0 votes

I need help understanding statism?


Pronunciation: (stā'tiz-um), [key]
1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

#1 sounds bad
#2 sounds bad

Help me understand this better Is a republic bad I already know I don't like a democracy. Is this saying to have a republic we must give up our liberty. If this is true then what is left. I'm very confused right now.

Comment viewing options

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

You know It is intresting you say that cause it seems to me

that the federal governments job should to to protect the light from the dark and the drak from the light. Even God himself set up the jewish law that way. You had the preist and the judges. One was for the church and one was for society. I am a Christian but I would fight and die for a persons right to be a nonbeliever. Even God himself didn't break the law he set in order. It would have broke the law of free will for God to take the apple out of Adams hand. I do not believe in salvation through the barrel of a gun or law. Its got to be by free will (choice).


I'm trying to make sense of some of the responses here. Getting back to the original question on statism (as it's referred to in the most common political meaning), statism is the opposite of libertarianism.

Try this quiz:

For example, Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton are both statists. To oversimplify, Mike Huckabee is a right wing statist, and Hillary Clinton is a left wing statist.

Mike Huckabee would use the power of government to criminalize consenting sex between adults, to coerce prayer in schools, to compel access to education (perhaps even for illegal immigrants), to limit access to contraception, and to generally use the government to further religious ends. He has many ideas for how the power of the state can be used.

Hillary Clinton would use the power of government to more broadly redistribute wealth, compel hiring of certain minority groups, or invest in her choice of alternate energy. Again, Clinton is a statist in that she will use the power of government for her own agenda, regardless of whether or not it takes wealth or the fruits of your labor to do so.

The opposite of statism is libertarianism, which is closest to Ron Paul's philosophy in my view, although some of Paul's positions do differ from the national Libertarian Party platform (immigration, abortion access, primarily)

Ron Paul's tent is actually pretty big. I'm among the atheist libertarians here, although I recognize that there are many religious traditional conservatives here as well. It makes for good dialogue from time to time.

I'll leave my non-libertarian friends with the best 8 minute introduction to libertarianism that I have seen. As you watch it, see if you can tell where the logic goes wrong:


You could just figure out

You could just figure out what you personally believe and give it a name if that helps. That way you can anchor your thoughts to something that the world around you can't confuse.

"Words be nimble, words be quick, words resemble walking sticks. Plant them and watch them grow." ~Jim Morrison, An American Prayer

I don't know about theism but I believe in God

It seems many Libretarians don't believe in an active God. It also seems like many of them do in their heart believe in a creater (even if they don't admit it). I believe in an active God but I also know there are many being deceived in many diffrent ways. I hope their is room in your tent for me. You better hope so cause I'm coming in wether you want me to or not. It's my right to come in Ron Paul said so. LOL

Oh you are in! No turning

Oh you are in! No turning back now!

I think you'll find MOST "libertarians" are pretty ok with your relationship with God as long as it doesn't infringe on there relationship or in some cases lack of relationship with God.

Try out this political quiz

It gauges where you fall on the political spectrum. All the way from libertarianism to statism.
I thought it was really cool as it transcends the left-right-liberal-conservative paradigm.


Fascism or Coporatism as described per Benito Mussolini. What it describes is pretty much the State or Government aligned with the corporations, dictate and initiate/institute Government/Corporate Policy at the expense, ultimately, of individual liberties and freedom per the citizenry. Bottom Line: The Benefactors of Statism, the rich and powerful (i.e Politicians), reap all of the benefits and the working class or citizenry (pretty much everyone else) reap all of the misery left over and get screwed. Very similar to what we have in the U.S.A. today, wouldn't you say? FREEDOM is the opposite of SLAVERY. If you are 99% free, you are part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant". FREEDOM vs SLAVERY is a zero-sum game.

Cognitive dissonance

Statism and theism are both varieties of collectivism: in short they promote a belief in things that don't actually exist, and that individuals must subordinate themselves to "higher powers" or "greater goods." A statist believes that the state (or group or mob) possesses rights not borne by individuals. One may not steal, but the state may tax; one may not kill, but the state may wage war; one may not trespass, but the state may exercise eminent domain.

Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

I looks like it is time to abolish the election of

our Senators and Rep. We need to put them under the control of our state Senators and Rep. This way they can just recall them If they don't represent our states wishes. Our states are getting pushed out of the loop.

There are more and more

There are more and more Governors who would like back into that loop. If "two thirds of the several States" ( Article Five of the United States Constitution) decide they want it back, they can take it back with out the approval of congress.

If Dr. Paul get's in, that will be a MUCH easier process.

No A Republic is Good

A Republic is a representative form of government.
A Democracy is a majority of people.

There has always been an issue of state's rights vs. federal government rights. The key is - the people. The people elect representatives and when the representatives fail to keep their oath, the people are suppose to recall them and have a special election.

The point today, is federal government assumes a superior authority over the states and that is why the fed tries to force the states to do the will of the feds. The feds threaten to withhold funds from state's who do not comply. The error here is the feds think it is their money - it is the people's money and if the people chose to stop paying money into the fed, the fed couldn't do anything about it. If the people chose to send their money to their own state, then state government wouldn't be "dependent" on funds. If the people want to live in a nice state, they will help better their own state or choose to go without.

This is why some of the states are fighting and refusing RealID. It's a state's rights issue and forcing people to participate is a clear usurpation of authority. If states allow this usurping of authority, America falls to tyranny.

Detective Krum Investigates:

I to have figured this out only I did it with the bible

I have figured out that they have not changed the word of the bible they have changed the meanings of the word. Like in John 1:1 They have changed the word Word (Name of God - Jesus). It's first meaning is Logos I happen to know this means Holy Spirit (Father-Jesus) Which is the Son of God or the Spirit of the Son of Man but the church now says it means the (Son - Jesus) which is the Son of Man (flesh). Changing the meaning of this word is very damaging to truth. This is probably why I Find the Political lies so easy to see through. Anyways thanks for your help guys.

It's a word trick. They can

It's a word trick. They can tell you a story proclaiming that an opponents "statist" views are demogogery(another word trick word) and should be dismissed or what have you. Often times this type of attack comes from one side aimed directly across party lines and they'll critisize even though that's pretty much where they stand on the issue aswell.

They just need to villify the otherside and the fact that you are even asking this very important question is testament to the grey cloudy area they use to mislead you into thinking whatever they are trying to convey at the moment. The real confusion comes when you figure out exactly what they ment and discover that they're all hypocrites in one way or another.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."

Ok I've messed up and moved into anti statism AAhhhhh

Then jumped to what Libretarian means wow I think I just jumped into a bees nest here. Where do you all draw the line in all of this or do you draw a line. What kind of Libretarian is Ron Paul? This is the first time I've actually got into this subject but I can tell this is a very big steak it will take some time to eat it all. Man now I went and done it I will not sleep for another 24 hrs. Thank you for all your advice guys keep giving it. Also please keep it simple. I'll make it more complicated on my own so I need help making it simple. I have one question how do you all get along? Libretarian ranges the gambit. From one end to the other. Do you fight alot? I know I fit in there somewhere I just have to find where it is. Did everyone else have this problem when you figured out you had Libretarian tendancies?

"not sleep for another 24

"not sleep for another 24 hrs"

The conundrum of waking up. Old habits die hard. You still want to put things in little boxes, but you are awake and know things don't really live in boxes, we've only been told that. This causes dissonance.

Try not to think of these things as absolutes but rather REALLY good guide lines.

If you explore the writings of the founders, you'll see they sometimes didn't really "mean" some of the words they chose. Language being limited, they did the best they could. And then wrote MANY books about the process of our nation's creation.

The "truth" will lie hidden somewhere in those old writings and in your heart.

But don't worry your head so much. It's going to be alright. For goodness sake let yourself have some sleep. Sane patriots are awesome!

Constitutional republic

we are (used to be) a Constitutional republic. Go wikipedia it. This is huge. It is basically protection of the minority from the majority by a solid protection and understanding of individual rights. The state is bound by strict rules. This is what we have lost.

I am not a pro but i can guarantee you that this is important. I hate democracy and i think that is into what we have pretty much devolved.

Stay positive

but do not be afraid to express your thoughts. Dr Paul deserves from his advisors at HQ the advise he needs and is paying for. I can only say that IMO Dr. Paul needs to get more aggresive, his advisors have to come up with strong sound bites and hard questions. McCaine question could have been: how can you, who saw the pain and suffering caused by the Viet-Nam war, support and aggresive unconstitutional war in Irak,started under false pretenses, that is causing the death of brave young americans? or to Giulianni: Explain why you, who used your contacts to get away from being drafted, want now to send others to fight?, and to Romney it could have been; You do not want your religion to be an issue in this campaign, why did you use it as an excuse not to be drafted?. What I am saying is that we need to hit these demagogues hard.

Humble Patience. The time

Humble Patience.

The time will come and Dr. Paul will do something better than "get more aggresive". He's finding his voice, he's getting better at this. That man is going to say things. I have no doubt about that.

Let him find his pace.

The campaign is doing fine, it's the people in the movement that are a little tattered now and then. We need supplies like education, organization, and sanity.

But no worries. Those old patriots had very little to work with and they changed the world.

So can we, with Humble Patience.


I'll try

Best I can do...a republic is not "bad". Definition #2, where it talks about sovereignty, means that it is a belief that your own state (nation) has control over itself and no outside power does. That's good. It's what Henry VIII got from breaking with Rome. Definition #1, however mentions "extensive controls" meaning that the state controls much of everything.

Here's how it fits into the political spectrum...the government can do two basic things: control the economy and control the society (personal liberties). Republicans typically want more social control, less economic control (free markets). Democrats like more economic control and less social control (personal liberties). Libertarians like free markets and personal liberty, so less economic and less social control. Statists like more of both. More economic control (like welfare, social security, economic stimulus packages, etc.) and more social control (cracking down on personal liberties). I fear that this is the direction or government is headed.

But a republic in itself is a good thing, one definition is: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. That's what we are supposed to have. Consent of the governed, and government held accountable to the people. But our "supreme power" as citizens has been compromised because our "elected officers and representatives" do not exercise our will (i.e., If 70% of Americans want out of Iraq, then Congress should get us out).

Our supreme power is also limited by the size of the government bureaucracy (non-elected officials like members of the executive branch, who make a lot of policy decisions but are not representatives of the people). The growth of the bureaucracy takes power away from the people, and leads to statism. Also, if people in our government are not "governing according to law" (i.e., throwing out evidence such as emails and videotapes when it's convenient, refusing to testify when called to, etc.) then the republic is also compromised.

Hope this helps!

First to the original

First to the original poster. That was very brave. Thank you for asking the question. Honest questions are always welcome. They lead to great answers!

Second to PL, thank you. That was well said, sane and easy to understand.

I agree..

I found that to be a very helpful video in my understanding of the different structures of gov't.

Hillary Clinton is a classic statist...

with a mega-metric-butt-ton of marxist tossed in for good measure.



Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

a republic...

combines democracy with the rule of law. So we pass laws by democracy but then we are bound to abide by those laws once they are passed, even if, in a particular instance, the majority of affected people may not want to abide by it. So, for example, if your house is ugly, your neighbors may all want it torn down, but since you have a legal title, they can't do it. That's the only sustainable peaceful style of government.

Anybody else--do I have it right?

Where are you going with this?

Where did you derive the word from? How was it used?

Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.



Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.


A Sovereign Republic is what the founders intended...so I would think #2 is good?


Anti-statism refers to opposition to state intervention into personal, social or economic affairs. Anti-statist views may reject the state completely and immediately (e.g. anarchism), they may wish to reduce the size and scope of the state to a minimum (e.g. minarchism), or they may advocate a stateless society as the ultimate goal of a gradual or step-by-step evolution (e.g. Marxism). Henry David Thoreau expressed this evolutionary anti-statist view in his essay "Civil Disobedience:"
I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men and women are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.[1]

Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.