- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Statism (or etatism) is a term assigned to political movements and trends that are seen as supporting the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-0
Ok, so I have seen several posts where someone will dismiss another person's argument because they are a statist, so I looked up the definition and I fail to see why its a basis for dismissing an argument. It looks like another definition of liberalism to me :shrug:
Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, so I have seen several posts where someone will dismiss another person's argument because they are a statist, so I looked up the definition and I fail to see why its a basis for dismissing an argument. It looks like another definition of liberalism to me :shrug:
That would explain why it was dismissed. You answered your own question.
Ahh, so it should be dismissed if you don't happen to agree with the philosophical outlook. Noted.
Well, that depends on the context of the conversation and why it's dismissed.
If something is said to be logically wrong simply because it's statist, that's not legitimate.
If you're arguing for the best policy, dismissing something because it's statist, or whatever other philosophical reasons, is perfectly legit. No different from dismissing something because it's racist.
I would think that the most important aspect of the discussion of a policy is if it achieves what you want it to achieve, not which philosophical school it comes from.
I would think that the most important aspect of the discussion of a policy is if it achieves what you want it to achieve, not which philosophical school it comes from.
Not really, the whole "ends justify the means" argument is not always correct, especially when the "means" takes actions against the rights and liberties of the individual. And that's where the danger of statist arguments are. It presumes proper government action in many areas which would innately infringe upon the rights of the individual. There are many things we can properly use government for. However, government isn't the end all be all of power, and it is restricted to abide by the rights and liberties of the individual.
In many cases the means are the ends. for example the end result of a policy choice could be an attempt to restore rights to the individual from another entity such as the state or corporations. However, we should still be attempting to discuss the policy itself.
So? that's not always the case.
If the acheivement of certain ends require a violation of principles that could later be abused, the ends should be reevaluated.
Usually a new policy is not required, it's just the first thing lawmakers always consider (big surprise there). Many problems can be fixed simply by repealing old laws or actually enforcing those that already exist.
I cannot think of a principal that is not subject to abuse by immoral people.
So? that's not always the case.
If the acheivement of certain ends require a violation of principles that could later be abused, the ends should be reevaluated. Usually a new policy is not required, it's just the first thing lawmakers always consider (big surprise there). Many problems can be fixed simply by repealing old laws or actually enforcing those that already exist.
In many cases the means are the ends. for example the end result of a policy choice could be an attempt to restore rights to the individual from another entity such as the state or corporations. However, we should still be attempting to discuss the policy itself.
You are right, it is not always the case, which is why the policy itself should be the thing looked at.
In many cases the means are the ends. for example the end result of a policy choice could be an attempt to restore rights to the individual from another entity such as the state or corporations. However, we should still be attempting to discuss the policy itself.
If the state isn't granted the power in the first place, it can't be abused. Thus, you see the objection to statism.
And no, the ends and the means are not one and the same, not even often.
Unless, for you, implementing the means IS the end. Which would mean implementing statism for its own sake. Which I absolutely dismiss out of hand.
Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, so I have seen several posts where someone will dismiss another person's argument because they are a statist, so I looked up the definition and I fail to see why its a basis for dismissing an argument. It looks like another definition of liberalism to me :shrug:
Either way. The essential theme I see in all of the above posts is that government power is automatically bad. Personally, I see it as a possible force for good or bad, just like individual power. The determination is in how it is used, not who wields it. Is there a better argument or is that it?
You misunderstand. It isn't that "government power is automatically bad," but that government power is inherrently dangerous, and must operate within strict guidelines. Also, it cannot solve all problems, nor is it even a tool to be used to solve most problems. It has its functions within limits which should not be overstepped.
All power is inherently dangerous. Whenever someone has the advantage over another there is potential for abuse. Why is government different?
The essential theme I see in all of the above posts is that government power is automatically bad. Personally, I see it as a possible force for good or bad, just like individual power. The determination is in how it is used, not who wields it. Is there a better argument or is that it?
\And you might say "well, all power is inherrently dangerous." That's true, and it's the very reason we have a government for protection. When a private entity oversteps, the government protects our rights. When the govermnent oversteps we are SOL. That's why the power of a state is the most dangerous and most in need of being checked on a regular basis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?