Talk:Statism

A quick look at Wikipedia has a different definition, which is the one I've always heard: "In political science, statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree." I've never encountered the definition that statism is simply the belief in the existence of a state. What gives? Blue (is useful)

Well, the belief that the state is required, anyway. At least that's what I thought I wrote. EVDebs (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The only people I've really even seen use the word statist are basically anarchists, so defining statism as 'thinking the government is needed' is pretty accurate, if only because its a libertarian slur that is defined that way.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's still amusing that a term gets used as an insult when it has no particularly insulting implications. EVDebs (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

According to "what links here" this article only has one article that links in (Loaded language). Between that the incredibly small size of the article, I'm thinking it should be merged into something else. It seems like it wouldn't fit in with that article. I have the experience that I could probably make an article something like "Common libertarian arugments" and include a section of some of their snarls. Not sure if that'll be on topic though.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did just create the article. I'm sure links will be added. EVDebs (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Anarchist/Libertarian crankery would be on topic. Though I'd recommend sanboxing it first. Humorless fascist^sociopath 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how to do that. That (and how to make special user pages) is still something I'm trying to figure out. <edited in> Also, I was thinking less their specific crankeries (we have the Libertarian and AnCap articles for that), but more of their common arguments and responses, as well explaining some of their common slurs</edited in>--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Make a page User:Hamilton/sandbox. Humorless fascist^sociopath 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Debs: Did not realize that. If I did, I wouldn't have suggested anything right off the bat.

@everyone's favorite fascist: Thanks. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Libertarians and anarchists really don't like statists, and use the term to describe anyone they perceive as an ideological enemy, frequently conflating statism with authoritarianism. Its use as a snarl word, if acknowledged at all, is generally greeted with 'so how's your alternative supposed to work?', at which point apparently the underpants gnomes are supposed to show up or something."

If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.181.217.208 / talk / contribs}

Disputed Edits

This is under dispute. It seems to significantly change the tone of the article, but there is no factual dispute. Overall, I have only ever heard the term "statist" as a snarling term used by the unreasonable, so I favor the current version over the new version, which is much more sympathetic to the libertarian demographic. Interestingly, it seems to me as though the dispute here matches the dispute about "force" that libertarians frequently bring up: trying to stigmatize the "initiator of force" and ignoring the fact that such a label is often just a matter of clever perspective. After all, if someone tries to take your television and you shoot them to stop them, a libertarian would say that they initiated force by forcefully violating your property rights, whereas almost anyone else would say that the person who employed the violence was the first to initiate force. It's a clever way of assigning guilt to anyone who disagrees with their ideals.--^talk 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

moved response to my talk pageLogicMaster777 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statism is a religion

moved to Debate:Statism is a religion, second helpings 10:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution advocates taxation

The Constitution advocates taxation. Thus, it is statist, as government can only exist via taxation. Voluntary funding would not be taxation, and there would be no contention regarding consent. somethingsea (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does coercion matter, if it produces good consequences? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does slavery matter, if it produces good consequences? See what I did there? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In any democracy taxation is, effectively, an agreement as to what services the state should supply and how much we should pay for it. A classic is health care. US citizens have decided that they do not want state provided health care and will not vote for any politician who proposes it. In the UK any politician who advocates the dismantling of the NHS would never get elected. In broad brush terms government can only reflect the wishes of the population - otherwise it gets voted out. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you give consent if the method is involuntary? Can you refuse being taxed? Can you opt out? No. You can "go to Somalia" which equates to "fuck off if you don't like the system" and thus "go into the wilderness and live on your own", when that is both impractical, anti-social, and technically infeasible, to say nothing of being fallacious reasoning: If I disagree, I need to go away? Why? How does that logically follow? somethingsea (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Taxation is not voluntary in a micro sense, only in a macro sense. The people decide what they want to pay for through taxation and vote in the party which promises to implement it. In socialist countries the population chooses parties of high taxation in return for the social benefits provided. In more right-wing countries - the USA for example - the population have decided that they won't pay for a decent welfare state but prefer lower taxes. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The voters don't control what the politicians do once they're elected, though. And the electable parties only present a limited choice of political positions to the voters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think a government can only exist through taxation? There are multiple ways a government may acquire money, some coercive and some non-coercive. It can even cut out the middle man and use the threat of military force to get the products/services it requires instead of using money. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly can "cut out the middle man" of the illusion of consent held by the majority of people in regard to taxation by using the threat of military force. That is beside the point. The point is that people think taxation, which is the means by which government exists, is voluntary. If sheer military force were used to keep government in place, you would have no verbal room whatsoever to call it "voluntary". You would know it for the coercion that it is. somethingsea (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people consider taxation voluntary, they just tend to not question the government's authority to take some of their money at regular intervals. And since they don't have a choice, people like to frame their act of paying taxes as a conscious choice to support the community. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's crap. At least in the US the question of, or complaining about, taxes is one of the most popular past times. Taxes are not voluntary. You get the services and after the year ends you pay for it. You can't say it's theft that you have been billed after the service has been provided. You may disagree, or not like it, but you chose to be a part of that community by joining it and assuming those responsibilities of being a member. You have the choice to change it or move to a community that's values equal yours. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not like people don't regularly complain about taxes being too high over here in Europe, but the complete rejection of the idea of 'legitimate' taxation is pretty much unheard of. It's certainly true that the government provides a great number of services to citizens, but it's hard to deny that most of the taxed quantity doesn't depend on how extensively an individual citizen makes use of these services. As for "choosing" to be a part of a community and "having the choice" to move to other communities, you don't exactly get a choice what part of the world, and thus also which government's territory, you're born in. Moving to other regions is typically also a very expensive deal. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Insurance firms, while they may sometimes lower or raise your premium, also don't accurately track "how extensively an individual [customer] makes use of [their] services" - that's pretty much the idea of pooling resources and spreading risks, whether through insurance or taxation. It's the same reason the joint stock company was developed, btw.

Moving may be expensive, but you do have that option if you don't like the system (I have heard of, usually quite well off, not to say rich, people leaving Scandinavia for countries with a tax rate more to their liking, for instance). No one is actually forcing you to remain in the country of your birth, but you just don't stand much of a chance of moving to a place where taxation is wholly absent.

A complete absence of taxation is usually not a sign of a well functioning community/society; if there are no taxes, chances are that you're in some sort of anarchy (not the kind envisioned by anarchism, though) and you're likely to end up either dead, robbed, paying a lot for security, or paying "protection money". ScepticWombat (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is "etatism" a thing?

And if so is it the same as "statism"? Or is it different? If it is different, how does it differ? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be another word for the same thing. Mcc1789 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned thaen? Also should its propaganda use on the right wing be mentioned? I.e. the belief that it means a quasi-religious belief in the state as a positive good in all fields and not a necessary evil in some fields? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Statism advocates not for a state, but for higher degree of state's involvement in citizens' life

> Statism is the ideology that the existence of a state, i.e. a government, is necessary for the proper function of most societies

Yeah, and Nationalism is the ideology that the existence of a nation is necessary (no, not really). Though the definition is vague, people don't consider classical liberals, who view state's purpose in controlling violence, statist.

By statism or etatism people understand inclinations towards deep involvement of the government in citizens economic, sexual and other life and activities.

Thinking that the government should defend private property usually is not considered statist, while views that government should force people to be involved in, say, sport activities, are definitely statist. ^{— Unsigned, by: 85.206.163.145 / talk / contribs}

Statists are constrasted with less statist people, and since there aren't many genuine anarchists around, that means the name will normally be used at those who want a big state. Just as those called nationalists are normally very pro-nation, rather than just wanting any kind of nation, because people who want the abolition of all nations are generally viewed as cranks. But you can be a weak statist or a strong one, just as you can be a weak egalitarian or a strong one. --Annanoon (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)