The Statist Quo

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't believe that is the only two choices.

For one, you assume that business has no control over the government, which is incorrect.

Let's look at the banking sector.

Again, I am for meccessary regulations of business.

But thanks to trust in the government, banks were able to lobby government to nail them out after immoral risky gambles that should have caused them to go bankrupt.

This was only possible to over Reliance on trusting government.

With a limited government that properly enforced rules, these banks would have gone bankrupt, people may have been jailed, and new banks ran more responsibly would have taken their place.

Despite your claims, regulations and government Reliance has been rapidly increasing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I may have to change my preconceived notions about British men. I would have bet that at least 3 in 10 would have taken his shoes off and said, "Arrest me when I get out of the water, ya wanker."

Only with better vocabulary and a British accent.

I guess there were no rugby players in the crowd.

a reply to: ScepticScot

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 statist is someone who advocates and believes that the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

If you want the government's hand in everything, that's fine, but let's at least be honest about it instead of pretending we are morally superior for doing so. I have argued it is the opposite.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I may have to change my preconceived notions about British men. I would have bet that at least 3 in 10 would have taken his shoes off and said, "Arrest me when I get out of the water, ya wanker."

Only with better vocabulary and a British accent.

I guess there were no rugby players in the crowd.

There was such a thing as a British man. I'm not so certain about that anymore.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Could you direct me towards the statist party? Or politicians who describe themselves as statist? It maybe even a member of this site who calls themselves statist?

In fact where outside mises.org and other extreme libertarian sites does it even get used?

It's a snarl term used against any non absolute libertarian view.



Who is arguing for the governments hand in everything? Are you arguing against a straw man by any chance?

The view that all government intervention is good is equally stupid as the view it's always bad.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Could you direct me towards the statist party? Or politicians who describe themselves as statist? It maybe even a member of this site who calls themselves statist?

In fact where outside mises.org and other extreme libertarian sites does it even get used?

It's a snarl term used against any non absolute libertarian view.

I think the place I heard it was Ayn Rand.

Do you have a better word for someone who who advocates and believes that the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs? It sounds pretty accurate to me.

"Snarl word". You guys say that a lot, as if you all read the same rationalwiki page.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't believe that is the only two choices.

For one, you assume that business has no control over the government, which is incorrect.

Let's look at the banking sector.

Again, I am for meccessary regulations of business.

But thanks to trust in the government, banks were able to lobby government to nail them out after immoral risky gambles that should have caused them to go bankrupt.

This was only possible to over Reliance on trusting government.

With a limited government that properly enforced rules, these banks would have gone bankrupt, people may have been jailed, and new banks ran more responsibly would have taken their place.

Despite your claims, regulations and government Reliance has been rapidly increasing.

That is my point..

Almost to a man, every time government has gone off the rails , has been because they were paid to by some big buisness intrest..

So deregulation is the last thing we usually need.. that is literally the antitisis of what is needed..

By not trusting the government. You are just cutting my out the middle man of corruption and giving the bad actors the keys..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't believe that is the only two choices.

For one, you assume that business has no control over the government, which is incorrect.

Let's look at the banking sector.

Again, I am for meccessary regulations of business.

But thanks to trust in the government, banks were able to lobby government to nail them out after immoral risky gambles that should have caused them to go bankrupt.

This was only possible to over Reliance on trusting government.

With a limited government that properly enforced rules, these banks would have gone bankrupt, people may have been jailed, and new banks ran more responsibly would have taken their place.

Despite your claims, regulations and government Reliance has been rapidly increasing.

That is my point..

Almost to a man, every time government has gone off the rails , has been because they were paid to by some big buisness intrest..

So deregulation is the last thing we usually need.. that is literally the antitisis of what is needed..

By not trusting the government. You are just cutting my out the middle man of corruption and giving the bad actors the keys..

I don't believe that.

But I guess this is your addition that you always trust the government.

Good luck with that.

a reply to: Grambler

Also it was deregulation that crashed the system..

Clinton passed the gop deregulation, glasdegal..

Allowing the mom and pop banks to play the stock market..

a reply to: Grambler

Shouldn’t you have included some third option??? If a third optio. Is available lol..


“Nah uh” is not really a valid counterpoint...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We don't have enough wealth inequality in this country. We should just listen to you.

Thing is that many of them who advocate hardest for statism will claim they do it not because they want their own stuff paid for but because they know others won't do what's right. So those others need to have it done for them.

Basically, they're claiming they'd be happy to chip in those "few extra dollars" and do it happily, but they know everyone else is just too greedy to buy in (and by that, they usually mean you) so the state has to make sure everyone pays "their fair share." :roll eyes:

Had to quote this because it is one of the most brilliant things I've ever read. Eloquent, yet paints a clear picture of the modern statist and the truth behind their actions and beliefs.

The UK (from the story) is a prime example, given that the state is even more prevalent there than in the US. Although our country is getting ridiculous, from the healthcare mandates to the exorbitant tax rate that some would only like to see increase. It is a cynical societal construct, and needlessly cedes personal responsibility and obligation to the state.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The Statist Quo

Every policy debate nowadays lays bare a chilling tendency afflicting westerners. A vast subsection of citizens applaud, with increasing regularity, the intervention of the state into their public affairs, only to scream in horror whenever that power is given back to them. Whether it is healthcare, environment, economy, or welfare, more and more are people looking to their governments for protection, support and moral authority, where their families, communities and personal initiative once stood.

And that’s fine, at least for a little while. But when they dress up their statism as self-righteousness or compassion, when in fact they are simply delegating their own civic duties to someone else (and perpetuating a growing reliance on state forces while doing so) we are witness to a statist sleight of hand. While they continually advocate for state action against this or that issue, they have also learned to continually absolve themselves of any responsibility in taking any initiative themselves.

17-year old Jack Susianta broke his bedroom window and escaped amidst the fever of a drug-induced psychosis. His parents, fearing for his life, called the police. Once the police found him, Jack decided to run instead of comply. Desperate to escape and running from god-knows-what, the young man jumped into the river Lea in east London in a last attempt to elude capture. The murky water, a little over 6ft deep and and barely a current, would prove to be too much for the disturbed boy. The psychosis negated whatever swimming abilities he had and so began to struggle.

There were dozens of officers and members of the public around to help him, but the police, citing “health and safety”, refused to get in the water and pull the struggling man to safety. They resorted to throwing ropes and buoys to no avail—the boy was trapped in psychosis. Members of the public, who were at the time gathered to watch the commotion, were of no help. The police deterred them from entering the water, once again citing health and safety. As a result the bystanders chose to stand there, powerless, and watched as the boy took his last breath before finally drowning. He had been under the water for four minutes before police decided it was safe enough to get wet and pull him out.

State rules, regulations, protocols, prohibited the police from saving Jack. “Health and safety” would be the mantra they used to help them sleep at night. But what about the public? What led them to retreat into their self-imposed stasis, a view from which they could stand idly by and watch a young man die? Having delegated their duties as citizens and community members to the state, there was nothing, not even gasps of a drowning man, that would compel them into action.

If Jack’s tale reminds you of Weena in HG Wells’ The Time Machine, and the bystanders as the dissolute Eloi, you would hope that somewhere among them was a rugged Victorian time traveller who would spring into action to save him. But no. Whereas standing around to watch a man drown in relatively shallow water would have been unthinkable to a gentleman of Wells’ era, it is current fashion in our own day.

Observe the Net Neutrality debate in the United States as an example. The repeal of a piece of government regulation has sent entire populations into fits of despair, fearing every slippery slope from racism to censorship. But you never hear any of these vociferous protesters taking the initiative, starting their own ISP and offering everyone else what he himself demands from others. That would be too difficult. That would involve effort. He would rather take than provide. He would rather stifle than to innovate. At the same time he demands the state take initiative, he excuses himself from having to do so, all while shackling the following generations to more and more bureaucracy.

The state is the new father, the new church, the arbiter of law, ethics, and epistemology. Crimes aren’t illegal because they are wrong; crimes are wrong because they are illegal. We protect the environment through state regulation, not by our own actions and initiatives. We solve problems by demanding the state take care of it. We cannot nor will not protect ourselves; we’d rather wait for the state to arrive in order to do it for us. And this is the default position throughout the western world.

The statist quo is thus: to advocate for statism as a lobotomy, so that we may continue to live aloof of the world’s problems, infantilized and child-like.

LesMis

a reply to: Grambler

Not only did those banks get bailed but the regs that were supposed to reign then in actually damaged the smaller regional banks that would have risen to replace them.

a reply to: JBurns

It isn't all that different from the year they had that horrible heat wave in France where all those people died.

Thing is that they didn't have to die. It was the lack of medical service workers that doomed many. A lot of those people took their government worker mandated vacations during that heat wave to escape the heat leaving many places dangerously understaffed ... and people died.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We don't have enough wealth inequality in this country. We should just listen to you.

Other people have more money than I do. I think I deserve to have it.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We don't have enough wealth inequality in this country. We should just listen to you.

Or you can go hire them. We should just listen to you.

a reply to: ketsuko


ketsuko, as a practical matter I am not advocating terminating public safety services. I would certainly recommend individuals take proactive measures to protect themselves from all sorts of threats, including criminals and medical emergencies. But our EMS system is supported with extensive research showing it makes a difference, same for law enforcement and fire suppression.

Hospitals, schools, etc are also assets. There is no need to terminate things that make this country stronger and more efficient. The main point I believe is advocating personal responsibility and actions of individuals (like volunteer fire, ems and even law enforcement agencies) working together as opposed to delegating all functions to a state entity.

There are legitimate uses for the state, as an entity, but it is important that every decision made is done in the interest of personal freedom and liberty

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Could you direct me towards the statist party? Or politicians who describe themselves as statist? It maybe even a member of this site who calls themselves statist?

In fact where outside mises.org and other extreme libertarian sites does it even get used?

It's a snarl term used against any non absolute libertarian view.

I think the place I heard it was Ayn Rand.

Do you have a better word for someone who who advocates and believes that the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs? It sounds pretty accurate to me.

"Snarl word". You guys say that a lot, as if you all read the same rationalwiki page.

Ayn Rand, that would explain a lot.

How about actually trying to deal with the reality of what people actually want and believe rather than trying to paint everyone as in thrall to the government.

The example in your OP had nothing to do with statism, yet try and use a tragic situation paint all forms of regulation as evil or counter productive.

Out of interest how would Rand have advocated people dealing that situation. Should people have been negotiating for the contract to rescue him? Assuming he had the funds to pay otherwise society would be better of letting him drown.

Your last comment is quite funny coming from you, maybe you could say sophist for old times sake or have you moved on?

A lot of libbies whining is what it sounds like, if you hate America or Trump you need to leave my country