0 votes

If statism is a cancer...

why would you want a limited dose of it (ie. a limited-State)?
Wouldn't you want to be free of the cancer?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your premise is an opinion...

and therefore so is your conclusion. IS statism truly a cancer, by definition and epistemological standards? Or, is it something else? I'll certainly agree that presently it (statism) is being used AS an instrument of illigetimate force, but I do not think that in theory it is conceived to be such. This is indeed where opinion falls into the mix from both my and your sides. But, none the less, to use something AS is akin to self determination of intention - which may not overlay the original and originating desire; or in other words, the generative intention). In a flood the Mona Lisa will make a great raft since it is painted on a poplar board, but I think it is intended to be a work of art hung on a wall for visual inspection and thoughtful reflection. Is it or is it not really a tool for floating? - who can say, but it certainly fits both criteria of float and art. Statism as a concept is open to application. I continue to think you are misplacing your argument against the concept, instead of it's application, and fighting the tool (which has no inherent value for good or evil) and not the user - whom we can evidently agree, in the present political arena, generally value evil over good when we are setting our sights by the concept of Liberty and individual sovereignty.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority


Your premise is an opinion...and therefore so is your conclusion

Yes, it could be just an opinion...which most libertarians probably agree with.

Tho, I could also make a case that statism is a cancer based on the definition of what cancer is (ie. cancer: out of control growth with no consideration for the organism).

Statism as a concept is open to application.

Yes (ex: welfare state, nanny state, warfare state, constitutionally-limited state,etc). However keep in mind ElRoc, that statism uses a very certain means to achieve these "open applications"--initiatory violence.

Your cancer definition...

is a good gouge to the eye...I hadn't thought of it from that angle. Bravo. Of course I'd say that the definition properly applies to our government as a particular case of wild uncontroled statism and not the concept of statism in general. It could be said that there are many other cases like this world wide, and that would also be true. But in all cases I'd like to point out that there is a common denominator - there is no thing for abuse without men and women to participate in it's use. The abuse happens because we fail to stand against it, not simply because it can be done. This is an aspect of potential vs. kenetic energy.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

We fight off cancers everyday, it's what the body does,

from cancers caused by stress, to cancers caused by food.
As a natural hygiene advocate, the use of fasting and raw foods are the best prevention against the "lingering" affects of cancer.
Cancer begins as an inflamation caused by cellular suffocation, and the resulting "malignant" spread, the growth of more cancer cells may be looked upon as a toxic condition, kinda like a drunken driver crashing into parked cars as he makes his way down the street.

Raw foods don't cure cancer, the body does. But the body won't cure cancer without the live vibrant foods only found in the raw food lifestyle.

So, keep diligent as you "fight" for freedom, because forever and a day, it will be attacked.
Let you're natural spirit fight for freedom, and let freedom fight for your natural spirit.

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Just yesterday you posted an

Just yesterday you posted an article that explained why it is not realistic for the state to ever disappear. We live in the real world. Take what you can get.

Ventura 2012


We live in the real world. Take what you can get.

Absolutely. I agree. I take what I can get, keeping my end goal of a free-society in mind.


I generally have been saying it like (depending on the conversation and audience):

I want a jug of pure water, not water with a little arsnic in it.

I want pure water and now this whole jug is ruined because you just put a little bit of red dye in it!

I want a chocolate pie, and what I'm being given is a mud cake.

If the choice is between a big mac and a whopper, I'll take the outback steak.

It's not a rope, it's not a tree, it's not a snake, it's not a fan... it's like all of them and none... it's a flippin Elephant!

And a version of Dr. Paul's: Doctor's found out I have cancer instead of diabetes, but we're just going to keep treating for diabetes, even though I don't have it. Nah, we're not going to treat the cancer, we're already treating for diabetes.