Statism: use the state as a means to an end

[Black_Rose]

In order to have some discussion on the concept of statism, it would be necessary to clearly define what is statism. In the context of this thread, statism simply is the position of advocating the use of the authority of a sovereign state to achieve certain goals. This definition alone, without any modifying adjectives, simply is descriptive and has no positive or negative connotation nor does it indicate political or ideological affiliation. According to this definition, most people, even self-identified libertarians, are indeed statists; they advocate using the power of the state as a means for achieving certain ends, usually ends that advance their own self-interest. Libertarians and occidental conservatives tend to oppose statism in the economic realm, arguing that statism is inherently coercive because it violates the liberty and rights of responsible citizens to engage in voluntary economic transactions and their property rights, while affirming that state has a legitimate function in upholding property rights through a legal system, providing for police and a national defense, and maintaining the value of money through a central bank. Cultural conservatives are also statists since they advocating using the state to uphold certain values such as “the five non-negotiables”. Social democrats are inherently statists since they hold that one of the state’s responsibility is the material welfare of its citizens. Needless to say, the reason why people advocate statism is because they are cognizant that uncoordinated human action is unable to accomplish a specific goal, while using the state can facilitate the fulfillment of these goals. For example, social democrats who are primarily concerned with the welfare of the working class and working poor, know that private, voluntary charity is an ineffective means to improve the material living standards of the poor, and that a welfare state offers financial security and generous benefits.

Concerning abortion, pro-lifers do not just argue that abortion is immoral, but that the state should also prohibit it or at least erect barriers for pregnant women from aborting their expectant child. While these sanctions would not completely abolish the procedure of abortion, they expect that it would reduce abortions since people would have various negative disincentives of providing or receiving an abortion such as punishment. By adopting this position, pro-lifers implicitly acknowledge that a substantial minority of people do not share their position and these people would exercise their ability to have an abortion if it aligns with their perceived best interests and the circumstances of pregnancy. In order to impose their values on the disagreeing minority, they want to use the coercive apparatus of the state to enforce anti-abortion policies. It is difficult to predict the impact and consequences of such a policy, but it would seem likely that people would try to circumvent these sanctions. For instance, the prohibition of alcoholic beverages is difficult to enforce during the Prohibition Era of the United States, from enactment of the 18th Amendment in 1920 to its repeal by the 21st Amendment in 1933. It would be profitable for a criminal enterprise to take advantage of the restriction of the supply of alcohol by its illegality and forcefully imposing a monopoly by eliminating other suppliers, often with violent means. This lead to rise of organized crime during the Prohibition Era Drug cartels also follow this model.

This thread is not specifically about abortion; it is merely offered as an example which many people on the forum are familiar with. So when does statism become appropriate (or not appropriate)?

Some additional links:
The failed-state cancer. About the failure of statism in the economic realm and geopolitical trends.

rationalist.com.au/archive/77/p2-7_AR77_web.pdf (discusses neoliberal perspectives on private charity and welfare and Australian politics)

 

[ManOnFire]

It’s a shame that more people can’t see that We The People are simply choosing to rebel against the Rules for living a successful life. The feelgooder in us doesn’t want to listen to God or our parents, so we are tempted to choose less responsibility. This leads the masses of individuals to bail out on individual responsibility, e.g. weak men run from their pregnant woman because they love themselves more than their woman or their unborn child. Ironically, many individuals who are free willingly denying their parents’ and the Church’s Rules are ASKING for a new master, the State. It’s funny how they currently have the FREEDOM to free willingly choose Righteousness and Sacrifice if only they could have appreciated it more, but instead, the masses of feelgooders will choose to be DOMINATED by yet unrealized State restrictions. Someday, people will regret it, but for now, it’s the feelgoodest path. The Left knows this shedding of individual responsibility will lead to a financial burden that is only going to grow out of control, so it’s answer is abortion. The Right wants people to think about what’s REALLY going on here: Pop culture media panders to the feelgooder in all of us, but on the other hand, Rules and Truth don’t change. We cannot ride the proverbial fence between these diametric opposites for too long.

It’s Time to free willingly choose, before there is no longer a choice. People who grow up without parental or the Church’s Rules are being raised by the Culture for now. The Culture has realized that feelgooders are addicted to feeling good, so they can be controlled by shallow amusements of lust, drugs, etc, until voters free willingly elect the State to take over and free will is gone. The Culture is not in the business of innocence, True Love, Rules, etc. It seems our only recourse is to organize a boycott of pop culture media, which is currently dictating society’s values, before it’s too late.

 

[Black_Rose]

It’s a shame that more people can’t see that We The People are simply choosing to rebel against the Rules for living a successful life. The feelgooder in us doesn’t want to listen to God or our parents, so we are tempted to choose less responsibility. This leads the masses of individuals to bail out on individual responsibility, e.g. weak men run from their pregnant woman because they love themselves more than their woman or their unborn child. Ironically, many individuals who are free willingly denying their parents’ and the Church’s Rules are ASKING for a new master, the State. It’s funny how they currently have the FREEDOM to free willingly choose Righteousness and Sacrifice if only they could have appreciated it more, but instead, the masses of feelgooders will choose to be DOMINATED by yet unrealized State restrictions. Someday, people will regret it, but for now, it’s the feelgoodest path. The Left knows this shedding of individual responsibility will lead to a financial burden that is only going to grow out of control, so it’s answer is abortion. The Right wants people to think about what’s REALLY going on here: Pop culture media panders to the feelgooder in all of us, but on the other hand, Rules and Truth don’t change. We cannot ride the proverbial fence between these diametric opposites for too long.

Ok, so what’s really going on? Could you try to be more coherent? But welfare statism does not abolish responsibility itself, it just replaces individual responsibility with collective responsibility. It does not promote rash self-centered individualism; however it does require on collective obligations. Without its citizens sharing camaraderie or amity, the welfare state would collapse. Thus the welfare state must nurture the bonds among its citizens and curb individual excess.

 

[ManOnFire]

Ok, so what’s really going on? Could you try to be more coherent? But welfare statism does not abolish responsibility itself, it just replaces individual responsibility with collective responsibility. It does not promote rash self-centered individualism; however it does require on collective obligations. Without its citizens sharing camaraderie or amity, the welfare state would collapse. Thus the welfare state must nurture the bonds among its citizens and curb individual excess.

Coincidentally, I expanded here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7016390#post7016390

I’ll cut and paste my response here, but it might not make as much sense in the context of the other thread.:

Personally, I think it’s best to be balanced around 50% Heart / 50% Head. Hearts and Heads know the Truth will set us free.

The problem with people who are mostly Heart is that they can be too emotional and irrational. For example, it’s easy to extend Goodwill emotions by voting to increase taxes to help others. This can actually be dangerous to democracy in the absense of increased standards for behavior. If pop culture media keeps weakening men into lust machines who turn women into sex-and-run victims, the financial burden on society becomes too great, the country goes bankrupt, and an atheist socialist dictator takes over.

Of course, many Heart people’s knee jerk reaction is not to believe it can happen because it’s just too scary (Heart) to choose to think (Head) about the financial facts. Logically, those on the Left think (Head) abortion is the answer. The Hearts are calling for Salvation via Increased Standards for Behavior (the Catholic Church’s Rules: no premarital recreational sex, so one doesn’t turn more women into sex-and-run victims and increase society’s financial burden), but the far Left Leadership is implicitly against the promotion of religion as the answer. Most Regressives (I can’t bring myself to call them Progressives) don’t believe in God. They are more powerful by having dominion over reduced, unromantic sheeple who can be led around like a ring through a bull’s nose via pop culture’s promotion of the basic instincts of recreational sex and chemical brain pleasurism. Strong, deeply spiritual people can’t be dominated. Without increasing standards for behavior, we’re in a slow descent. But since we can’t and shouldn’t impose religion on people, what can we do? We can organize to change the culture, which is really the media. The media’s influence is universal to all strata of society. It can elevate, or it can reduce society into simpletons who are tempted to act on basic instincts.

Some Hearts keep chanting “We need more money,” in the name of Goodwill wishes, are not only wrong, they’re actually guilty of ENABLING more low standards for society’s behavior, since the cycle continues. WHy do they do this? Because it’s EASY to feel good as a well-wisher, without looking at who one is hurting. Is justice served when the taxpayer cannot afford to send his child to a better college while those receiving aid are finding money for drugs and fancy fingernails??? It feels better (Heart) to dream of those who you helped, by voting to give other people’s money away, instead of who is hurt (social justice). It’s easy and lazy to dream that all tax money comes from people living in mansions. If you disagree with me, ask yourself why. The media has attempted to define social justice, and to dream well wishes. Dreams don’t pay the bills. How can anyone rationally believe (Head) that it’s fair to enable recipients of taxpayers’ income to find enough money for drugs and fancy fingernails? If you want to elevate people, then we need to limit their exposure to the poisonous temptations and messages in pop culture that lure people astray.

Voting to take money from responsible individuals to give to people who find money for drugs and fancy fingernails is actually intellectually lazy (Head) and unfair, because the well-wisher wanted to feel good and righteous, without personally sacrificing anything. One can make the argument that it’s almost selfish and based on jealousy, while voting for the government to force others to sacrifice. When the recipients of taxpayer money realize how dumb the public is for supporting drug use and fancy fingernails, they will only chant louder, more often, and more passionately. I can’t blame them. If I could receive free a something-for-nothing simply by chanting, I would probably do the same.

 

[ManOnFire]

Black Rose,

You seem to want to fantasize about taking money from a few wealthy individuals who are indulging in excess. This is not reality considering the threats of all these new taxes in the U.S. I see both irresponsibility on one end as well as gluttony on the other end as problems.

The answer seems to be responsible individualism. Catholicism’s rules are a System for responsible individualism. For those who rebelled against the rules and failed to see their utility, or for those who mever learned them properly, we cannot force people into religion, nor should we. So, my proposal for a secular solution, for those who refuse to open their minds to a romantic 2000 year old system for Love and Life, is to reduce those in need from attempts by the Regressives to reduce people into simpletons who are addicted to shallow amusements, is to REDUCE people’s exposure to pop culture media’s attempts to enslave. Human beings are worth waaay more than that. Mine is just a secular solution.

 

[Black_Rose]

I really do not see what is necessarily wrong with fancy fingernails, but I most certainly do not consider it an entitlement or right for females. (I am not the type of person who has fancy nails since I rarely paint my finger and toenails, but I am somewhat concerned with the appearance of my hair.) Surely one can deem it be a frivolous expenditure, promoting one’s vanity by augmenting one’s without fulfilling any real psychological or physical need, but I do see something positive coming from a demand for fancy fingernails. Consider a beauty salon that is currently struggling with low demand, if people demand manicures, then they might patronize the beauty salon, thus increasing the demand for the services provided by the workers of that salon. These customers would be able to pay the proprietor and owner of the salon, allowing them to live a dignified life since they can acquire the funds for their necessary expenses without the humiliation and stigmatization of charity. (Personally, I am the type of person who would get the get additional work on my hair such as highlights from a beauty salon if I observe that business is rather slow. I do consider the highlights to be frivolous in this sense, but I do not consider it to be an expense.)

I do not see how the pursuit of sensual gratification and hedonism is the essence of social democracy and other left political philosophies. Certainly some who crave that may use left-wing political movements and parties as a vehicle for fulfilling their desires, but the same can be said with right-wing parties too. You seem to construct a caricature, although not explicitly, of welfare statism. You seem to think that the philosophy of the welfare state promotes hedonism where the state (and the taxpayers funding it) becomes the servant of hedonists that enables them to find satisfaction of their capricious and whimsical desires. According to this interpretation, the state encourages people to renege their individual responsibilities without suffering any adverse consequences since the state would assume to responsibility of providing for their material needs. Because the state would provide for one’s material welfare, it would be unnecessary for individuals to proactively provide for themselves and their families by exercising personal responsibility. It is easy to image how such a system would inevitable collapse. But welfare statism does not abolish the responsibility of providing for one’s individual needs, just that the responsibility has been shifted away from the individual to the collective. As a result, a welfare state needs to foster, nurture, and emphasize different values compared to a sovereign nation embracing free market capitalism. Well-known examples include the Horatio Alger literature targeted towards children and Max Weber’s thesis of the “Protestant work ethic”. Values essential to the proper functioning and popular conformity, not necessarily adulation and consent, of capitalism include private property, liberty (defined as non-interference), thrift, individual responsibility, frugality, and diligent work. A necessary but not sufficient condition of the perpetuation of the welfare state is the populace’s embrace of the strong bonds of community. To strengthen these bonds among the citizens, it is essential that the values such as friendship, amity, and egalitarianism are promoted and transmitted through culture and the conduct of the citizens. Because a welfare state needs consenting citizens whose interests are integrated with the welfare of the community, the citizens have to sympathize and empathize with each other and take consideration of the interest of their fellow citizens, not act selfishly as detached, atomized individuals.

Communitarian values are not necessarily the antithesis of the bourgeois values of capitalism or repressive traditional values that regulate sexual relations and promote deference to authority figures in order to ossify social hierarchical structure. It is just that communitarian values prioritize different values in order to achieve the end of communal welfare, but they are not inherently antagonistic towards capitalist or traditional values in their entirety.

For example, communitarian values put a relatively low priority on the values of thrift and hard work, but that does not mean it dismisses the importance of those values nor does it promote their antonyms such as profligacy, decadence, and sloth. Also, in some situations, the values of thrift and frugality have a rather pernicious effect on the public welfare. Perhaps, this is also influenced by economic considerations such as the paradox of thrift famously popularized by John Maynard Keyes (also reflected in my paragraph about “fancy fingernails”). Keynes argued that while the value of thrift maybe beneficial individually during times of prosperity, it would be detrimental if individual participants of the market economy concertedly embracing this value during a recession or depression. This adverse effect would occur because a higher propensity to save would negatively affect aggregate demand, which, in turn, would cause incomes to drop throughout the economy. And since savings is a function income, because incomes would drop, ironically, it may result in equal or less total savings in the economy despite a higher marginal propensity to save. Additionally, the welfare state does not mean abolition of the institution of private property; to the contrary in actual, contemporary welfare states, property rights are indeed respected by the state, but not venerated as sacrosanct.

 

[Black_Rose]

Also the welfare state does not aggressively attack traditional values such as chastity and the family. The family is indeed important, but unlike the values of community, it does not need the affirmation of the state, since people would naturally gravitate to providing for their families. Furthermore, there does not seem to be anything inherently contradictory with the operation of the welfare state and monogamy. It seems that cultural taboos discouraging premarital sexual intercourse could exist harmoniously with the welfare state. But since communitarianism is inherently egalitarian, it is not perfectly compatible with the notion of social hierarchy.

Here, maybe you would enjoy reading this: you seem to have the mentality of a Confucian.