Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Statism Is a Sickness

  1. #1

    Statism Is a Sickness

    Statism Is a Sickness

    By Scott Lazarowitz

    From the recent debt ceiling hysterics, we have seen just how dysfunctional America is now, as the Establishment satisfies its short-term, immediate-gratification needs at the expense of the people and future generations.

    Every subsequent day is increasingly depressing and discouraging, with one news item after another how the controlling rulers in Washington are just rearranging the deck chairs and kicking the can further down the road. Out of the rulers' own narcissistic selfishness, greed and self-absorption, they continue to increase our financial insecurity and enslavement, and increase the risk of total economic collapse and societal ruin and chaos.

    America has been falling apart for some time, and is committing suicide now. But most Americans, oblivious to the realities around them, are unaware that they are killing themselves — with dependence, debt, serfdom — with their statism sickness.

    America's sickness is statism: the anti-liberty, anti-property, immoral philosophy in which people may act aggressively against and enslave their neighbors and covet wealth and property with impunity, and that's it in a nutshell.

    The use of the State, with its compulsory monopoly powers of aggression, has enabled the people to realize their infantile, primitive drives without regard to the lives, liberty or property of others. Statism is the sickness that has made criminals out of decent people. And statism is the sickness with which society has afflicted itself to ruin itself.

    Statism is a pathology of human thought and behavior that causes people to passively and obediently lie on the ground while the rulers and their obedient servants walk all over the people, and enslave their labor and torture them with impunity.

    What is terrifying is the coinciding of the possible coming economic collapse and the steadily strengthening police state in America.

    The Growing Big Brother Police State and Its Subservient Supporters

    Thanks to the police state that George W. Bush greatly expanded, people are sheepishly going through high radiation-emitting scanners at airports, putting themselves at higher risk of cancer, and for no reason except to serve the profits of the scanners' makers, and to serve the porn-lusting cravings of the pervs who get off on the nude images they're seeing. Or, the obedient serfs get groped and molested in their most private parts. And that's at the airports, although the "security" statists are taking it to the train stations and bus depots — and shortly this example of the statism sickness will be at the malls, theaters, and, maybe even in your neighborhood on street corners. Government police bureaucrats are already sending out vans to x-ray other vehicles on the streets, and I'm sure they are using those x-ray vans to peek into private homes.

    There are already "Smart Meters," the new type of electric meters that enable the electric company, and obviously the government, to keep every aspect of your private home life under surveillance. And, the police are now attaching GPS devices underneath cars to track the owner even without any suspicion of crimes.

    Is it fair to refer to George Orwell as a "prophet"?

    People who know and understand history and human nature can see what's coming, and it is not good, and that is what is so terrifying. We have a homeland "security" chief, Janet Napolitano, who wants people to "say something if you see something," so she is encouraging the people to "rat out" their neighbors. Napolitano is encouraging brownshirts, frankly, and this will lead us to a situation in which, when some people don't like their neighbors, they will leave anonymous tips to the government. Yes, this will happen, because we know what kind of bitter, malicious people there are now in America, especially in this economic downturn, a period of high unemployment and increasing social unrest.

    And there will be plenty of people who will think there is wrongdoing going on next door or in their neighborhood, because of a misunderstanding or because something innocent occurred that was taken entirely out of context. For example, a homeschooling family is being tormented by the government because of an anonymous tipster. And a man in New Hampshire committed suicide by immolation because of the State's campaign against him, and against fathers and the family in general.

    The attitude of many government officials, police and military personnel is very authoritarian now. People are getting arrested because of trivial, technical laws that anyone could unwittingly violate, and the police just go "by the book." And because "it's policy," firefighters stand by and watch a house burn to the ground, or watch a man slowly drown in the ocean.

    "The Law" is now being used now to harass the people, collect money for the State, and to act as ego-reinforcements for the goons in blue with badges and guns.

    They are arresting people merely for feeding the homeless, for other nonsensical reasons, and for engaging in political activism. A woman in an Arizona town was arrested at a public meeting merely for pointing certain things out during her time to speak. Now, that town is a dictatorship, apparently. And elsewhere, a woman has been charged with the misdemeanor of "unlawfully entering a school bus," which she did because she believed her little boy might've been ill.

    There no longer seems to be any common sense, there are too many laws and regulations on the books, and our culture has become one in which those in positions of State authority take their power and authority way too seriously.

    An example of the gradually increasing corruption of society's law enforcers is the issue of videotaping police. The good cops don't mind being videotaped. The ones who don't like it and react violently toward the videotaping are the ones who know they may possibly (or probably) be violating someone's rights. They are like cockroaches scurrying away when you turn on the light.

    Unfortunately, the job of police officer naturally seems to attract narcissists and psychopaths. The job attracts people who like to have power over others, and who like to bully other people around, be above the law and get away with it. In a nutshell, the job attracts those who are inclined toward criminal behavior, and who are lacking in moral scruples. A government monopoly in community policing and security restricts free entry into that field, it gives the police an artificial authority, and such a monopoly reinforces unaccountability and encourages the bad behavior.

    The widespread mentality of those who are afflicted with the statism sickness is an authoritarian mentality, which is antithetical to the philosophy of individualism and to liberty. While I will not dwell on too many psychological analyses of the inner-workings of the typical statist — because I realize many readers are not interested in that — I will state my belief that many statists are conditioned in their childhood to identify with their abusive or neglectful caretakers, and they then transfer such an "unhealthy identity" onto their substitute parent authorities: the State. (And see here, here, and here.)The obedient statists become their tyrants. Believe it or not, some (perhaps many) people even desire to be belittled, treated like a baby, used as a punching bag by authority figures such as police, and, ultimately, tyrannized.

    As 20th Century novelist George Orwell wrote in his bestseller, 1984, from a dialogue between O'Brien and Winston (O'Brien speaking):

    "The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual….Alone — free — the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal…."

    Americans' deference to authority, particularly to governmental authority and police, has been reinforced for a century by their State-controlled education, which indoctrinates this identity with and obedience to the State.

    That statist indoctrination has discouraged individualism and has excused (or, in fact, promoted) the State's authoritarian sadism and cruelty. And as the individual's own sense of self-worth and motivation toward independence have been constantly crushed by the authoritarians of the government-controlled schools and universities, so many more people seem to be attracted to those positions of power and control that the State provides them: police, government bureaucrats, and especially, politicians driven toward the power of legislation, enforced by the policeman's guns and bullets.

    Our politicians now do not seem to care whom their legislation hurts, and they certainly do not care about putting America at greater risk with their irresponsible increasing debts. Most of our politicians value campaign contributions and votes from special interests to win elections far more than they care about principles. For example, regarding the issue of Israeli settlements at the expense of the Palestinians, Barney Frank, who privately opposed the settlements, was quoted to have said to anti-settlements anthropologist Jeff Halper,

    "I'm with you 100 percent… If you bring me the names of 5000 Jews in my district that support you, tomorrow morning I change my vote… If you can't do that… I'm not going to commit political suicide for the sake of the Palestinians…"

    And we have seen the pathological extent to which some politicians seem to have merged their identities with the all-mighty State, with delusions of grandeur and God-complexes, such as Sen. Charles Schumer and former President George W. Bush, for instance.

    Schumer has stated that he thinks God gave him the role of the U.S. Senate's protector of Israel:

    "You know, my name …. comes from the word shomer, guardian, watcher. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov. And I believe Hashem [Orthodox for God] actually gave me that name. One of my roles, very important in the United States senate, is to be a shomer — to be a or the shomer Yisrael."

    And George W. Bush believed that God chose him to run for president, and then Bush was on a faith-based "crusade" against terrorism. And with these politicians' delusions of grandeur has been the American people's deifying of the State.

    America's Militaristic and Economic Statism

    Because of the general ignorance of the majority of the American population — ignorance of what their own government had been doing to people in the Middle East for many decades prior to 9/11 — and because of their post-9/11 fears and panic that were exploited by U.S. government officials, the population "rallied around their president" after the terrorist attacks. The indoctrination of statism had caused the American people to support more U.S. government aggressions in the Middle East that have provoked a greater number of its inhabitants there, support a greater police state and infringement of their own rights at home, and support additional bankrupting bureaucracies, deficits and debt.

    Further, the authoritarian loyalty to the State practiced by many people in our society now causes them to react emotionally not to their own government's corruption and war crimes when exposed, but to a military whistleblower such as Bradley Manning, someone who allegedly exposed not secrets whose exposure could have harmed Americans or soldiers, but exposed the military's corruption and war crimes. Many people respond to that by wanting to punish or kill Manning, not to prosecute the criminals he had allegedly exposed. For a year, Manning, not having been convicted of any crime, has been held in solitary confinement, and has been treated with sleep deprivation and 23-hour-per day isolation. Manning is being treated worse than actual convicted spies.

    In the military, there are too many soldiers and officers now who actually sexually assault one another while their senior officers blame the ones who get assaulted. And we have seen just how sick some in the military are in their behavior at Abu-Ghraib and in groups such as the ritualistic "Kill Team."

    The American culture has been one in which most people had a good degree of self-respect and respect for others, and would condemn police, government or military abuse and corruption. Now, it is a culture in which police assaults against innocent civilians seem to be brushed aside.
    Those who openly condemn abusive police are referred to as "terrorists" in the same unjustified way that Tea Partiers are referred to as "terrorists" merely for opposing raising the debt ceiling.

    Economically, some of the sick cruelty in America has involved the compulsory powers of the State to prevent upward mobility and create impoverishment. For example, many people now know that it is not a good idea for low-and middle-income folks to purchase a home they can't afford with money they still won't have years down the road. And that it has been shown to be a bad idea for members of Congress to make legislation forcing banks and lenders to lend to those would-be homeowners, involving risks to the homeowners and to the banks.

    Supposedly, the government's forcibly "encouraging" the lending to high-risk borrowers was involved in the 2008 financial crisis (although some people disagree with that), but what banker or lender in his right mind would lend to someone he knows could never afford to own a home? Either an idiot or predator.

    And why would Congressman Barney Frank support expanding the legislation that encouraged the risk-taking, following the 2008 downturn? Frank and many of his fellow congressional and activist supporters of "affirmative action lending" that invites predatory lending that has now led to foreclosure fraud are not stupid, and would either have to know what they are doing, or they live in a total fantasy world, or they are sadists.

    Conclusion

    Western culture has seen a great evolution of advancements since the Enlightenment and the American Revolution, but because of the intrusions of the State and compulsory State apparatus (taxation, regulatory trespasses, central banks, wars of aggression, etc.), and because of decades of immediate-gratification selfishness, materialism and indebtedness, the West has been on a steady decline — a devolution.

    The irresponsible oinkers in Washington have raised the debt ceiling once again, and the Federal Reserve will go on to print more money and cause more price inflation that will lead to more impoverishment, crime and civil unrest. The criminal mob violence that some have predicted has begun at the Wisconsin State fair, and in England — those of the lower economic scale are committing wanton acts of violence because they can. That will be followed by an increasingly hungry and desperate middle class doing the same. Statism has caused the devolution of Western civilization.

    The statism sickness is de-civilizing our society, our culture, our world. And it is statism that will have been the main cause of the possible impending economic collapse.

    Besides Dr. Miller's prescription of Austrian Economics as the cure for economic illness, the cures for the statism that has caused so much suffering for America (and the world) are decentralization and a voluntary society of private property, total freedom of association and contract, and a return to common sense.

    We know that the statists of the ruling class will never let go of their powers. But can the cures be implemented solely by withdrawing consent and participation from the current compulsory State?

    Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/08/s...is-a-sickness/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Statism as defined by anarchists.

    No thanks.

    I would like to get rid of 98% of the government we have, but I do see a use for a tightly-controlled, very small government. I do not call that being statist. Apparently, you do. On this, we will have to agree to disagree.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  5. #4
    Statism is the belief that the civil government (or man via civil government) is the ultimate authority in the earth and as such is the source of law, morality, and righteousness (that which is right and wrong). Statism has manifested itself in different ways throughout history, and can be expressed through democratic and non-democratic governments alike.
    http://conservapedia.com/Statism

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Statism as defined by anarchists.

    No thanks.

    I would like to get rid of 98% of the government we have, but I do see a use for a tightly-controlled, very small government. I do not call that being statist. Apparently, you do. On this, we will have to agree to disagree.

    NM - just noticed it was Lew Rockwell post.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Well, there ya go. I don't think government is the ultimate authority.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    NM - just noticed it was Lew Rockwell post.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/ron-paul/

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Yeah, so? That doesn't prove your point at all.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Libertarianism is the best cure for statism.
    (Note: that does not include anarcho-capitalism)

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Statism as defined by anarchists.

    No thanks.

    I would like to get rid of 98% of the government we have, but I do see a use for a tightly-controlled, very small government. I do not call that being statist. Apparently, you do. On this, we will have to agree to disagree.
    Ugh...You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again. Oh well; at least you don't need it - "LibertyEagle has a reputation beyond repute."
    Last edited by Neil Desmond; 11-09-2013 at 10:39 PM.

  12. #10
    Libertarianism vs. Statism

    All of us have been born and raised within a statist box, one in which the federal government’s primary roles are to take care of people, regulate their economic activities, and maintain an overseas military empire that intervenes in the affairs of other countries.

    Both liberals and conservatives have come to accept this statist box as a permanent feature of American life. Even worse, they have convinced themselves that life in this statist box is actually freedom.

    What makes libertarians different from liberals and conservatives is that, although we too have been born and raised within the statist box, we have broken free of it, in an intellectual and moral sense. Moreover, unlike liberals and conservatives, we recognize that statism isn’t freedom at all. It’s the opposite of freedom. Genuine freedom, libertarians contend, entails a dismantling of the statist box in which we all live.

    Let’s set aside, for the purposes of this discussion, the warfare state, and consider the welfare state, which is an economic system in which the federal government taxes people in order to transfer the money to other people, after deducting hefty administrative costs associated with making those transfers.

    Welfare-state programs include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, subsidies, foreign aid, and bank bailouts. Every one of those programs involves the federal government’s forcible taking of people’s money in order to give it to other people.

    Most people living today have been raised with all or most of those programs. They are considered a core element of American life. While people often call for reforming the programs, hardly anyone other than libertarians questions the propriety of their existence. The attitude seems to be that the welfare state is here to stay and that we just need to continue devoting our efforts to trying to make it work and continue telling ourselves that it is equivalent to the free society.

    It is not surprising that most people view the welfare state as freedom. From their earliest years, American children are taught that they live in a free country. The message that America is a free country is repeated and reinforced in school five days a week for 12 years. Those who are sent into government schools (i.e., public schools) receive an extra-strength dose of the freedom message, oftentimes beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Those who resist the message are inevitably provided with such drugs as Ritalin or Adderall to make their minds more receptive to the official freedom message.

    So by the time American children are 18 years old, the vast majority of them have no doubts that they live in a free country. They may even find themselves singing, “I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.” At some events, they stand to proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which of course all of them will know by heart, even if they’re not aware that it was authored by an avowed socialist. Those who go to church on Sunday are exhorted by the minister to pray for the troops who are somewhere overseas protecting and defending the freedoms enjoyed by Americans.

    In the mindset of the average American, freedom entails having the government take care of people, which it does by having the IRS take money from those who own it and giving it to others. Presumably, the more the government takes care of people (and, therefore, the more money it takes from people), the freer Americans are. In other words, the more people are taken care of with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, subsidies, and aid, the freer the American people become.

    North Korea, Venezuela, and America

    Suppose we asked Americans whether, in their opinion, people living in North Korea are free. Most would say no. When asked why, most of them would respond, “Because North Korea is a communist dictatorship, not a democracy.”

    Very few Americans would focus on North Korea’s socialist economic system in framing their answer.

    Now, suppose Americans were asked the same question about people living in Venezuela. They might be tempted to say that Venezuelans are free because there are elections in Venezuela, ignoring the fact that a democratically elected ruler can be a dictator.

    Again, few Americans would focus on Venezuela’s socialist economic system in responding to a question that asks whether Venezuelans are free. It simply would not enter their minds.

    The fact is that North Korea and Venezuela have the same welfare-state programs as the United States: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, subsidies, and aid. And people in those countries are as convinced that all that welfare-statism is freedom as the average American is.

    This is one of the things that distinguish libertarians from statists. We oppose all welfare-state programs, including the crown jewels of the welfare state — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We favor the immediate termination of all those socialistic programs.

    The Libertarian Concept of Freedom

    Libertarians view freedom differently from statists. Our concept of freedom, in an economic sense, is as follows:

    We believe that people should be free to engage in any occupation or profession without any government-issued license, permit, or other form of official permission. Let consumers, not the government, decide who engages in different lines of work.

    We believe that people should be free to enter into mutually beneficial transactions with anyone else in the world, without interference by the government. That includes such things as hiring a housekeeper from Mexico and selling food to a Cuban.

    We believe that people should be free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and, equally important, to decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, invest, or donate it. Thus, we hold that people should be free to plan for their own retirement (or not), to donate to their church or other causes (or not), and to help out their elderly or ailing parents (or not).

    For us libertarians, that is what genuine freedom is all about, in terms of economic activity.

    Compare the statist interpretation of freedom, an interpretation that libertarians consider to be false, fraudulent, and counterfeit. The statist version of freedom holds that government, not the individual, is sovereign and supreme. If people want to engage in a line of work, they’ve got to ask the government for permission. The government restricts them from engaging in mutually beneficial transactions with others, through such devices as minimum-wage laws, trade restrictions, and immigration controls. Everybody’s income is subject to being taxed in any amount deemed proper by government officials and redistributed to others. People are forced to share their money with others, be it the elderly, the sick, or simply the politically privileged.

    Thus, when libertarians are asked whether they live in a free country, our answer is opposite to that of liberals and conservatives. Our answer is “no,” because an essential aspect of freedom is economic liberty. If people in a society don’t have economic liberty, then they cannot truly be considered free. And statists are not free merely because they think they are. A denial of reality, no matter how severe, doesn’t affect reality itself.

    It is how libertarians view freedom that befuddles and confuses, and sometimes even angers, American statists. They’re simply unable to comprehend how libertarians are able to honestly believe that Americans are not free. That’s because in the minds of American statists, it’s obvious that Americans are free. Everyone knows that the United States is a free country.

    The reason for this phenomenon is, again, that, while all of us are living within a statist box, most Americans have not been able to break out of the box, mentally speaking, and question and challenge the legitimacy of the statist box itself. Undoubtedly, that is in large part because of the powerful indoctrination that takes place in people’s formative years — a period in which their minds are molded so that they believe that the welfare state is, in fact, freedom. Thus, when a statist encounters a libertarian, who wants to bring freedom to America, the statist becomes confused, befuddled, and even angry because in his mind he’s already free, thanks to the welfare state.

    The Managed Economy

    Here’s another example of how different libertarians are from statists in the realm of economics — the concept of the managed economy. What is the standard debate that takes place between liberals and conservatives in the political arena? It is that the party in power has “mismanaged the economy.” Most of the time, the accusation is directed at the president. When President George W. Bush was causing federal spending and debt to soar through the roof, what did the Democrats say? “He’s mismanaging the economy!” And what have Republicans been saying about President Obama’s exorbitant federal spending and borrowing ever since he took office? “He’s mismanaging the economy!”

    The entire process is simply a game in which voters transfer power back and forth between the two wings of what is really just one big political party — the Statist Party.

    Sometimes, liberals and conservatives will ask libertarians, “What’s your plan for managing the economy?” Our answer: “We don’t have a plan for managing the economy,” which causes statists to go ballistic. They respond, “Oh, you libertarians are so impractical. How do you expect to win elections if you don’t have a plan for managing the economy?”

    Well, there is a very simple reason that libertarians don’t have a plan for managing the economy. We don’t believe that it’s a rightful role of government in a free society to manage the economy. We believe that people should be free to manage their own economic activity and that government should stay out of the process entirely.

    Thus, there are fundamental differences between libertarians and statists over the concept of freedom and the role of government in a free society.
    Statists hold that freedom entails the government’s having the power to seize money from people in order to take care of others and to manage and control economic activity.

    Libertarians, on the other hand, hold that freedom entails people’s having the right to manage their own economic activity in any way they want, including engaging in enterprise free of government control, accumulating unlimited amounts of wealth, and deciding for themselves what to do with it.
    Another big difference between libertarians and statists relates to morality. Liberals and conservatives see nothing wrong, in a moral sense, with government’s forcibly taking money from people in order to give it to other people. In fact, for both liberals and conservatives, the welfare state is the epitome of morality. The forcible seizure and redistribution of wealth, they say, actually reflects how good, caring, and compassionate the American people are.

    Libertarians hold the contrary. We say that it’s wrong for government to forcibly take money that belongs to one person in order to give it to another person. We call that stealing. And we say that stealing is immoral even when the thief puts what he steals to good use, such as funding the education of a poor student, helping a destitute elderly couple, or paying for a medical operation for a sick person.

    Interesting enough, statists would agree with libertarians when the stealing is done by a private thief. They would say that such theft is morally wrong, even when the money is used for some good purpose.

    The difference arises when government enters the picture. For the statist, what would ordinarily be considered to be an immoral act is suddenly converted into a moral act when the government is doing it. In other words, if the thief is a private person, the statist joins the libertarian in condemning the act. If the thief is the government, the statist praises the act, while the libertarian condemns it.

    Finally, we must consider the economic consequences of the welfare state and the managed economy. Imagine a spectrum that has libertarianism at one end and total statism at the other end. At the statist end, the government owns and controls everything, and everyone is working for the state. At the libertarian end, people engage in free enterprise (that is, enterprise free of government control or management), have the right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth (that is, no income taxation), and are free to decide what to do with their own money (that is, no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, subsidies, or other welfare-state programs).

    Drifting to Total Statism

    What liberals and conservatives fail to realize is that the totally statist society will be one that is on the verge of starvation. At the other end of the spectrum — the libertarian end — people will be enjoying the benefits of a rapidly growing, prosperous economy, one in which people are using their resources in different ways — consumption, saving, donating, et cetera.

    The reason for this economic outcome lies in savings and capital. When people are free to keep everything they earn, they inevitably save a part of it. Their savings provides the capital that businesses use to expand their operations. The expansion produces higher revenues and profits, enabling firms to pay higher wages. In that way, standards of living rise. In the totally statist society, where the state owns everything, private savings and capital are squeezed out of existence, thereby dooming everyone to a life of extreme impoverishment, possibly even starvation.

    In the middle of the spectrum are the welfare state and the managed economy, whereby the state attempts to extract sufficient wealth from the private sector to sustain its ever-growing welfare sector. What inevitably happens, however, is that the welfare sector becomes so large and so voracious that the private sector shrinks to a point where it cannot sustain the burden. The result is an environment of crisis and chaos, one in which people in the parasitic sector are demanding that the government do something to save them.

    Because statists are convinced they’re free, they inevitably blame the economic woes on freedom and free enterprise rather than on the government’s socialistic redistributive programs and its interventionist economic policies. Thus, statists call on the government to move further along the spectrum toward more government control over economic activity and wealth.

    It comes as no surprise then, that libertarians have an entirely different diagnosis of the problem. It’s the welfare-state programs and the interventionism that are the root of the economic woes, libertarians hold. The solution lies not in more government control but rather in more freedom. The solution lies in repealing the welfare-state programs and separating economy from the state.

    For decades, libertarians have been telling Americans that the welfare state is not freedom and that it would inevitably lead to economic hardship, maybe even destitution. Americans haven’t listened, in large part because their minds have been trapped within the statist mindset that was mostly molded during their 12 years of childhood schooling.

    Today, an increasing number of Americans are asking questions and challenging out-of-control federal spending, debt, and even inflation. Time will tell whether they’re able to do what libertarians have done — recognize the statist box for what it is, break free of it, and call for its dismantling rather than for its reform. If so, we libertarians will have a much better chance of overcoming the decades of statism under which our nation has suffered and restore a free, prosperous, and harmonious economic system to our land.

    Regards,

    Jacob G. Hornberger
    Whiskey & Gunpowder

    May 23, 2011
    dailyreckoning.comhttp://dailyreckoning.com/libertarianism-vs-statism/

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    dailyreckoning.comhttp://dailyreckoning.com/libertarianism-vs-statism/
    Good article, but that doesn't prove your premise in the OP, either.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 11-10-2013 at 07:07 AM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  14. #12
    Statism is a political theory and practice that aims to control people by the force and instruments of government.



Similar Threads

  1. Sea sickness
    By Pennsylvania in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-22-2020, 06:30 PM
  2. Does all sickness come from Satan?
    By Kevin007 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 09:55 AM
  3. Motorcycles Afflicted by The Car Sickness
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 10:00 PM
  4. Is there a higher purpose for disease/sickness?
    By Eagles' Wings in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 04:48 PM
  5. Statism, a sickness
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 11:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •