The Statist Quo

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To me, the health care debate shined the most light on this.

I personally knew many people that thought I was immoral for opposing Obama care when it first was created.

They proclaimed themselves morally superior for wanting to vote for the plan, because to allow anyone without healthcare is disgusting and immoral.

Near everyone of the people I heard do this were people much more well off than me finacially.

So I politely told them that I knew of at least a dozen poor families that I knew that could use healthcare, and wanted to know how much of their excess money they would personally like to give to them.

Not one of these moral paragons would give even a dollar.

You see they felt moral by voting for the government to force other people to pay for peoples health care. But as individuals, they were not willing to help in any way.

Their sense of morality comes from what they want the state to force onto others.

The more we rely on the state to be our caregivers, the less we feel the need to care ourselves.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Because the modern world is built on inferstucture..

You can’t just elbow grease all the wires and satellites required to run an isp.

Plus, you don’t want one person running huge sections of our inferstucture with impunity..

The government IS us.. we run for office, we vote them in.. if it’s a bad one we can vote them out..

If the only electric company is run by one family.. there is no voting them out..

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We rely on legal and emergency services (experts) when there is a risk of great damage / punitive damage because it's less of a risk to all parties involved.

And this is the true crux...

We want experts and not amateurs, tyrants, idiots who can't understand shht, etc.

Why? Because it's more profitable to trade in specializations. (This is the blood of family, community, and civilization: to work together in translating the spirit.)

If you want to get away from specialization and switch to self-reliance then you'll have to go to another reality.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

If you want to get away from specialization and switch to self-reliance then you'll have to go to another reality.

No one suggested anything of the sort.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because the modern world is built on inferstucture..

You can’t just elbow grease all the wires and satellites required to run an isp.

Plus, you don’t want one person running huge sections of our inferstucture with impunity..

The government IS us.. we run for office, we vote them in.. if it’s a bad one we can vote them out..

If the only electric company is run by one family.. there is no voting them out..

I'm not sure why you'd want to vote someone out of their own business. The point is, before making demands of others, for instance demanding a family conduct their business according to your liking, get your services elsewhere.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If there is only one company how exactly does he get his service elsewhere?

a reply to: ScepticScot

If there is only one company how exactly does he get his service elsewhere?

Like I said, start your own. Stomping feet and making demands only goes so far.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Because it's that easy to start your own electricity company? Perhaps you would like to try it and let us know how you get on.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because it's that easy to start your own electricity company? Perhaps you would like to try it and let us know how you get on.

Is easy what you want? I guess stomping your feet and complaining is the best you can do.

We all want the same things. Food, shelter, companionship, security, love, entertainment and the chance to improve our condition. We don't have to take that chance, but we need to know it's there.

We all differ on how to get there. Some do want the state to go overboard, but therein lies the bigger problem.

For most of us there are a few things that we end up powerless against. Could be a large corporation polluting our land, health insurance company screwing us over, power company raising prices every year etc etc. We need some kinds of laws to protect us against those with power over us.

So where do we draw the line at creating some laws and regulations to protect us, and creating a more powerful state is too intrusive? Is it not a case by case example instead of an overreaching stereotyping label?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you acknowledge it's not that easy to set up your own electricity company.

In fact for utility industries like that it's impossible for most people.

So your suggest that he started his own was just really a glib comeback with no basis in reality.

The person stomping his feet and complaining here is you about 'statists'.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you acknowledge it's not that easy to set up your own electricity company.

In fact for utility industries like that it's impossible for most people.

So your suggest that he started his own was just really a glib comeback with no basis in reality.

The person stomping his feet and complaining here is you about 'statists'.

Yes, it isn't easy to start an electric company, or starting any company for that matter. But it isn't impossible. That would be a lie on your part.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No for most people it would be impossible. To believe otherwise is frankly idiotic.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My point is some things don’t work better , when ran by a private intrest.. once a sector becomes too big to fail. You don’t want to leave that in the hands of one person/family/whatever..


Take law enforcement, the military or fire fighters..


Private armies and police forces would be a total disaster.

There would be no “removing “ the chief of police if it is a private company , owned by one person..

Whatever his policies were, it would stand until someone fight a war to oust him..

a reply to: amazing

Very good post.

I believe their is a need for the state, taxes, a safety net and regulations, I would just like to see as little as that as possible.

It seems lately that instead of that being a last resort, it is the default position.

Although I may disagree with someone who believes in this position, I would not presume to think that having that position makes them more or less moral than me.

The problem I have is people that believe if I want smaller taxes or less regulation, I am immoral, and they are more moral for advocating that.

This is ridiculous. They may be correct and me wrong, but it's not a question of morality.

a reply to: amazing

With everything in the modern world we have 2 choices..

1) trust the government, who really is the people in a democracy.. it is us who run for office and vote.. if you don’t like someone we can vote them out..

2) trust big buisness, who is only accountable to their bottom line.


When we decide not to trust the government to regulate big buisness. We are inherently making the decision to trust big buisness..

All of the government’s bad decisions, were when they put the interests of some big buisness first..

The anti-government propaganda they are pushing is just cutting out the middle man. No longer will they need to appease the voters.. they just get a black check to do whatever.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No for most people it would be impossible. To believe otherwise is frankly idiotic.

For those of the statist mindset, most things are impossible. But the fact that, in the first analogy, one family owned and ran an "electrical company" proves how one-sided such a mindset is. I guess it's impossible for "most people", but not for them.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

My point is some things don’t work better , when ran by a private intrest.. once a sector becomes too big to fail. You don’t want to leave that in the hands of one person/family/whatever..


Take law enforcement, the military or fire fighters..


Private armies and police forces would be a total disaster.

There would be no “removing “ the chief of police if it is a private company , owned by one person..

Whatever his policies were, it would stand until someone fight a war to oust him..

And my point is, if you care so much, why don't you change that by your own initiative? Start a company, give your employees a livable wage, clean up the environment, give them countless days off, give them healthcare and so on. Protesting others to do it for you might not cut it.

The only monopolies we have to worry about are the large, bureaucratic welfare states.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You know statist isn't a real thing don't you? It's just a made up snarl word used by zealot libertarians.

Yes some people can set up be utility companies. They are people with access to millions in capital.

Utilities are natural monopolies. The only way to have any real competition is via regulation.

a reply to: Grambler

Except most government regulations are a last resort...

You know how hard it is to get that stuff passed, then counter all the lawsuits?!?!

None of that is done on a whim. That doesn’t mean they are not all correct.. just that none are done without serious contemplation.

We only have 2 choices..

Trust the government, or trust big buisness..

By not trusting the government to regulate big business.. you are inherently trusting big buisness..


So there is no “I don’t trust anyone.”