[Craig] I'm not sure how much help I'll be, since I've never heard of "conservative statism".
[Arlo] "Statism" is a buzzword, which has little meaning except as a derision for "state programs I disagree with". When Woods rails against "statism", I was trying to ascertain whether or not he was going the anarchy route (no state) or the conservative route (state he agrees with is okay and doesn't count). Specifically, I want to know WHICH statist programs he opposes, and WHY. For example, he jargoned a bit about "the individual", and I wonder if he'd argue that the individual should police their own property? Or do we force the people to give up their hard-earned cash to pay for a government agency that polices your private property? (I'm deliberately using mirror words here). I'm all for asking the question, "what is the legitimate role of governance? and how do we justify/rationalize what those powers are?" But to just squalk bumper stickers is hardly the "enlightened free-thinking" he feels he exhibits. Personally, I HATE when people rail "against government" and then demand a police force, roads, court system, army, currency, standards, etc. They aren't "anti-government", they are "anti-welfare" or "anti-federal reserve" or "anti-EPA", but they are not "anti-government" (a claim only Micah can legitimately make). The same with this "pro-individual" rhetoric. You think he's gonna be "pro-individual" when his house is robbed? Hell no, he's gonna call the police and demand the powers of government rescue his property and imprison the thieves. Wife attacked? Bring out the DNA labs of the FBI, use the registered offenders database, rely on the media to get out info, sketches, etc. So these vastly sweeping slogans mean nothing to me, yeah yeah "pro-individual", "anti-state"... except what EXACTLY do you mean? (Not you, Craig, just "you" in the general sense). [Craig] However, if "statism" means that we should rely on the state (rather than on individuals & voluntary associations), then I'm against it. [Arlo] See, this is what I mean. Don't you rely on the police? Isn't that "the state"? Don't you rely on EMT, fire, and military protection? Don't you rely on safe roads, cleared of snow, free of ice, paved well? Is a public library "relying on the state"? What about a Dept of Weights and Measures? Should we abolish community sewer systems and force everyone to rely on their own private septic tanks? Wells instead of water authorities? Don't you rely on the courts, say if you are injured and seeking compensation? What about coastal areas that rely on the Coast Guard? Is that bad? So my point is to drop the rhetorical pandering and sloganeering and talk about, specifically, what is legitimate and what is not, and stop painting someone who supports public libraries (if you do not) as statist when you support the police. Saying things like "I'm pro-individual" or "I'm anti-statist" say nothing, absolutely nothing at all. IMHO as a blind, stupid, sheep. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
