Statism: An Unfalsifiable Religion

[Cold Highway]

Libertarians frequently argue that government entities are recompensed for failure, not by going out of business, but by having their budgets increased. A bloated educational bureaucracy churns out illiterates despite spending thousands of dollars per pupil every year, and “public education” advocates call for more education spending. The U.S. government acts as policeman for global corporate capitalism and churns up the resentment of people all over the world, and when the resulting blowback causes thousands of American deaths the national security state’s amen choir immediately demands more foreign interventionism and more “defense” [sic] spending.

As Ivan Illich put it, bureaucracies solve problems by escalation. For example, government builds subsidized freeways and provides subsidized water and sewer infrastructure to outlying developments — and then deals with the increased sprawl by proposing new subsidized roads to “relieve congestion,” or a sales tax on the public at large to pay for expanding sewer capacity. Before long, the local Growth Machine wonders why the new roads are filling up with new congestion from the strip malls and subdivisions that sprang up at every single exit.

People need to learn that the government if inherently evil, all it does is steal, intimidate, oppress and murder. Trusting the government to do everything always results your run of the mill citizen getting ****ed over.

Statism: An Unfalsifiable Religion

 

[haymarket]

I have never heard any person claim the title of statist. People self identify as many things - Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive Tea partyier, Libertarian, Anarchist etc. But the only time I ever see STATIST used is as an intentional slur intended as an exaggerated insult against somebody who accepts the necessity of a governmental system.

As such I tend to dismiss the crap that follows the term as something to simply flush away.

 

[VF500]

People need to learn that the government if inherently evil, all it does is steal, intimidate, oppress and murder. Trusting the government to do everything always results your run of the mill citizen getting ****ed over.

Statism: An Unfalsifiable Religion

First the government proves it's totally incompetent (name any agency or department, say the DMV for example) then it's given more responsibility over a larger segment of the population. What could go wrong with that? When Obama gets done, everything will be like going down to get new licence plates.

 

[haymarket]

First the government proves it's totally incompetent (name any agency or department, say the DMV for example) then it's given more responsibility over a larger segment of the population. What could go wrong with that? When Obama gets done, everything will be like going down to get new licence plates.

Now see - that is just plain weird because obtaining license plates where I live is a piece of cake and no problem at all. And its the government who does it.

 

[Henrin]

Market failures are taken as evidence that we need a regulatory state, but regulatory failures are used as a pretext for even more government. We need government to restrain human nature, because human beings are ignorant and corrupt, and tend to feather their own nests. But government, apparently, is constructed from a less crooked timber — perhaps the angels that Madison wrote about in The Federalist. People ask, “How would voluntary institutions in a stateless society prevent something like the BP oil spill?” I don’t know — how did government prevent it?

This kind of **** annoys me to no end.

 

[Kandahar]

As Ivan Illich put it, bureaucracies solve problems by escalation. For example, government builds subsidized freeways and provides subsidized water and sewer infrastructure to outlying developments — and then deals with the increased sprawl by proposing new subsidized roads to “relieve congestion,” or a sales tax on the public at large to pay for expanding sewer capacity. Before long, the local Growth Machine wonders why the new roads are filling up with new congestion from the strip malls and subdivisions that sprang up at every single exit.

This is so unbelievably stupid that I can't believe a usually intelligent poster wasted my time with it...

So just to clarify, are you saying that the private sector would provide for highways, sewer, and water infrastructure, in the absence of government? (Yes, I know you didn't write it, but you posted it so I'm assuming you agree with the gist of it.) If so, what is to keep people from free riding? It would be too expensive for me to build a road just to my house...and if there are other people living on the street, I'll just let some other sucker pay for the road. Same with sewer and water. Furthermore, the private sector has the profit incentive to cut corners on ALL of those things. And let's look at the empirical evidence: I don't see much private infrastructure being built in the parts of the world where government doesn't provide it, or where government does an inadequate job of providing it...

I find it ironic that someone can claim that non-anarchists are part of a religion because we actually want to look pragmatically at what systems are likely to work best...while posting nothing but dogmatic libertarian talking points which have been adopted wholesale as articles of faith.

 

[Henrin]

I have never heard any person claim the title of statist. People self identify as many things - Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive Tea partyier, Libertarian, Anarchist etc. But the only time I ever see STATIST used is as an intentional slur intended as an exaggerated insult against somebody who accepts the necessity of a governmental system.

As such I tend to dismiss the crap that follows the term as something to simply flush away.

Do you think many liberals have faith in humanity or faith in government to bypass humanity?

1)Do they think people are dumb?
2)Do they think rich people are people of success or people that have earned more than they deserve through and through corruption?
3)Do they think people can take care of themselves?
4)Do they think people decisions must be controled?

Answers:
1)dumb
2)got their wealth through corruption and got more than they deserve
3)No
4)Yes

You want to say they aren't statist? I disagree.

If you can show me an area they think the government isn't the answer I'm all ears. Until then I'm going to have to go with my conclusion.

 

[Partisanhack]

Maybe we should return to a more civilized time in history when there was no government and everyone lived together in peace and harmony.

 

[haymarket]

Henrin asks me questions and is nice enough to also provide my answers

1)Do they think people are dumb?
2)Do they think rich people are people of success or people that have earned more than they deserve through and through corruption?
3)Do they think people can take care of themselves?
4)Do they think people decisions must be controled?

Answers:
1)dumb
2)got their wealth through corruption and got more than they deserve
3)No
4)Yes

If you want my honest answers instead of your own strawmen

1 - some folks are very smart, some kind of smart, some average and some dumb
2- rich people have earned their money in many different ways and no one way applies to all
3- some are very capable , some are less capable, some are not very capable at all, some are incapable
4- which decisions are you talking about? One has to know the specifics before answering such an overly broad question. Do I want people to make their own decisions about which side of the highway to drive on? Absolutely not. Do I want people to make their own decisions about family planning. You betcha. So you need to be specific because the answer will vary greatly.

You see, my answers are not your answers in any way shape or form.

 

[Paschendale]

Did I fall asleep for a while and wake up in a world where the US government is not made up of members of the electorate? Specifically, the wealthiest members of the electorate? But that digression aside, government is not a faceless monolith. It's a bunch of people. Whom we ostensibly elected. If our electorate were better educated and less influenced by the loudmouths on TV, perhaps we'd elect better leaders. But let me address the core principals of anarchy. My car is presently 400 miles away from me, since I'm visiting my folks for Christmas. I rely on the rule of law to ensure that it will be there when I get back. And to ensure that someone else hasn't moved into my house while I was away.

 

[haymarket]

from Paschendale

Did I fall asleep for a while and wake up in a world where the US government is not made up of members of the electorate?

No you did not. It is still there safe and sound for all of us. But you did stumble into yet another in along and never ending series of repetitive threads started to forward right wing ideas.

 

[Henrin]

If you want my honest answers instead of your own strawmen

Strawmen? No, I'm going by your policies, your words, and your actions. You can say I'm wrong, but you also must show it.

1 - some folks are very smart, some kind of smart, some average and some dumb

Give me an example where people are smart enough to not handle the situation on their own? Do you understand your policies punish all people as if they are dumb? Do you understand that liberals never speak of people as anything but worthless sacks that need help or are greedy bastards? Do you understand the problem with that?

2- rich people have earned their money in many different ways and no one way applies to all.

What are the acceptable means to you? Can people earn however much they can or do you want to go back to the percentages of riches shared?

3- some are very capable , some are less capable, some are not very capable at all, some are incapable.

Your policies tell me no one is capable and all must be protected from their lack of ability. Can you show me I'm wrong? dumb safety laws(like seat belts), banning of substances, controlling of food, controlling of industry? Where are we capable? From what I see we aren't capable of keeping ourselves safe, we aren't capable of not partaking in substances, we aren't capable of keeping ourselves healthy, we aren't capable of controlling industry? Where are we a capable as a society? From all I see you guys are only interested in control of the human condition. Show I'm wrong.

4- which decisions are you talking about? One has to know the specifics before answering such an overly broad question. Do I want people to make their own decisions about which side of the highway to drive on? Absolutely not. Do I want people to make their own decisions about family planning. You betcha. So you need to be specific because the answer will vary greatly.

There is a line that must be clearly drawn. You haven't shown me where it is.

 

[haymarket]

why do you
1- ask me questions
2- tell me "my" answers written by you
3- then I write my real answers and you read my real answers
4- then argue with my answers telling me they are wrong?

Is there some point to this other than you trying to tell me what I think and it is not what I think but you tell me so anyways? If you can reproduce posts I have made on these issues where I said otherwise, please reproduce them in my own words. In the absence of that, I would appreciate it if you would let me post my own ideas in my own words.