Poll
Question:
In economic terms, do you consider yourself a statist?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 16
Option 2: No
votes: 18
I have my suspicions that there are a number of economic statists on the forum-- I'm curious to see how many of you would own up to it.
It's a perjorative term so I doubt anyone is going to answer in the affirmative. Maybe Ide.
Bueller, I am going to need a full explanation.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 10, 2013, 11:59:05 AM
Bueller, I am going to need a full explanation.
What the not-frog said.
A person who doesn't want to live in Somalia.
I believe the state should take a disproportionate amount of taxes from those who benefit the most from our capitalist system. I do not however, believe the state should attempt to set up an alternate system.
I guess it depends on how one defines 'statist'.
However you define it yourself.
In that case, absolutely. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking it through.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 12:53:12 PM
However you define it yourself.
Having never heard the term before, I'm going to define it as "Someone who likes their state." In which case, my response is no. :)
I'd say no.
I believe the state needs to be significantly involved in a number of crucial aspects of public life. I believe in progressive taxation and a state administered social safety net, I believe the state can and should be involved in providing a number of public goods others would prefer to be privatized (and which in many places are in private hands); I believe that a well organized state provides crucial benefits.
So I have a positive view of the potential of the state. There are numerous messed up states, but the solution to that is to clean up how they're organized, not to do without.
On the other hand, I believe the state ought to serve the population as a whole, and to serve the interests of individual citizens. To me, a statist is someone who believes that citizens serves the interest of the state.
Good post Jacob, I'm in large agreement.
Not sure we can have a useful debate about the issue as statist seems to almost exclusively used as a pejorative term.
It would be better if the thread OP be rephrased in more neutral terms.
Quote from: merithyn on January 10, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Having never heard the term before, I'm going to define it as "Someone who likes their state." In which case, my response is no. :)
I hope you realize Zombie Abe Lincoln is going to hunt you down now.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.123rf.com%2F400wm%2F400%2F400%2Ftrubach%2Ftrubach1003%2Ftrubach100300115%2F6646810-illustration-of-illinois-state-flag-waving-in-the-wind.jpg&hash=17eb7254dddb19a2930b682fdcd7808f1c955374)
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2013, 02:07:18 PM
I hope you realize Zombie Abe Lincoln is going to hunt you down now.
He didn't like it either. He got the hell out as soon as he could, too, didn't he?
Besides, believe me, this is NOT Honest Abe's state anymore. :glare:
So, is anyone going to answer my original question of what the OP is asking? :)
Quote from: merithyn on January 10, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2013, 02:07:18 PM
I hope you realize Zombie Abe Lincoln is going to hunt you down now.
He didn't like it either. He got the hell out as soon as he could, too, didn't he?
Besides, believe me, this is NOT Honest Abe's state anymore. :glare:
So, is anyone going to answer my original question of what the OP is asking? :)
Indeed. Now it's Obama's state.
I am not answering because I am not sure what he means.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 10, 2013, 11:59:05 AM
Bueller, I am going to need a full explanation.
Ah, well. I thought I found one, but Wikipedia gives a definition that goes from US style economy with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to full blown communist countries.
QuoteEconomic statism
Economic statism 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.[17]
The french Wiki page is better than the english one (a rare occurence), which is way too politically aligned toward the
Tea Party.
So by this definition, no, I do not believe tha the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy. Political decisions are often aimed at short term interests to please specific lobbies that will swing public opinion toward the party for the next election. A prime example in Quebec and Canada is the shower of money right before an election, where a government will announce lots of grants or public projects of dubious economic value, or the infamous "pork barrel" of the United States.
We, unfortunately, need a State. Just like we water. However, too much water is good. Hence, too much state is not good.
Wow, English Wiki's definition is bizarre
Quotethe belief that a government should control either economic or social policy
Wouldn't a government be in control of its economic and social policy by default?
I guess they mean if it's not statist, there would be no policy?
Lord, no :bleeding:
Great poll Derspeiss, nobody is certain what you were getting at.
Yes, I am a sadist.
Sorry for thinking you guys were familiar with the term.
Never mind then, the sheesh...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 06:54:29 PM
Yes, I am a sadist.
Yes, I'm a satanist. A fan of Miroslav Satan.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
Sorry for thinking you guys were familiar with the term.
Never mind then, the sheesh...
It's kinda vague. I just it's some dichotomy that libertarians go on about.
I'm pretty good internet friends with a Finnish statistician.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
Sorry for thinking you guys were familiar with the term.
Never mind then, the sheesh...
Problem is that it's not a term, it's an insult whose definition adapts to the person you're disagreeing with.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 12:53:12 PM
However you define it yourself.
For me it's further than France, approaching Eastern Bloc level state involvement.
That wiki article says it's the opposite of anarchist, so I guess by that definition we're all statists. Nobody here AFAIK is such an extreme libertarian that they approach anarchism. I guess the closest we've had to that was KAP, and even he didn't go quite that far, nor has he posted on Languish for what, 4 years or more?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2013, 07:40:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 12:53:12 PM
However you define it yourself.
For me it's further than France, approaching Eastern Bloc level state involvement.
I don't think that it's a precise term. Statism is a broad term that supports government intervention. Statism is civilization as opposed to anarchy or feudalism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2013, 11:53:33 AM
It's a perjorative term so I doubt anyone is going to answer in the affirmative. Maybe Ide.
Did, but I've affirmed that before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2013, 11:53:33 AM
It's a perjorative term so I doubt anyone is going to answer in the affirmative. Maybe Ide.
13 out of 27 respondents so far. HA!
Btw many useful terms are considered pejorative by some. The term "socialist" is considered fairly pejorative in the US, but that doesn't mean it should never be used.
How about this for a working definition: A statist is someone who believes that it is acceptable or desirable for government spendin ggto exceed 50% of GDP
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
How about this for a working definition: A statist is someone who believes that it is acceptable or desirable for government spendin ggto exceed 50% of GDP
I like this one better: A Statist is a person who believes that people should be governed by states as opposed those who believe that you should be governed by individuals. In other words, people who want to a government rather then be the personal slave of someone else.
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
How about this for a working definition: A statist is someone who believes that it is acceptable or desirable for government spendin ggto exceed 50% of GDP
A little on the abstract side, no? And I believe the US, the great bastion of Anglo Saxon laissez faire, is around 50% if you include all the layers of government.
I counterpropose public ownership of intercity and international transportation: airlines, railways.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
How about this for a working definition: A statist is someone who believes that it is acceptable or desirable for government spendin ggto exceed 50% of GDP
I like this one better: A Statist is a person who believes that people should be governed by states as opposed those who believe that you should be governed by individuals. In other words, people who want to a government rather then be the personal slave of someone else.
You are worse than Stalin.
Regardless, I'm still a sadist.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
Sorry for thinking you guys were familiar with the term.
Never mind then, the sheesh...
I am familiar with the term as a somewhat archaic French political characterization.
You might as well ask how many people identify themselves as physiocrats.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2013, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
Sorry for thinking you guys were familiar with the term.
Never mind then, the sheesh...
I am familiar with the term as a somewhat archaic French political characterization.
You might as well ask how many people identify themselves as physiocrats.
Cool. Maybe next week.
No, since I don't know what it is.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
How about this for a working definition: A statist is someone who believes that it is acceptable or desirable for government spendin ggto exceed 50% of GDP
I like this one better: A Statist is a person who believes that people should be governed by states as opposed those who believe that you should be governed by individuals. In other words, people who want to a government rather then be the personal slave of someone else.
You are worse than Stalin.
You seem to forget that the tyranny in the US has come overwhelmingly from individuals and not government. Millions of people were born, lived and died in chattel slavery. Not slaves of the state, but slaves of private individuals. These people were only freed by actions of the Federal government.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 01:41:42 PM
You seem to forget that the tyranny in the US has come overwhelmingly from individuals and not government. Millions of people were born, lived and died in chattel slavery. Not slaves of the state, but slaves of private individuals. These people were only freed by actions of the Federal government.
And the state was not complicit in slavery. Nope, not one bit :lol:
OK I'll bite then.
Generally speaking, I think Louis XIV was on the wrong track and although Colbert was a brilliant administrator, his trade policy was misguided.
So I am going to vote no.
The physiocrats OTOH were basically on the right track even if there were problems with the details so I will vote yes on them.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 01:41:42 PM
You seem to forget that the tyranny in the US has come overwhelmingly from individuals and not government. Millions of people were born, lived and died in chattel slavery. Not slaves of the state, but slaves of private individuals. These people were only freed by actions of the Federal government.
And the state was not complicit in slavery. Nope, not one bit :lol:
How many slaves were owned by the state compared to how many were owned by individuals? To the slave owners the state did not give the right to own a slave, it was an innate right. Just as the state does not confer the right own other types of property.
Raz, a statist is a person who has a preference for government involvement in the economy. You seem to be off on a mistaken tangent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Raz, a statist is a person who has a preference for government involvement in the economy. You seem to be off on a mistaken tangent.
QuoteHowever you define it yourself.
From the guy who started the thread. It's a vague term, which is why this thread failed so badly.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 01:55:10 PM
How many slaves were owned by the state compared to how many were owned by individuals? To the slave owners the state did not give the right to own a slave, it was an innate right. Just as the state does not confer the right own other types of property.
The state provided the infrastructure for slavery. The state also made the decision as to who is and who isn't property.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 02:03:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Raz, a statist is a person who has a preference for government involvement in the economy. You seem to be off on a mistaken tangent.
QuoteHowever you define it yourself.
From the guy who started the thread. It's a vague term, which is why this thread failed so badly.
Yet you keep posting in it. Anyway in the actual poll question I specified economics.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
The state provided the infrastructure for slavery. The state also made the decision as to who is and who isn't property.
HOw did the state provide this in a colonial society? I presume we are talking about the origins of slavery because the US Government just inherited this.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2013, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
The state provided the infrastructure for slavery. The state also made the decision as to who is and who isn't property.
HOw did the state provide this in a colonial society? I presume we are talking about the origins of slavery because the US Government just inherited this.
I'm talking about the US. The legal system needed provision for the capture and return of escaped slaves, as well as differentiating slaves from non-slaves. You couldn't just enslave anyone you wnated, after all.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 02:25:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 02:03:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Raz, a statist is a person who has a preference for government involvement in the economy. You seem to be off on a mistaken tangent.
QuoteHowever you define it yourself.
From the guy who started the thread. It's a vague term, which is why this thread failed so badly.
Yet you keep posting in it. Anyway in the actual poll question I specified economics.
Slavery is an economic issue. Besides, I like train wrecks.
Shouldn't you be using your EBT card at a liquor store or something?
He's a Dadaist.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
Shouldn't you be using your EBT card at a liquor store or something?
Don't drink, also no EBT card. :) I'm not sure there is a law where the US specifically legalized slavery. Anymore then a law that legalized the ownership of livestock. It was a terrible tyranny and it was a private one conducted for the benefit of individuals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 01:26:04 PM
A little on the abstract side, no? And I believe the US, the great bastion of Anglo Saxon laissez faire, is around 50% if you include all the layers of government.
The US is around the low 40s - same sort of level as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and some Euros. Over 50% is the UK, France, Scandinavia and just under that's places like Italy and Germany.
I'm kind of with Raz, for me statist implies subordination of economy to the state's interests.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 02:34:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2013, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
The state provided the infrastructure for slavery. The state also made the decision as to who is and who isn't property.
HOw did the state provide this in a colonial society? I presume we are talking about the origins of slavery because the US Government just inherited this.
I'm talking about the US. The legal system needed provision for the capture and return of escaped slaves, as well as differentiating slaves from non-slaves. You couldn't just enslave anyone you wnated, after all.
Or, as Stephan Douglas pointed out in his famous debates with Lincoln, slavery couldn't exist without the state laws that institutionalized it. It may have cost him the Presidency, but he was correct on that point.
Slavery doesn't require laws. It predates governments.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
I'm kind of with Raz, for me statist implies subordination of economy to the state's interests.
I don't think that's it. A statist suggests that the positives of government control outweigh the negatives.
Doesn't 'government control' imply subordination? And in whose best interest?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2013, 06:14:59 AM
Doesn't 'government control' imply subordination? And in whose best interest?
The people's. Britain didn't nationalize everything post war in order to make the state stronger, it did it ostensibly to improve people's lives.