NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean real statists. None of you reasonable anarcho-pinko bitches, or faux minarchist neocon rightwingers. Are there actually people out there who support the notion of having an all encompassing government?

I was thinking today that the ultimate goal of communism, if achieved, would result in a universal and all-spanning government. Most undesirable, if you ask me.

Anyhow, it put forward a fundamental difference in goals between myself and what I understand to be communists (i.e. statists, in the original essence of the ideaology). That is to say, I used to believe that most people (statists included) had the same basic goals in mind (not too dissimilar to those outlined in the concept of 'the veil of ignorance'). Basically that is to have all of ones needs met, be free from harm, and free to do what you wish (very very simple round up of the veil of ignorance).

To me this presents an imperative to phase out any form of non-consensual governance whatsoever. Regardless of the economic ideals one may uphold. Basically, I am saying that to restrict freedoms in the pursuit of happiness is counter-productive.

So I put it to you NSG Statists. In what sense would your ideal statist utopia be desirable.

I would only support statism if I were in charge. Or someone who'd make the exact same decisions as me.

Basically, I'm scientifically minded, so my policies would have improved efficiency in mind (with the aim being high as possible quality of life for all citizens).

I would only support statism if I were in charge. Or someone who'd make the exact same decisions as me.

Basically, I'm scientifically minded, so my policies would have improved efficiency in mind (with the aim being high as possible quality of life for all citizens).

Right, this is why I think you'd be better of as an 'anarch' (the pinnacle of power in anarchy; the supremely powerful, and responsible individual. 100% free to do as he wishes, responsible only for the consequences of that.).

I had no idea you're an anarchist GPN (correct me if I'm wrong) - what sort are you?

My German prof once announced to the class (after I had put a noun in the wrong gender, even though the correct gender was listed right in front of me in the book): "What are you? Some kind of bomb-throwing anarchist, doing the opposite of whatever the book says?"


Seriously though, my sympathies lie more with anarchism than statism.

I had no idea you're an anarchist GPN (correct me if I'm wrong) - what sort are you?

I am Anarcho-Capitalist on my good days. However, I have been known on bad mornings to slip into minarchistic classic liberalism.

My German prof once announced to the class (after I had put a noun in the wrong gender, even though the correct gender was listed right in front of me in the book): "What are you? Some kind of bomb-throwing anarchist, doing the opposite of whatever the book says?"


Seriously though, my sympathies lie more with anarchism than statism.
I like your german teacher :D. Also, by the way, I didn't intend to pin you into a false dichotomy between statism and anarchy, so much as I am trying to find an explanation of an 'ideal state' from a self-described statist.

Why is the 'Aaaaaaanarchy!' option accompanied by a machine gun smiley?:confused:

Why is the 'Aaaaaaanarchy!' option accompanied by a machine gun smiley?:confused:

Because, in an anarchy, the guy with the most guns rules. This is completely unlike statism, in which the guy with the most guns rules.

Hey, wait a minute... :confused:

I was thinking today that the ultimate goal of communism, if achieved, would result in a universal and all-spanning government.

The ultimate goal of communism is the exact opposite. World-wide withering away of governments.

You waste your time. This world will be mine. And I will crush it under an iron fist. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I would say I am definately a statist. As long as human beings live in groups larger than hunter gatherer style numbers they need be forced to act properly, because they have no natural evolutionary imperative to do so. It is only through the most intelligent human beings, who can actually understand intellectually how the system works, that a society can exist. All other citizens must be forced to follow their correct laws or else be destroyed as a danger to themselves and others.

But even with the intervention of the few who can, I do not think that societies can last. They are in essence unsustainable. So ultimately, after many millennia maybe, this inevitable end will be in sight. I believe the enlightened statists will see this inevitable collapse of all society coming, realise that this time they are powerless to stop it, and so they will prepare and guide the mass of mindless animals that is the rest of humanity for the return to a natural hunter gatherer existence, in which they can finally take control of themselves once again - because biologically, they'll be back to knowing what to do instinctively. This will be the end of all history, a final glorious return to our true existence. Until that day however we must accept that the state is the only acceptable solution, and the more controlling that state is, and the less input the animals have in it, then the better/more fit the society will be.

and the more controlling that state is, and the less input the animals have in it, then the better/more fit the society will be.

oh yes, i would directly trade the way i'm governed now with nazi germany or the USSR.:rolleyes:

The ultimate goal of communism is the exact opposite. World-wide withering away of governments.

What he just said.

Because, in an anarchy, the guy with the most guns rules. This is completely unlike statism, in which the guy with the most guns rules.

Hey, wait a minute... :confused:


:D

I would say I am definately a statist. As long as human beings live in groups larger than hunter gatherer style numbers they need be forced to act properly, because they have no natural evolutionary imperative to do so. It is only through the most intelligent human beings, who can actually understand intellectually how the system works, that a society can exist. All other citizens must be forced to follow their correct laws or else be destroyed as a danger to themselves and others.

But even with the intervention of the few who can, I do not think that societies can last. They are in essence unsustainable. So ultimately, after many millennia maybe, this inevitable end will be in sight. I believe the enlightened statists will see this inevitable collapse of all society coming, realise that this time they are powerless to stop it, and so they will prepare and guide the mass of mindless animals that is the rest of humanity for the return to a natural hunter gatherer existence, in which they can finally take control of themselves once again - because biologically, they'll be back to knowing what to do instinctively. This will be the end of all history, a final glorious return to our true existence. Until that day however we must accept that the state is the only acceptable solution, and the more controlling that state is, and the less input the animals have in it, then the better/more fit the society will be.

that's not true at all. states are only 6 or 7 thousand years old, maximum. large societies existed for a long time without the beureaucratic and hierarchical trappings of states. as they exist today stateshave only existed for a couple of hundred years. and further to that, states have only existed once the beuraucracy and rigid hierarchy was already in place when it became obvious that perpetuation of a temporararily high level of centralised organisation and hierarchicly determined distribution provided previously unheard of opportunities for gaining power and wealth. pristine states came about through extraordinary circumstances, not through a response to population pressure. secondary states came about when society leaders saw the opportunities for power and control of wealth afforded by a state-level of organisation.

I mean real statists. None of you reasonable anarcho-pinko bitches, or faux minarchist neocon rightwingers. Are there actually people out there who support the notion of having an all encompassing government?

I was thinking today that the ultimate goal of communism, if achieved, would result in a universal and all-spanning government. Most undesirable, if you ask me.

Anyhow, it put forward a fundamental difference in goals between myself and what I understand to be communists (i.e. statists, in the original essence of the ideaology). That is to say, I used to believe that most people (statists included) had the same basic goals in mind (not too dissimilar to those outlined in the concept of 'the veil of ignorance'). Basically that is to have all of ones needs met, be free from harm, and free to do what you wish (very very simple round up of the veil of ignorance).

To me this presents an imperative to phase out any form of non-consensual governance whatsoever. Regardless of the economic ideals one may uphold. Basically, I am saying that to restrict freedoms in the pursuit of happiness is counter-productive.

So I put it to you NSG Statists. In what sense would your ideal statist utopia be desirable.

The only statist society I'd ever agree to is one that is libertarian in laws and decentralized (read: nearly nonexistent) in presence.

I would say I am definately a statist. As long as human beings live in groups larger than hunter gatherer style numbers they need be forced to act properly, because they have no natural evolutionary imperative to do so. It is only through the most intelligent human beings, who can actually understand intellectually how the system works, that a society can exist. All other citizens must be forced to follow their correct laws or else be destroyed as a danger to themselves and others.

But even with the intervention of the few who can, I do not think that societies can last. They are in essence unsustainable. So ultimately, after many millennia maybe, this inevitable end will be in sight. I believe the enlightened statists will see this inevitable collapse of all society coming, realise that this time they are powerless to stop it, and so they will prepare and guide the mass of mindless animals that is the rest of humanity for the return to a natural hunter gatherer existence, in which they can finally take control of themselves once again - because biologically, they'll be back to knowing what to do instinctively. This will be the end of all history, a final glorious return to our true existence. Until that day however we must accept that the state is the only acceptable solution, and the more controlling that state is, and the less input the animals have in it, then the better/more fit the society will be. Okay, if you want, but whose to say the state is the only method of maintaining such control? Why not delegate the functions of government to private markets? Same result, different (and more efficient) mode.