Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
...
Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist.
I am tired of the misuse of common English language words by those seeking to "shock" people into agreeing with them.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech: Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism" Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry" ... Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist. I am tired of the misuse of common English language words by those seeking to "shock" people into agreeing with them.
Well wouldn't propounding government necessity in defense, law and other public utilities mean the concentration of economic planning and controls into the hands of government and thus making government ownership in the industry the only reality?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Ok, what would you like us to call people who support extortion and unprovoked force instead? Indeed suddenly there is a need for such a word, because I have absolutly no idea what to call those who believe in the state, hmmm..... Because you know, statism really does makes sense for those who believe in such a term, so if you prefer I shall continue using statist, just as I would call somone who believed only in the validity of voluntary interactions a voluntaryist, somone who believes in the validity of the communist state a communist, and somone who believes in the sacredness of the individual and individualist.
If you actually have a preffered name for us to use against those who support coersion, please propose it, if not then I'll "coin" the term in order to fill the sudden void.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Ok, what would you like us to call people who support extortion and unprovoked force instead?
Baby murderers? Rapists? Come on you have to get better shock words.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed suddenly there is a need for such a word, because I have absolutly no idea what to call those who believe in the state, hmmm..... Because you know, statism really does makes sense for those who believe in such a term, so if you prefer I shall continue using statist
You could always use a dictionary instead of latching on to the "shock" words used by those who don't know how.
Poptech: The Late Andrew Ryan:Ok, what would you like us to call people who support extortion and unprovoked force instead? Baby murderers? Rapists? Come on you have to get better shock words. The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed suddenly there is a need for such a word, because I have absolutly no idea what to call those who believe in the state, hmmm..... Because you know, statism really does makes sense for those who believe in such a term, so if you prefer I shall continue using statist You could always use a dictionary instead of latching on to the "shock" words used by those who don't know how.
You are confusing TLAR with me. Also, your argumentum ad shockum termum is indicative of you knowing that my analogy is proper and reveals the ridiculousness of your pro-state position.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I would understand why you wouldn't want to be called such a thing. Sounds kinda nasty. That's why I'll just call you pro-coercion.
In theory though, you are a socialist if you support a form of government. Even a constitutionally limited government. Government can only provide it's services if it controls the means of production. Since those services can be provided by the free-market. Of course, Not arguing if they would or wouldn't be provided better by the free market, just that they can/are. So really, government is just socialism.
Amadeus:Government can only provide it's services if it controls the means of production. Since those services can be provided by the free-market. Of course, Not arguing if they would or wouldn't be provided better by the free market, just that they can/are.
No, they cannot.
I gave you my honest feeling on the subject. What would you like me to use as those who support the state? For some reason the dictionary doesn't come up with an answer for the term "one who supports the state", the only other word available is nationalism and that implies radicle belief in a country rather than the all around state, I am not in search of shock words, I am in search of an adequet name for those who support the state, indeed I can think of few fairer words than statist, if you have a preference PLEASE SAY.
Please tell me why you are so convinced that we are looking for "shock words" if you like I'll change my term statist to "puppy lovers", indeed what in gods name are you complaining about? We have to contend with the term ANARCHIST. You have to contend with a term that brings up this image:
We have to contend with a term that brings up this image almost instantly:
So please tell me what you're complaining about, or if you're actually trying to defend your stance on the state, please do so instead of just writing people off as attempting to use "shock" words
Thank you for this Poptech. There are many on this forum who believe laissez-faire is a form of statism, and others have called it fascism. Language is important.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Poptech:Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist.
That's reality. Don't like it? Cry me a river.
Laughing Man:Well wouldn't propounding government necessity in defense, law and other public utilities mean the concentration of economic planning and controls into the hands of government and thus making government ownership in the industry the only reality?
Yes
Laughing Man: "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
So
laissez-faire=statism. As long as it can be shown that defense is a category not ungovernable by markets then this definition holds. If people think differently then they must argue that defense is essentially uneconomic or vice versa. The only argument that supports this conclusion though, is the argument from externalities which I think has been refuted.
This is not just a definitions game but also a topic that cuts to the heart of economic theory.
Laissez-faire =/= statism. If you do not believe that the market can provide certain goods then you simply think that laissez-faire cannot flower to its fullest theoretical extent. If you believe in the State, then you are a Statist. The problem is the negative connotation this word carries (largely because of the way it's thrown around on these forums); personally, I don't really mind. I mean, I am not "completely" (if that is possible) an anarchist, because I just haven't read enough to buy me (I don't believe that there are good which cannot be provided by a free-market; my reservations lie elsewhere... namely, what happens once we live in an anarchist society).
The United States cannot exist under laissez-faire which is why it never was laissez-faire, nor will it ever be laissez-faire. Even Rand admits that to have laissez-faire, a government would have to be funded by charity, not coercive taxation.
Poptech:I am tired of the misuse of common English language words by those seeking to "shock" people into agreeing with them.
I am tired of people hiding their moral positions behind dictionary definitions. If you support the state, make it known. When asked about how the state can be justified, answer your rationale. It's very simple. If you're not prepared to make your positions known and defend them, stay off discussion forums.
liberty student:The United States cannot exist under laissez-faire which is why it never was laissez-faire, nor will it ever be laissez-faire. Even Rand admits that to have laissez-faire, a government would have to be funded by charity, not coercive taxation.
Of course it can if you understand the definition of the word,
laissez-faire (Defined) - "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights"
Thus implying some sort of funding other than charity.
liberty student:I am tired of people hiding their moral positions behind dictionary definitions.
I am not hiding anything, I am correcting the common misuse of a word for "shock" effect. I believe my limited government position is well known and if you are not aware of it by now then you have not been reading anything I have written here.
If you are not prepared to use the proper English language definition of words on discussion forums where English is used then please stay off of them because people are not able to properly communicate with you and you will not make any sense.
Poptech: laissez-faire (Defined) - "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights"
Oh yes, the minimum. Everybody not advocating for full blown socialism is for laissez-faire according to that definition. Do you know of any Statist who thinks his advocating beyond this minimum?
Hey, how come you haven't responded to my point? I thought it was pretty good.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Poptech:Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist.Yes, they can. Why? Because statism is actually advocating for the state. In any amount. Period. That's reality. Don't like it? Cry me a river.
Baawa you're doing the same crap that Leviathan does. You re-define terminology for self-serving reasons.
No, because minimal market interference is not the same as a "highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry." Providing courts, police, and a minimal military does not fit this definition. I for one would love to see the United States move towards a union of states with a very minimal central authority, and make it so individuals can only vote if they are above the age of 35 and own property. I even support some kind of welfare but oppose income taxes. This position is in no way statist.
Esuric:No, because minimal market interference is not the same as a "highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry."
But this isn't 'minimal' interference. The government is effectively monopolizing these markets.Since they are monopolizes, they are:
A.) Centralized
B.) Concentrated
C.) Effectively planning the market since they don't have competition and therefore no way to establish prices.
D.) Effectively owning the entire market cause again they are a monopoly.
Esuric:I even support some kind of welfare but oppose income taxes
All taxes are income taxes and all welfare is forced redistribution of wealth. Sounds like a Statist to me, although a smart one who recognizes the efficiency of the market system.
Wow, you appealed to one dictionary's definition. Dictionary.com, using the Random House Dictionary, offers a second definition: support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic. thefreedictionary.com, using the Gale Group as a source, says: the support of the sovereignty of the state.
Unfortunately, I don't have my Oxford English Dictionary handy (should have access to it tomorrow), but my Historical Thesaurus of the OED declares that, in the 17th century, statism referred to politics as well as establishmentarianism, but has more recently been used interchangeably with "government by state."
Regardless of what lexicographers contend, it is entirely reasonable for anarchists to apply the label 'statist' to minarchists as well as socialists. Statist is an easily understood label that succinctly communicates the point an anarchist is frequent to make: one who believes in the legitimacy or desirability of state action. From this label, an anarchist can tailor his argument to better convey his meaning (he might say, "superstatists are the biggest threat to society," or, "quasistatists are misguided"). You can believe there is a clear, fundamental difference between minarchism and full-blown socialism, but that is precisely the anarchist's point: it is a difference of degree, not substance, and thus statist applies to one as well as the other.
Laughing Man: But this isn't 'minimal' interference. The government is effectively monopolizing these markets.Since they are monopolizes, they are: A.) Centralized B.) Concentrated C.) Effectively planning the market since they don't have competition and therefore no way to establish prices. D.) Effectively owning the entire market cause again they are a monopoly.
There is no market for tanks and grenade launchers, nor is there a market for unbiased court systems. Unless you're saying that government created military's monopolize the steel industry (or whatever), which is absurd. The government creates and defends these vital institutions. It doesn't "monopolize" them. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe societies don't need some kind of defense, police system, and semi-centralized court systems.
DD5:All taxes are income taxes and all welfare is forced redistribution of wealth. Sounds like a Statist to me, although a smart one who recognizes the efficiency of the market system.
No, income taxes tax income, and consumption taxes tax consumption. And some people believe that those who are unable to compete successfully in the market should receive some kind of aid in civilized societies, if (and only if) charities are unable to do so.
Michael J Green:Wow, you appealed to one dictionary's definition.
Yes, he appealed to the dictionary for a definition. Good point! Anarchists are creating a false dichotomy: you're either with us, or you're a statist--not distinguishing between Marxists, syndicalists, fascists, market socialists, minarchists, ect, ect.
Poptech: laissez-faire (Defined) - "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" Thus implying some sort of funding other than charity.
So now you're saying that Rand was not laissez-faire?
Poptech:I am not hiding anything
Then why haven't you clarified your position yet?
Poptech:I believe my limited government position is well known and if you are not aware of it by now then you have not been reading anything I have written here.
Have you posted it? When and where. I will pull up your position so we can debate it.
Poptech:If you are not prepared to use the proper English language definition
Well, you claimed there is only one definition. Are you saying that other dictionary definitions are wrong? Just let me know which dictionary you consider to be the absolute authority on meaning, and I will use it. Which dictionary is the final authority?
liberty student:Which dictionary is the final authority?
How about webster's, which is the one he used.
Esuric:There is no market for tanks and grenade launchers, nor is there a market for unbiased court systems.
Yes...because its illegal. You have to open up markets first to expect competition to come about.
Esuric: The government creates and defends these vital institutions. It doesn't "monopolize" them. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe societies don't need some kind of defense, police system, and semi-centralized court systems.
I think you need to read your Bastiat better. Well I think it is Bastiat who said this. I'm almost certain. Well anyways, because I say the government shouldn't be the sole provider of these does not then infer that we don't need these things. That is what government is, the sole provider of these services that disallows entrance into these markets...the basic definition of monopoly according to Austrian theory.
Laughing Man:Yes...because its illegal. You have to open up markets first to expect competition to come about.
Who in the private sector is interested in tanks and grenade launchers, and is this something you want to see? The private sector responds to consumer demand; this means that the demand for tanks and grenade launchers would emerge only when we're attacked--which would be too late.
Laughing Man:Well I think it is Bastiat who said this. I'm almost certain. Well anyways, because I say the government shouldn't be the sole provider of these does not then infer that we don't need these things. That is what government is, the sole provider of these services that disallows entrance into these markets...the basic definition of monopoly according to Austrian theory.
Yes, you could technically say that the government creates and monopolizes industries that the private sector wouldn't create on its own.
Esuric:Who in the private sector is interested in tanks and grenade launchers, and is this something you want to see? The private sector responds to consumer demand; this means that the demand for tanks and grenade launchers would emerge only when we're attacked--which would be too late.
Right because people don't have time preference? People never plan for the future? And the private sector isn't interested in tanks and grenade launchers because it is highly illegal to purchase these items.
Esuric:Yes, you could technically say that the government monopolizes industries that the private sector wouldn't create on its own.
Well you can't really create a private market then you are banned from doing so but at least we made progress in you properly defining it as a monopoly.
Esuric:No, income taxes tax income, and consumption taxes tax consumption.
There is no such thing as a consumption tax. The incidence of taxation is always backwards. The tax is a cost on the seller which lowers the DMVP of the original owners of factors. If consumers are hurt, it is because of the lower productivity caused by the tax, but that is not because the consumer actually pays the tax, but precisely because the DMVP of the original owners of factors has fallen.
Esuric:And some people believe that those who are unable to compete successfully in the market should receive some kind of aid in civilized societies, if (and only if) charities are unable to do so.
forced redistribution can hardly be considered civilized.
Congratulations for finally discovering a market failure and reinstituting the fallacious idea and old myth of government providing and guaranteeing security.
This has been done ad nauseam...
Specific field -> specific terms.
Laughing Man:Right because people don't have time preference? People never plan for the future? And the private sector isn't interested in tanks and grenade launchers because it is highly illegal to purchase these items.
How many people are interested in buying tanks, jets, and submarines, and are these the people you want to see with such weaponry?
Laughing Man:Well you can't really create a private market then you are banned from doing so but at least we made progress in you properly defining it as a monopoly.
I concede the point.
DD5:There is no such thing as a consumption tax. The incidence of taxation is always backwards. The tax is a cost on the seller which lowers the DMVP of the original owners of factors. If consumers are hurt, it is because of the lower productivity caused by the tax, but that is not because the consumer actually pays the tax, but precisely because the DMVP of the original owners of factors has fallen.
What exactly are you looking for? I'm fully aware of this fact. I'm merely saying that I oppose income taxes, as they are commonly understood.
DD5:forced redistribution can hardly be considered civilized.
It's far more civilized then having a portion of society begging and starving in the streets. I'm talking about a 10%-20% consumption tax on drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol. This is simply isn't statism.
Esuric:How many people are interested in buying tanks, jets, and submarines, and are these the people you want to see with such weaponry?
Well people interested in buying the capital for a defense agency. Yes I'd rather have thousands if not millions of people with such weaponry rather then one institution which thinks it welds the edict of the Gods to rule over us.
Esuric:I concede the point.
Thanks for being honest, seriously. It is a rare thing on the internet.
Yes, he appealed to the dictionary for a definition. Good point!
And you purposely ignored the other definitions offered by competing sources.
I bought a cup of coffee today at a deli for one dollar. I guess a cup of coffee is universally valued at one American dollar!
Anarchists are creating a false dichotomy: you're either with us, or you're a statist--not distinguishing between Marxists, syndicalists, fascists, market socialists, minarchists, ect, ect.
No. I can't speak for every anarchist in existence, but (as I said in my post) I use statist as a general term describing anyone who believes in the legitimacy or desirability of state action. When I call you a statist, I mean only that you fit this description. I do wish to convey that you share certain beliefs with Marxists and fascists, but I do not mean to say you share every belief. I certainly recognize the differences you have with fascists, and my use of the word statist does not contradict that fact. It merely communicates that, as an anarchist, I differ with you on one point - a point with which you, fascists, Marxists and others agree.
fakename: So laissez-faire=statism.
laissez-faire=statism.
So with the above premise combined with the premise from another thread that state = socialism, we can infer laissez-fair = socialism.
It's hard to imagine another trend in argumentation more destructive to persuasiveness and common ground in debating anyone else besides anarchism-fence-sitters. (And only anarchism-fence-sitters in the "crowd" would be convinced by such approaches, too.)
Even Rothbard called non-anarchists like Locke "libertarian". And he wrote admiringly of 19th century laissez-fair (non-anarchist) liberals, and I doubt he ever called such people "statist" or "socialist". And Rothbard himself was basically pro-IP. Are we going to start calling him "pro-slavery" because many of us don't recognize IP "violations" as just cause for laying hands on another person?
LS, fakename, and others, I totally respect and admire your striving for intellectual rigor and consistency. But words are our servants, not our masters. The laissez-fair=statism=socialism formulation might be a "useful servant" for the purpose of shared ratiocinations among fellow anarchists. But I think it is entirely contrary to purpose in terms of teaching the audience of these fora the merits of liberalism. Regarding that goal, at best it's a distraction; at worst it's a repellent.
Michael J Green:No. I can't speak for every anarchist in existence, but (as I said in my post) I use statist as a general term describing anyone who believes in the legitimacy or desirability of state action. When I call you a statist, I mean only that you fit this description. I do wish to convey that you share certain beliefs with Marxists and fascists, but I do not mean to say you share every belief.
When people say Statist they are talking about those groups/ideologies, which is why webester's and other dictionaries define it this way. We all share at least some common beliefs with Marxists and fascists; the differences between us is what separates us into different ideological sects. For example, we wish to have the most prosperous society imaginable, but go about it in different ways. Socialist ends but not socialist means.
Esuric: DD5:forced redistribution can hardly be considered civilized. It's far more civilized then having a portion of society begging and starving in the streets.
It's far more civilized then having a portion of society begging and starving in the streets.
And don't forget the children.
Esuric:m talking about a 10%-20% consumption tax on drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol. This is simply isn't statism.
No, imposing fees by force on all those things based on your own ethical value judgement is not Statism.
Esuric: DD5:There is no such thing as a consumption tax. The incidence of taxation is always backwards. The tax is a cost on the seller which lowers the DMVP of the original owners of factors. If consumers are hurt, it is because of the lower productivity caused by the tax, but that is not because the consumer actually pays the tax, but precisely because the DMVP of the original owners of factors has fallen. What exactly are you looking for? I'm fully aware of this fact. I'm merely saying that I oppose income taxes, as they are commonly understood.
So you are not against the income tax, only against what the Statists and their economists define it as such. Very convenient.
DD5:No, imposing fees by force on all those things based on your own ethical value judgement is not Statism.
No, it's not.
DD5:So you are not against the income tax, only against what the Statists and their economists define it as such. Very convenient.
Nothing convenient about it, nor is it really complicated. I oppose directly taxing income--from your pay check. Don't over think it.
You haven't made the case for why the government all of a sudden can surpass the efficiency of the market for alleviating the uneasiness of such people, and why any such welfare scheme is not self defeating like all other interventionist policies.
things are seen under different formalities and maybe rothbard was looking at these figures "inasmuch as they approached the libertarian ideal" (though not sure what he was talking about with IP). Right now the question is one of definitions so I approach the problem from that end -arguing about the differences between ideas and arguing for the content of one idea over another, not necessarily to win popularity. Indeed the OP had to have known what h/she was in effect, asking for (namely a lengthy disquisition on the nature of statism/anarchism).
And yes, one can believe that the market couldn't do some things and yet still be laissez-faire but this would be an entirely different laissez-faire than that known here. Instead one would have to call it laissez-faire2.
In essence then, to believe in the state=statism but to actually come to this conclusion one does need premises and one of these is that the market is inefficient.
So I guess I was wrong about that.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Regarding that goal, at best it's a distraction; at worst it's a repellent.
No, at best they become useful words (statist and libertarian) as opposed to being almost completely meaningless. The semantics debate is an important one, in philosophy. Communication is key to our message. For the same reason that the government uses semantics to justify its atrocities. Try going to a court, and see the semantics games they play if you try to ask questions.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
J. Grayson Lilburne:And Rothbard himself was basically pro-IP. Are we going to start calling him "pro-slavery" because many of us don't recognize IP "violations" as just cause for laying hands on another person?
Rothbard believed that IP could develop on the basis of voluntary contracts. What does this have to do with statism?