If you’ve ever been on REDDIT, you might follow ” S*** Statists Say” . What you might not realize is that while Stalin claimed power through revolution, most American statists rise up through the politcal ranks. Dianne Feinstein started as a political appointee on the parole board, Harry Reid was a City Attorney, and President Obama started out as a Director for Project Vote before he was elected to the Illinois State Senate.
You don’t NEED power to be a statist but must lust for it. Big-time statists have to start somewhere so watch your local school boards, city councils, and planning commissions for the next Hugo Chavez among us.
Here’s a list of what some local statists might say:
1- A few bad apples ruin it for everyone. I don’t LIKE to ban things but we have to think of the families.
2- Paper bags may be inconvenient but we have to think of the whales and sea turtles.
3- Sometimes a little nudge is required to get people to “do the right thing”.
4- We’re not banning this but we can’t allow too many in one place.
5- Children might want to do this so its best to stop this thing now.
6- Nobody pays attention to the existing laws– we need something with some teeth.
7- It’s just a fine; it’s not like you’re going to get arrested.
8- Let’s just try this policy and see how people respond to it.
9- If we have less providers, we can regulate them better to insure public safety.
10- Don’t take your poor private sector compensation out on the heroes who teach your kids.
Feel free to add your own:
Comments 24
This is just an additional tool for law enforcement, it won’t impact you.
Marriage should be defined by law.
That sounds like a politician’s handbook on how to avoid two political killers: Acceptability and Responsibility!
Here’s my addition: “We care about people so much, we’ll do the thinking for them”.
This is too much fun. Here’s mine.
B______ attended Harvard University, where he lived in Winthrop House, as did the future CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, and graduated with an A.B. degree, and later with an A.M. in economics summa cum laude in 1975. He received a Ph.D. degree in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1979 after completing and defending his dissertation, Long-Term Commitments, Dynamic Optimization, and the Business Cycle. B______ taught at the Stanford Graduate School of Business from 1979 until 1985, was a visiting professor at New York University and went on to become a tenured professor at Princeton University in the Department of Economics. He chaired that department from 1996 until September 2002, when he went on public service leave.
“We need more military spending because we don’t think the people can defend themselves from terrorists and foreign invaders.”
“We need the gasoline tax because we don’t think the people can build their own roads.”
“We need government spending because we don’t think every parent is capable of home schooling their children.”
“We need social spending because we don’t believe children born to dysfunctional or non-existent families can take care of themselves.”
Author
I suspect HQ is trying to be cute but his comments demonstrate the statist thinking; free people can’t solve problems.
He’s wrong about the roads. education. and orphans. Free people confronted and conquered those challenges long before the monopolies took over those area of our lives
“This shouldn’t matter to anyone who has nothing to hide.”
“It’s not theft if we voted on it…”
“The government is owned by the corporations. We need more government to stop that…”
“Oh? Then you must favor ____________.” Fill in the blank:
“child sweat shops”
“racism & Jim Crow laws”
“homeless women and children”
“violence and chaos in the streets”
“profits over people” (followed by self-righteous sneer)
“Consent of the governed!!”
…and finally, pretty much anything that follows the slogan “Hope and Change”
Brian,
I don’t know if I was trying to be cute or not. Perhaps so. But I was really just trying to point out that there is a need for the state. And if you believe the interstate highway system, public education, a strong military or a local police force are bad things, then it is you who is wrong.
Not being an anarcho-capitalist, I’m in no position to mock statists. But the totalitarian credo is, “all your life are belong to us.”
HQ, you do realize it was the private Rail Roads back in the day that were successful don’t you? Would it cost me 63 cents of every gallon of gas that I buy to drive on private roads with a toll? It is Government Intervention in the Free Markets that cause shortages and sluggish Economies. We tried it your way for the last 50 years and look at where it has gotten us. It is time for a new direction.
Daniel,
“We tried it your way for the last 50 years and look at where it has gotten us.”
To be the most prosperous, most powerful country in history.
For all of you “Anti-Statists,” what should we do in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Remember Obama Mocking Romney With This Comment About Russia During A 2012 Debate?…
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/118668-remember-obama-mocking-romney-foreign-policy-question-2012-campaign/
T.A.,
There used to be a time when politics stopped at the border and we didn’t criticize our President during (at least not at the start of) an international crisis. I don’t remember George W. Bush being criticized for being weak when Russia invaded Georgia after Bush had looked ito Putin’s soul and found him to be a good man.
My previous question had no partisanship attached to it. I was simply asking what those who seemingly want less of a federal government suggest we do now that Russia has taken over, at least a part of, another sovereign country.
Hypocrisy, typically the “statist” label is used to describe people who have a very broad idea of the role of government. Only the most hardcore Libertarian Party member would see public roads as a massive government overreach into a person’s private life. It is not an anti-government stance, but a proper role of government stance.
A look at some of the examples given…overbearing law enforcement, same sex marriage, unintended consequences of laws not thought through, lack of choices…seems like it’s all stuff most sides agree with.
Regarding the Obama and Russia thing…I was asked this question a couple times over the weekend. Here’s the problem…anyone I’d vote to be our president wouldn’t have gotten us into this situation to begin with. There were a dozen mistakes made that led to this situation. So now you want to know how a limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy backed by a strong defensive military with free international trade will get us out of this? The point is it wouldn’t have gotten us into this.
Obama’s foreign policy got us here. Maybe it will get us out. Maybe he can draw a red line again and do nothing? Or go around congress and just start bombing? Or spy on your phone calls to help? Or spy on our allies? Or let everyone know that it was an anti-Muslim Youtube video that made Putin invade? Or call Putin names? Or start paying even more for Arab oil rather than allow domestic resources? Or maybe get Bill Clinton to fly over and make things ok again? Or apologize to everyone, nation by nation? Or promise to withdraw all our troops, but then not do it, but then do it later and tell everyone the exact date we’ll be out? Or let movie makers read classified documents so they can make a movie about it? Or double down and do exactly whatever Bush did, but then blame Bush for doing it? Or alienate more allies like Israel?
HQ,
Rather than making others put up, why don’t you tell us what you think the feds should do about Ukraine? My guess is the so-called statist response to this crisis won’t be much different than a libertarian response: namely, shunning.
HQ:
It sounds like you believe that because I posted the link to that article, I was somehow rebutting you. Not so intended. Given your question, I thought that article would provide some insight for ensuing discussion. Actually, I thought it interesting in that Romney, by expressing concerns about Russia as a geo-political threat, was likely not advocating a “non-action” approach for the US in that regard. Thus, to some, he may be viewed as a statist.
(GL)
Dave,
To be honest, I don’t know exactly what I would do, but I am glad that we are a country with the economic, and if need be, military clout to respond. I don’t think any of that influence came about through libertarian ideals.
But the important point is that the cause of the problem and crisis didn’t come about through libertarian ideals.
Michael,
Of course the problem didn’t come about through libertarian ideals. At its core, Libertarianism is an ideal, but like most ideals, it doesn’t account for human nature. If Putin was a Libertarian, he wouldn’t have invaded another country, but he did, and no amount of idealism will thwart his ambitions.
Thanks, HQ, for the response. I’m not sure what an effective response would be to get Russian troops out of Ukraine or back to their naval base in Sevastopol, either. It doesn’t look like the libertarians are sure, either.
Just to clarify, I am not positive that libertarians or non-interventionists are totally against helping defend an ally who is invaded unprovoked.
And I don’t think statism really applies to foreign policy. It’s really about economic policy and social issues.
Not that the discussion isn’t interesting. But just wanted to clarify.
Michael and T.A.
I think the point I am trying to make is that there is a need for some “statist” thinking, the question is how much? I do agree with you that the pendulum has swung too far toward goverment control of too much our lives, but I don’t ever want to go so far the other way that we lose our community and simply become a collection of individuals.
I get that, Hypocrisy and share your concern.
For the sake of a good discussion, I just want to make sure it is understood that libertarianism isn’t a complete lack of government and non-interventionism isn’t isolationism.