertarian" by Gary Wood , which seemed to be of great use, since so many people apply that label. (Link : http://www.nolanchart.com/article6034.html). In light of how in recent days various people have been throwing around the term "statist" , I would submit the following: Labels do not make something true.
There are many people who identify themselves as libertarian in the hopes of taking advantage of the movement for their own non-libertarian purposes. It should not come, therefore, as a shock that there are those who identify others as statists in the hopes of destroying their credibility with those who dislike statism.
Since most people do not even know what statism represents (I've covered that elsewhere), labeling someone a statist is oftentimes disingenious. A communist is not a statist, nor is a socialist. If they were we wouldn't need entirely separate words for them, and their philosophies would not be so radically different from each other (much less statism).
Much as libertarianism is advocation of the principle of freedom in rejection of politics and the doctrine of neccessity, statism is the advocation of control and neccessity in rejection of anarchy and inefficiency.
In the article I read, the statement was made that in order to be sure we have a clear definition we need to work from a common ground, specifically, the 1828 American Dictionary by Noah Webster. I tend to agree, as the language of the times was more elegant and refined than today. I will borrow parts of Mr. Wood's article in quotes, as he is a far more eloquent writer than I at times.
Part One : the libertarian and the statist
What is a libertarian? According to Webster:
"LIBERTA'RIAN, a. [L. liber, free; libertas, liberty.]
Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will, as opposed to the doctrine of necessity."
A libertarian is devoted to the concepts of free will. But what is "will"? Here Webster gives a defintion so impassioned I must copy it completely:
"1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue. The will is directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue. In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will. Will is often quite a different thing from desire."
Thus, will is the ability to decide to do or not do, to make a choice. It is not always what one desires, or values, but is that vital core called choice,and ramification.
A libertarian also opposes neccessity. In Mr. Wood's article, he rather disingenously uses the second form of the word, which was dissapointing, as it culls the core of the Statist mindset. Here is the full definition.
"NECESSITY, n.
1. That which must be and cannot be otherwise, or the cause of that which cannot be otherwise. It is of necessity that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is of necessity that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true.
2. Irresistible power; compulsive force, physical or moral. If mans actions are determined by causes beyond his control, he acts from necessity, and is not a free agent. Necessity compelled the general to act on the defensive.
3. Indispensableness; the state of being requisite. The necessity of funds to support public credit, no man questions. The necessity of economy in domestic concerns is admitted. No man can plead necessity in excuse for crimes."
Consider all three terms. They mean the same thing , and Webster's language is clear. That which MUST BE and cannot be otherwise. That which acts with irresistible power and force. That which cannot be set aside or discarded in a concept.
Libertarians, then, believe in free will -- in the ability that nothing can be said to be necessary, that all things should be to the individual.
Statists, of course, believe otherwise. Mr. Wood did not use the Webster definition of Statists, ironically enough , and I do grasp why:
"STATIST, n. [from state.] A statesman; a politician; one skilled in government.
Statists indeed, and lovers of their country. [Not now used.]"
Even in Webster's time, it was not a noted usage. Archaic. But true. A statist at their core loves their country no matter what. The belief in government is that it is indeed the country, along with the people, along with the tradition, the lives, the free will, all of these things are a necessary part, and the separation and distillation of one to the exclusion of all others is no more likely to lead to good governance -- to good ANYTHING -- than homoeopathic "cures" would do to a person with AIDS.
A statist, then, in today's parlance, could be described in trying to craft a Webster-like response, as :
"STATIST a. [L. state]
Pertaining to the state, or to the doctrine of necessity of the state, as opposed to the doctrine of benevolent free will without force or effieciency."
So this is how you spot a statist, instead of a jack-booted thug, corpse-robbing loot monkey, fascist murderer, or communist/socialist intellectual dillantte:
Part Two : Additional Definitions
What is the state? Government, so it is clearly said , but what is that? From Webster:
"GOV'ERNMENT, n. Direction; regulation.
1. Control; restraint. Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.
2. The exercise of authority; direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men in communities, societies or states; the administration of public affairs, according to established constitution, laws and usages, or by arbitrary edicts. Prussia rose to importance under the government of Frederick II.
4. The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governe
5. An empire, kingdom or state; any territory over which the right of sovereignty is extended."
Government is the restraint and direction on people. It is in partial abeyance of free will , and is backed by force and authority. And those words, really, are what define the statist point of view.
Webster's definition of force is the most beautious thing I have read describing it. This is not the definition entire -- but it is the largest part of it.
"FORCE, n. [L. fortis. All words denoting force, power, strength, are from verbs which express straining, or driving, rushing, and this word has the elements of L. vireo.]
1. Strength; active power; vigor; might; energy that may be exerted; that physical property in a body which may produce action or motion in another body, or may counteract such motion. By the force of the muscles we raise a weight, or resist an assault.
2. Momentum; the quantity of power produced by motion or the action of one body on another; as the force of a cannon ball.
3. That which causes an operation or moral effect; strength; energy; as the force of the mind, will or understanding.
4. Violence; power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power. Let conquerors consider that force alone can keep what force as obtained.
5. Strength; moral power to convince the mind. There is great force in an argument.
6. Virtue; efficacy. No presumption or hypothesis can be of force enough to overthrow constant experience.
7. Validity; power to bind or hold. If the conditions of a covenant are not fulfilled, the contract is of no force. A testament is of force after the testator is dead. Heb. 9:17.
8. Strength or power for war; armament; troops; an army or navy; as a military or naval force: sometimes in the plural; as military forces.
9. Destiny; necessity; compulsion; any extraneous power to which men are subject; as the force of fate or of divine decrees."
It is vigor and might, momentum, strength, virtue, validity, and destiny. If free will is the ability to do as you see fit, constrained only by your own will, then the doctrine of necessity says that in every society perfect exercise of free will must ALWAYS be decided by force.
Libertarians deny this. Libertarians claim that force is unneeded, unnatural, that laws are force, that regulation is force, that if everyone can live their own lives and do their own thing without impacting others then money and governments and public services and all of that is unneeded.
A statist does not merely spew the opposite. And this is why it is so easy to paint people as statists, because there is this belief that statism should just spew the opposite, but it does not.
A statist can be defined by their belief in efficiency, direction and force as being necessary. To the statist, free will only leads to inefficency, which leads to vunerability. A statist thinks in those terms.
A statist can be defined by their rejection of the concept of "free will" in any meaningful way as a philosophical construct. Every day, we are constrained by laws which cannot be contrevened, such as gravity. We cannot fly simply because we want to fly, we had to make a framework (airplanes) to do so. To suggest that we can have more freedom by simply saying "free will" is nto only wrong but dangerous, because it leads to a society that perforce assumes everyone thinks as they do and will let them go on as they see fit.
Part Three : a statist view
Humanity, sadly, does not work that way. Statists look at the world as full of humans who , given free will, would fall into three camps:
1) Those who would act violently and malicously 2) Those who would isolate and organize themselves and do as they saw fit to protect themselves from those who acted violently and maliciously 3) Those without power to isolate and organize themselves that suffered.
Libertarians claim that in a perfect libertarian society there would be no wars or need for force, and statists claim that in every society humanity is still a poorly evolved animal with much of his instinct based on reptillian and lower mamallian brain structure. The statist cleaves to control and governance as a way to force people to behave in a civilized framework.
Part Four: how you identify statists:
1) They want to see strong efficient government. Corrupt government is abhorrent -- it's someone exercising their blasted free will on others who can't resist. It's unwanted.
2) They want to see governent that does the things that are necessary. The government handles public services and ensures that private transactions are done fairly and safely. I don't want to have the government telling people what prices to sell at. The government should tell them the meat must be safe, or cars must have these safety features. Government should do what is necessary, but ONLY what is necessary.
3) They want to see power applied to the areas where it does good. Statists are altruistic. We reject Objectivist thinking utterly and totally, as the sick and twisted narcissictic fixation on the importance of self over society. That doesn't mean we want to see welfare states. We want those who truly need help to get help until they can return to aiding society.
Part Five: What a statist is NOT, no matter what non-statists say:
1) Statists do not care about other countries. By efficient purposing, we cannot help everyone. The more you try, the more corruption you can generate. Internationalism is bad and is the only thing Statists and Libertarians agree on -- that the problems of other nations are just that, THEIR problems. We do not promote "imperialism" because it will always have a lower efficency.
2) Statists are not communists, socialist, or liberals. Statists are most often apolitical in terms of "left" or "right". Communism is organized corruption and graft and is anathema to Statism. It, along with socialism and fascism, seize certain elements of statist thought for their own purposes, just as some political groups have seized on libertarian concepts. Fascists are no more statists than neoconservatives are libertarians.
3) Statists are patriotic but do not place qualifers on the patriotism we have. I am proud of America because, given how things started, to be the most powerful, influential, and richest country in the world still has a population mature enough to handle exceedingly high levels of personal freedom. To be sure, this has caused many, many problems over the years, with crime and corruption and graft. Yet it could be no other way. Statists accept America as it is, instead of demanding it be something it never was.
Everyone has their own opinion about what statists are. To be perfectly honest, the trend of most libertarian thinking and philosophy has been staggeringly self-indulgent and self-referential. It believes what it claims is so magnificent and obvious that everyone should believe as they do. But to embrace libertarian values requires strong self-will, maturity, and understanding. Statism -- or at least, many of it's precepts -- is so entrenched in government and society because it does not engage in that sort of thinking. Libertarians do not debate, they proclaim, and if anyone disagrees the person is clearly either uneducated or misguided -- or is evil. Statism relies on the moral, intellectual and philosophical laziness of most of society.
Thus, in the final analysis, the statist is going to be found as close to the levers of power as possible, since that is where control is exerted from. The Libertarian, who abhors force, will have difficulty ever being in a position to implement his beliefs, while the statist often has his implemented simply from proximity.
I am sure this will enrage many libertarians on this site (which is, truth be told, half the fun) but I do encourage you all to peruse Webster's dictionary (http://1828.mshaffer.com) and consider the words there. Clearly, Mr. Webster did not hold a high opinion of statism or force, yet he was ironically and hypocrtically ready to suggest that only a Christian government could ensure liberty and freedom. There is nothing more "statist" than the Bible, in many ways.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
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.
The article is somewhat accurate, but there are some inaccuracies as well.
"Libertarians, then, believe in free will -- in the ability that nothing can be said to be necessary, that all things should be to the individual."
Just because libertarians believe in free will doesn't automatically mean we believe that there is no such thing as necessity. You blur the meaning of necessity by suggesting that necessity implies government, but that's not true at all. Necessity can (and usually is) unrelated to governance. For instance, when a rock rolls past the ledge of a mountain, it must, by necessity, fall. Does that mean that a government must order it or must require the fall? That would be absurdity. Yet that's implicit in what the author is claiming.
The critical point regarding necessity is whether or not a particular necessity requires governmental intervention of some kind, or even the imposition of human force against other human beings. The answer to that is sometimes yes (as a matter of self-defense), but the author suggests that it's rarely no and almost always yes.
So libertarians are therefore quite justified in concluding that the individual is the fundamental unit of society, rather than groups or government.
"A statist at their core loves their country no matter what."
This is true. Another way of saying this is, "America: right or wrong". It means that one should love and support one's country and one's government (and all its actions) regardless of the harms that government inflicts on the innocent. It is an unlimited license for the power hungry to be predators against their fellow man.
"Government is the restraint and direction on people. It is in partial abeyance of free will , and is backed by force and authority. And those words, really, are what define the statist point of view."
This is not the first time we've heard a statist claim to believe in free will. However, in reality, they oppose it, and this author is no exception. The question is which should be held to be superior: free will or government-imposed force? Statists nearly always choose the latter, thus giving the lie to their claims of supporting and believing in free will.
It's interesting to note that the author, for all his definitions, ignores the task of defining free will in a rigorous manner. Thus, we are left to discover his definition indirectly from the phrase, "If free will is the ability to do as you see fit, constrained only by your own will..."
In this way, the author completely distorts free will. Free will, within libertarian thought, does not include things like harming others. Rather, libertarians very carefully delineate free will from rights violations. The author once again blurs this distinction because he knows that his own philosophy cannot stand up to its own, failed logic. Thus, his only hope is to blur reasoning and hope that no one notices. Sorry, LC...I noticed!
Free will implies good will toward others, and vice-versa. Without this symbiotic arrangement, both concepts are empty and meaningless, and such a situation must devolve into the use of force that the author falsely attributes to free will. In fact, what the author is describing here is not freedom or free will. It is dominance and slavery, the hallmarks of statism. No slaveholder ever really believes in liberty for others. He only believes in it for himself and his family, and that's not liberty!
Humanity, sadly, does not work that way. Statists look at the world as full of humans who , given free will, would fall into three camps:
1) Those who would act violently and malicously
2) Those who would isolate and organize themselves and do as they saw fit to protect themselves from those who acted violently and maliciously
3) Those without power to isolate and organize themselves that suffered.
Now it should be clear why this argument falls apart. Item 1 is the consequence of statism, not liberty, because true liberty opposes such activity. Item 2 describes reasonable behavior, not unreasonable behavior, and is therefore good, not bad. Item 3 is poorly written self-contradictory. Therefore, it has no meaning.
Thus, in the final analysis, the statist is going to be found as close to the levers of power as possible, since that is where control is exerted from. The Libertarian, who abhors force, will have difficulty ever being in a position to implement his beliefs, while the statist often has his implemented simply from proximity.
This is true, but it is nothing for a statist to be proud of. It is little more than an admission that statists are the ones the author really described earlier when he wrote, "Corrupt government is abhorrent -- it's someone exercising their blasted free will on others who can't resist."
It is also true that the abhorence for power is a difficulty for libertarians (not just members of the Libertarian Party, but also small "l" libertarians who believe in liberty but don't associate themselves with that party). This is a good thing, however, not a bad thing. It's also noteworthy that the best candidates for government are most often those who don't want or seek the power, a paradox to be sure, but truth nevertheless.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: July 2, 2010 11:33:18 AM
Hi Logical Premise,
Thanks for putting your opinions and assumptions out there clearly. While it isn't likely your views will change or the views of your detractors will be altered through debate, honest debate does help non-committed readers understand the filters and prejudices used by defenders and promoters all sides of a topic. One criticism, not that I'm able to avoid it myself, but telling others what they think as a basis for your positions by contrast is a sure way to move the reader's focus off your points and into standard massage board tit for tat nonsense. One's opinions about others typically say nothing about the other but speak volumes about the opinion holder. In this case, it aids the discussion by making your prejudices and assumptions clear so they can be debated or countered as Walt has done admirably above.
From my perspective, most libertarian idealists exclusively pursue the notion of "freedom from the consequences of liberty." Which, as you and I both point out regularly, can only be achieved by force that libertarian reasoning obfuscates by assuming it away as if in a mathematical proof. From the root assumption that force can be assumed away and that the State is force, it follows that the State can also be assumed away; allowing the libertarian utopia to take its place. What this amounts to is the belief that one can decree oneself to be free of consequences of actions taken in the past by others. This is, of course, a patently false and ridiculous position and the reason philosophies should never be mistaken for systems of government.
I promote liberty as the "Freedom To" exercise free will and defend certain acts of free will in conjunction with neighbors to create what are commonly referred to as "rights." I recognize that exercising my free will in the present may carry consequences for others in the future. That should temper my behavior but it doesn't temper everyone's behavior. Everyone won't. Therefore, government is needed to enforce limits on individual behavior either through intimidation before the fact or consequences after the fact. I also recognize that I may dislike the consequences fate has dealt to my hand. Therefore, I defend my "freedom to" choose to avoid those consequences but I do not demand that the rest of society grant me that avoidance as an entitlement. That distinguishes the "Freedom From" libertarians from the limited government Conservatives.
How I spot a statist is certainly not by their statesmanship. :-) Statists simply do not view government as having a tiger by the tail. They like to pet the kitty and watch in awe as it gobbles down raw flesh in great bone crushing bites. "Efficiency," they call it. Anyone who does not view government as corrupt and oppressive and inefficient as part of its very nature is a Statist in my book. I identify them by their inability to embrace strict and perpetual restraints on government for the purpose of protecting individuals from the whims of the beast. It doesn't matter how you justify your lack of fear and caution and indeed, your love and respect for government. Facta, non verba. Deeds, not words. They shall be known by their DEEDS. The words don't matter one whit when trying to spot a Statist, or a Conservative, or a Progressive, etc...
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: July 2, 2010 01:27:47 PM
The other tell-tale is a tendency to champion monetarist and/or Keynesian policies for funding the perpetual growth of the beast. No matter how it is justified, support for these schemes to provide perpetual growth in funding are necessary for the Statist view to be a viable possibility. That is just a game of kick-the-can in my view. Since the notion of fiat "stuff" whether it be currency or energy or food or whatever, will always lead to the perpetual escalation of comsumption or usage of that fiat "stuff." Fiat government results in endlessly accelerating growth and oppression. It is inevitable.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: July 2, 2010 03:02:33 PM
It is also the credo of the statist to steal from the productive class. An armed gang with the power to imprison or slaughter those who disagree, makes it "legal".
As a "libertarian" (voluntaryist actually) I am going to steal from a statist right now and reverse the trend, for once. That quote of your's "corpse-robbing loot monkey" is just too beautiful to leave sitting there all by itself. I promise to give it a good home. I'm surprised that an actual statist would ever use such a term.
One problem tho, although you point out the failing of humans when they go about their own business, you fail to connect that with the same humans when they go about their business of governing.
We can never have "efficient" governing or "just" governing for the same reason you pose for the need for governing. Those that govern are as human as everyone else. Allowing them to impose their will on others, backed by force simply leads to all the "inefficient" governing modes you mention, such as socialism, communism and present day state capitalism.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: August 11, 2010 11:26:24 PM
Define "human freedom" please. Slogans and symbols are for the slo and symbol-minded.
I'll say it again. Government is the restraint and direction on people. It is in partial abeyance of free will , and is backed by force and authority.
Your children, when they are growing up , often complain about the restrictions you put on them for their own good. They chafe and whine, and when you let up on them when they get 16, 17, this is often when they make their costliest mistakes.
The government went a long time without "regulating" or "interfering in people's business". Society (the American People) consistently displayed : racism, sexism, refusal to pay a living wage, refusal to provide safe workplaces, refusal to deal with the mentally ill, refusal to deal with problems in food quality, in material quality, in pollution, in corruption. Every organ of the state was overrun by political machines, factory owners deployed thugs to beat the crap out of people who weren't even in some cases to make enough money to eat.
Repeatedly, business owners have been shown to put profit over human decency.
Repeatedly, people have shown the tendency to put religion, race and sex over human brother and sisterhood, be it the Nation of Islam, the KKK, or nutjob fundamentalists.
Repeatedly, people have used "natural cures" that are snake oil garbage, trust "doctors" who aren't qualified to diagose a dead cow, etc.
Statists feel that most people don't have the maturity to govern themselves without stern control. The reason libertarians dispute this is that most libertarians *ARE* fully qualified to govern themselves fairly and even govern others fairly. But corrupt people in power don't want that sort of thing.
Thus, we are where we are today. It may seem extreme to you, but read what I wrote. It's the reality of where we live. I am not going to be like Government First or the Society of Control and phrase what I think and feel in pretty language or downplay what I feel. I don't trust the average American to find his or her own ass if they have both hands in their back pockets. The fact that 2% of them CAN does not mean I think less control is going to do much good when everything appears to be decided by majorities, and the majority is blind, willfully stupid, and more concerned about sleeping around , buying a new car, or watching baseball than worrying about the national debt or the fact that we have almost no manufacturing or family farms left in the country.
Posted By: TeancumElite
Date: August 24, 2010 06:07:24 AM
You also said somewhere in your first few paragraphs in this article.....
“we wouldn't need entirely separate words for them”
My response?
A STATIST is not a Statesman or a State. By your own logic your argument is partially dismantled due to its flawed nature.
Furthermore I contend that a Statist and Communist are on varying degree’s the same by virtue.
Both philosophies are founded upon a common variable: MAN
Both philosophies are founded upon a common principle: FORCE
Both philosophies are founded upon a common relation to the individual: FOREIGN
The pivotal difference is whether or not the government is proliferating NEWTONIC JUSTICE (secular and natural) or SOCIAL JUSTICE (atheist and artificial).
Government is a tool of violence. How that violence is meted out will mark the difference between Justice and Injustice.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: August 25, 2010 11:31:45 PM
Hi Logical Premise
You said:
"Your children, when they are growing up , often complain about the restrictions you put on them for their own good."
Answer how you do a child any good by attempting to teach them something useful by force?
Learning only occurs when the student wishes to be taught.
In other words, I would love to hear your logic in regards to the following questions:
How do you feel about forcing a child to piss as a way to potty train them?
Do you honestly think that has ever worked instead of the child eventually recognizing the practicality of being potty trained?
Will you explain to me the apathy you have towards your own children's desires?
Why do you think forcing a child to piss where you want them to actually teaches them anything positive or useful?
*sighs* Your examples use the most tortured and chopped logic I've seen for a while. But I'll humor you if only to illustrate the non-sensibility of trying to apply such thinking to reality when what you believe in demands that we live in Bizzarro world.
First, to demolish your asinine example: I don't think that a child understands why being potty trained is done at all. They comply because they are made to do so. If you think differently, you obviously didn't read what I said clearly, like most Libertarians.
I'm fairly certain that at no point in time did the concept of "forcing a child to piss" come into play with potty training. I simply told them what they had to do -- not why, but what -- and aided them in doing so. Most people are quite literally too self-absorbed to see the larger requirements of the nation at hand. To use your bad example, they would see nothing wrong with staying in diapers the rest of their life.
Libertarians abhor force and all of it's concepts without bothering to realize that a large portion of the world's population only respects force. This is why there have been many, many successful statist societies and many, many successful semi-statist societies and zero successful libertarian ones. Any body politic that rejects force as a natural and reasonable lever is deluding itself and will be at the unfettered mercy of those less naive.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: August 25, 2010 11:35:14 PM
You also said somewhere in your first few paragraphs in this article.....
“we wouldn't need entirely separate words for them”
My response?
A STATIST is not a Statesman or a State. By your own logic your argument is partially dismantled due to its flawed nature.
Furthermore I contend that a Statist and Communist are on varying degree’s the same by virtue.
Both philosophies are founded upon a common variable: MAN
Both philosophies are founded upon a common principle: FORCE
Both philosophies are founded upon a common relation to the individual: FOREIGN
The pivotal difference is whether or not the government is proliferating NEWTONIC JUSTICE (secular and natural) or SOCIAL JUSTICE (atheist and artificial).
Government is a tool of violence. How that violence is meted out will mark the difference between Justice and Injustice.
Uh...
Is English not your primary language?
My statement had to do with comparing statists to communists or facists. Your response is a complete non-sequitur. I do not believe statists are a state or a statesman and did not claim such.
As to the other half of your article,you basically claim that if any two political systems touch on the same elements they are identical. So Libertarianism is identical to, say, Sharia law.
Posted By: ensign_redd
Date: November 14, 2010 06:29:00 PM
The statists I have encountered in political chat rooms all claim to be centrists and will go out of their way to annouce it. I believe this is because they feel it gives them some sort of moral high ground.
