The Statist Quo

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: LesMisanthrope

I think you mean " Status Quo "

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good post.

I saw a video were Victor Hanson showed that the wealthy elite that propose much of this statism are totally exempt from the "utopia" they prescribe to others.

Massive welfare programs for open borders, while they live in gated communities, etc.

Look at the discussion on tax cuts.

People are claiming these cuts are evil, and people will die as a result.

Meanwhole, just about everyone of these people take every personal tax exemption available to them.

Remember when it was revealed that Bernie paid far less of a percentage than trump and most others?

Advocating for massive state redistribution of wealtj, or enforced regulations, does not make a person a more moral person.

We should be judged by what we personally do, not what we want the government to force others to do.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Firstly, the Jack Susianta case was nothing to do with Statism, and everything to do with on-the-spot decision making by the officers involved.

It appears you are using your own interpretation of events to manipulate and plant a seed in the readers mind.
One that is false.



Now...

We protect the environment through state regulation, not by our own actions and initiatives.

You think that regular powerless citizens can do anything to prevent a large & powerful corporation from cutting down to many trees, or polluting too much air, or poisoning too much water, if they so please?

Hahahahaha.


Yeah, sure thing, Les.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

but I believe he's playing with the word.

Yes, he may well be.

However if he is, the word should be placed in between inverted commas.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you mean " Status Quo "

Nope.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Firstly, the Jack Susianta case was nothing to do with Statism, and everything to do with on-the-spot decision making by the officers involved.

It appears you are using your own interpretation of events to manipulate and plant a seed in the readers mind.
One that is false.



Now...

We protect the environment through state regulation, not by our own actions and initiatives.

You think that regular powerless citizens can do anything to prevent a large & powerful corporation from cutting down to many trees, or polluting too much air, or poisoning too much water, if they so please?

Hahahahaha.


Yeah, sure thing, Les.

Or lack thereof in that case. They and the public watched as a man drowned.

Large and powerful corporations are composed of citizens. Imagine that.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...it appears that the statists had collectively decided the young mans fate...

The collective chose to wait until the young man ceased battling the elements in his efforts to escape...in effect they were merely colluding in the young mans escapade while quietly waiting and observing...Checking their boxes...

Once the appropriate level of statist conformity had been ascertained...quiescence...lassitude...a cease to struggles against the norm...why...then they move in and ascertain the matter settled...


Cold...calculated...callous...?

Perhaps...






YouSir

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Or lack thereof in that case. They and the public watched as a man drowned.

And...?

You are using this situation to broadbrush anyone who prefers regulation...
How many people were involved in the situation...
& how do you come to the conclusion it is an inevitable consequence of wanting regulation...


Replace those involved with another group and we could have had an entirely different ending.



Also, you used the “4 minutes” later thing, and the so called “six foot deep, with no current”...

You failed to mention that the officer who did finally enter the water to get Jack, had to be rescued himself by a rower.

Large and powerful corporations are composed of citizens. Imagine that.

That is not an adequate answer to the point I just made.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Or lack thereof in that case. They and the public watched as a man drowned.

And...?

You are using this situation to broadbrush anyone who prefers regulation...
How many people were involved in the situation...
& how do you come to the conclusion it is an inevitable consequence of wanting regulation...


Replace those involved with another group and we could have had an entirely different ending.



Also, you used the “4 minutes” later thing, and the so called “six foot deep, with no current”...

You failed to mention that the officer who did finally enter the water to get Jack, had to be rescued himself by a rower.

Large and powerful corporations are composed of citizens. Imagine that.

That is not an adequate answer to the point I just made.

An example does not equate to 'broadbrush'. In France assistance is required of citizens BY LAW.

It's the mentality of the people on hand that's the issue. If the officer required assistance from a rower after the four minutes, the same procedure could have applied before the four minutes. None rose above 'regulation' or personal safety to save a life.

I would agree with you to the extent that the same situation could have and likely did occur when there was less 'big brother' watching over us. Large cities, etc. Even hundreds of years ago.

Having said that, the numbers of those who would shrug and walk off...or just record it to make a little money on YouTube...has grown hugely.

Balance is key. There are things gov't should do and things the individual should address oneself. Defining the line is up to the individual and circumstance.

There are times when 'personal safety' should be put aside if one knows they can assist. That was one example where I would have. I don't like having guilty feelings down the road, but that's just me.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

And...?

You are using this situation to broadbrush anyone who prefers regulation...
How many people were involved in the situation...
& how do you come to the conclusion it is an inevitable consequence of wanting regulation...


Replace those involved with another group and we could have had an entirely different ending.



Also, you used the “4 minutes” later thing, and the so called “six foot deep, with no current”...

You failed to mention that the officer who did finally enter the water to get Jack, had to be rescued himself by a rower.

"'No-one did anything because we thought the police would do it.'

That's a quote from a bystander. The whole episode is an analogy towards my argument against statism. The state has become a substitute for real compassion and initiative.

That is not an adequate answer to the point I just made.

Sure it is.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


People have sold their souls to the authorities because they want an easy life. They don't have to go out into the field every day and milk cows, grow vegetables, make clothes, keep warm using pretty much just wood and die early from diseases.

Yea, we can get all convoluted about that and dream up big reasons why, but it is as simple as this.

They can sit their in their little tin machines driving along, eat McDonalds and watch TV in the warm. The authorities give them that in return for their willingness to do as they are told and perform their task in the machinery of the system; these primates are easily bought as we know they even sold their own into slavery for beads and trickets in many parts of the world in the past (that is the bummer in the deal that everyone moans about; dead end jobs, poor resources and lack of adequate society, their treatment in the past in terms of slavery and colonization, being sent to wars as cannon fodder, et c). Also they have to watch the top of the hierarchy rolling in excess and looking down on them, but hey that's better than living in the smell of life without the state machine and the authorities.

A big BUT now: The authorities are not keeping their end of the bargain in the UK at least (sure the U.S is worse as e all know they sheer scale of POVERTY they hide). In their great numbers they will be a great spanner in the works, a great big DRAIN on resources because they will be obese, unhealthy at an early age and will need some kind of minimal state help to stop them from turning into rotting corpses that spread diseases (but may be there is a way corporations can even profit by this, oh yeah HEALTH INSURANCE, lol). They will be utterly ineffeicient through mental and physical inability because of the garbage they have to lap up in all ways; educationally, socially, no proper nuclear family upbringing to stabilise the adult emotional balance, brain numbing year after year of robotic chores all day six days a week with no holiday, drinking crap cola, eating fat dementia causing fried mush, on and on and on ad infinitum abuse extravaganza. So, boys, you better get those robots on the shop floor because you are gonna need them; though what to do with all that spare flesh (and I am talkin SPARE, man) if they don't get at least the minimum of care (the corpse cart "Bring out yer dead")? The corporations turn them into this by all the garbage they feed them physically and mentally. They are not looking after their batteries and customers properly. They are not feeding their imaginations properly and are not raising them out of the smell any longer. They are having to feed the machine with low paid, robotic never ending long hour employemnt with even no holidays now, even working long hours and still having to go to food banks. The machine is no longer protecting them properly with housing, health care, policing, et c. Everything now is about auditting and protecting the MACHINE. This will of course get much worse; the people will hate and despise it and the lives it forces them to lead, but they will no longer have any knowledge of alternatives because their imaginations would never have been switched on the way that exposure to art and ideas through proper education used to (all wiill be vetted to conform to the "narrative").

What you gonna do with MILLIONS of people with dementia and cancer and no health service to care for them in such huge numbers? What you gonna do because the developing world has caught up with you and nobody wants to come to your society and do all your crap for you any longer and you don't have enough young people of your own because women no longer want to have babies as it might ruin their figure? Lol, this is the future hell you are creating right now and you will deserve this because it is evil what has happened. It will be a kind of JUSTICE and KARMA and a great teaching aid of what NOT TO DO.

I'm naughty and they HATE people like me because I will not play the game of master and glorified wage slave on his rations of MSM and smartphone gimmicks that extort money from you even when you are relaxing in your armchair in the evening after a hard day's work. I am clever enough to manipulate back. I do my music and am creative. I nurture my imagination every day on my own terms. Nobody stands over me with a clock to punish me with and drain my life by. Make no mistake, people like me exist. Their terms are not acceptable to me and never have been.

I am nobody's slave. I would rather DIE. In the last two weeks I I have nearly lost my life twice. The heat is on. I love it. I'm still here!



There is no altruistic morality in relation to this "order" of social dynamics; just those who treat the human race like fodder for a purpose to pursue continual ruthless wealth acquisition, who use legislation and simple cutlural PEER PRESSURE in religious, institutional and media nurtured social programming and expectation as a "tool" to "encourage" (in real terms socially BULLY)into submission and consent so the units will be too frightenned to venture out on one's own and go against the grain of the machine order. In China and many other oppressive states they use the people as spies against the people just as Orwell described as a social control tactic in his "1984" to keep the machine nicely greased with no spanners stuck in the cogs. Look at the dynamics of online gambling gaming as an up to date example of exploitation and psychologically deployed extortion (yes a modern take on BEADS and trinkets, isn't that OBVIOUS?) One party is being made a multi millionaire and the other is gambling away their minimal wage or welfare cheque. I am from the working class and I am seething that this # is happening.

It is going to get alittle messy in the future, believe it. If they don not look after society properly the bottom of the bucket that goes to the well for them will indeed fall out.



I am not right now writing with my usual clarity as I got knocked down by a car just a gfew hours ago on a zebra (pedestrian)crossing. Some weird # is happening lately. I am still in shock. I got knocked flying and their is not a mark on me, lol. Only two weeks ago I nearly ided from a severe out of the blue asthma attack and had to have an ambulance. Yet still the chanting continues! It makes me even worse when I get psychically attacked so. Now that I am all guns blazing I think life is going to be a bit more dangerous. Cool, I was bored any way with that ridiculous slow pace of torture. Yes, right now I am already back in the ring and throwing punches.

Don't dare think this is going to lasttt. Very very soon it is going to descend in to HELL!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Compare the sinking of the titanic to the sinking of the Costa Concordia. In the latter case, a woman recalled men and crewmembers were pushing women and children aside to get to lifeboats.

a reply to: Grambler

Advocating for massive state redistribution of wealtj, or enforced regulations, does not make a person a more moral person.

We should be judged by what we personally do, not what we want the government to force others to do.

Absolutely right. Statism is a façade behind which one hides his moral ineptitude. It is an excuse for inaction, and excuse to do nothing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I hear what you're saying but honestly, can you remember a time when things were different? I am likely younger than you so this is a serious question.

I have never really known a time when there wasn't a considerable moral vacuum in the mainstream.

a reply to: Revolution9

A big BUT now: The authorities are not keeping their end of the bargain in the UK at least. For many there is not much to lose any longer and in their great numbers can and will be a great spanner in the works and a great big DRAIN on resources because tey will be obese, unhealthy at an early age and will need some kind of minimal state help to stop them from turning into rotting corpses that spread diseases. The corporations turn them into this by all the garbage they feed them physically and mentally. They are not looking after their batteries and customers properly. They are not feeding their imaginations properly and are not raising them out of the smell any longer. They are having to feed the machine with low paid, robotic never ending long hour employemnt with even no holidays now, but the machine is no longer protecting them properly with housing, health care, policing. Everything now is about auditting and protecting the MACHINE. This will of course get much worse, but the people will hate and despise it and the lives it forces them lead, but they will no longer have any knowledge of alternatives because their imaginations would never have been switched on..

The end result, it seems, is that in order to perpetuate the comforts a massive state bureaucracy provides in the midst of a demographic decline and labour shortage, is to import more people to keep it afloat.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

I hear what you're saying but honestly, can you remember a time when things were different? I am likely younger than you so this is a serious question.

I have never really known a time when there wasn't a considerable moral vacuum in the mainstream.

I don't remember. The only times nowadays that we see people step up for themselves and their fellow man is when they are given the chance to, when there is no State around, for instance during natural disasters.

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I hear what you're saying but honestly, can you remember a time when things were different? I am likely younger than you so this is a serious question.

I have never really known a time when there wasn't a considerable moral vacuum in the mainstream.

Well it depends on were you are I guess.

Here in rural Pennsylvania I see people helping all the time.

We have volunteer fire departments. We have neighborhoods come together when someone has hardship.

But even here it seems to be getting more state dependent.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Lifeboats it had a sufficient number of. Because of those darn 'statist' regulations.