How Statism Wins

And we deliberately didn’t name this “How Proziism Wins”, because it’s all the same in a nation where you have two parties that are both statist, the only difference being that one likes to take things a bit slower.

In a free society, people make their own decisions and they pay for their own mistakes. That’s a Good Thing™. And by “paying for their own mistakes” we don’t mean that you’re utterly fucked if you make mistakes and can’t pay, because usually you aren’t. Unless you’re a real shitbird who really asked for it to the point where nobody gives a damn about the consequences to you. That’s not how it works in America, home to the most generous people on Earth, people who will drag out their checkbooks, volunteer to travel halfway across the nation and even the world and give the shirt off their backs simply because it’s the right thing to do. A nation whose citizens contributed more privately to the victims of the tsunami in 2004 than all of the world’s governments combined.

And the truly amazing thing is that this is the norm, rather than the exception.

So kindly shove the “selfish Americans who care only about themselves” up your ignorant arses, those out there who are prone to uttering such nonsense.

But we digress.

The true power of this is that in a society where each individual is responsible for his own choices, nobody has any leverage over what those choices might be unless said choices directly influence another individual.

You get no say in whether or not His Imperial Majesty decides that drinking schnapps by the gallon is better than water because he’ll have to bloody well pay for his own liver transplant when the one he was born with explodes. You get no say in whether we decide that it’s twice as much fun driving a car with 8 cylinders as it is driving one with 4, because we pay the gas.

How statism wins is when we let the state stick their fingers in paying for the gas.

And that’s why it’s so clever. Because if the state were to say “OK, we’ll subsidize your gas expenditures”, it wouldn’t be that hard to make a lot of people sit up and say “hey, that’s pretty neat! I’d like to get some help with the gas bill. Maybe I could afford driving a better and bigger car!”

The party suggesting such a thing would have no problem getting votes based on that, because who doesn’t want cheaper gas?

And then said party gets into power and, after a while when they inevitably start running out of other people’s money, begin to state that we really have to cut somewhere, so we’re just going to have to mandate that no cars may have more than two cylinders since they use less gas.

When people start objecting because they like their big, comfortable cars, the state then says “don’t be selfish! Don’t you realize that those big cars waste fuel that everybody has to pay for with their taxes? Why do you insist on wasting other people’s money like that?” To the people who couldn’t afford those cars without the subsidies they turn around and say “if you don’t vote for us, the subsidies are going to go away and you will have to drive a smaller car.”

In a free society nobody would take them seriously because what the fuck do *I* care if that moron Emperor wannabe down the street wants to spend all his money on gas and they would have no leverage at all.

Healthcare? If you pay your doctor out of pocket, then your “unhealthy” lifestyle doesn’t mean jack to anybody, because if it turns out that it’s true that you’ll be sicker because of your addiction to juicy, tender steaks, then it’s going to come out of your own pocket.

Get the state involved in paying for healthcare and now all of a sudden your dietary habits, again assuming that the state’s postulate that tasty food makes you sick is true, and now all of a sudden the state gets to dictate what you can and cannot eat. And whether you can smoke or not. Or how many hours a day you must exercise. Or any number of other things.

The moment you let the state even get involved in an area, you have given it permission to eventually take over all of your decisions, and if you protest and refuse to follow orders, you’ll have made yourself an object of ridicule and hatred because your decisions, previously irrelevant to anybody but yourself, are now affecting everybody.

And who wants to be hated? So much easier to just go along to get along, isn’t it?

Government is not a good, it’s a sometimes necessary evil. It’s not the solution, it’s the biggest part of the problem. And it’s pure anathema to liberty.

Remember: Once you take the King’s shilling…

Thatisall.

3 comments

  1. 1
    irish19 growls and barks:

    A guy I used to work with once said that the country started going downhill when you were required to get a government permit to build something on your own land.

  2. 2
    Libsareb Raindead growls and barks:

    Conspicuously well said, sir.

    I tremble to think what use the founding generation would have seen in even their contemplating such an unprecedented experiment had they believed its probable result is a people progressively choosing to be more dependent on and consequently less free under that ever increasing statism you describe than the one from which they wished themselves eternally separated.
    Libsareb Raindead recently posted..Lawless Obama Open Borders: Spreading Superbug Tuberculosis in Your Children’s SchoolsMy Profile

  3. 3
    LC SecondMouse growls and barks:

    Ten ring. This is the brass tacks of it. The collectivists (statists) versus the individualists. The collective state begins in innocence. It says, “surely a rich nation like ours can afford a government program for people who can’t fend for themselves”, and people agree, for fear of being labeled ‘selfish’ or ‘cruel’. Once begun, this cycle picks up speed as politicians realize these promises buy votes. The problem at the outset is that we were handed a false premise. Government is the wrong tool with which to see to these private needs of private citizens. The organizations that address these needs should be (as they once were) local and private foundations and charities. In this way, all the moral hazard present in a giant federal program goes away, and true need can be divined from laziness. People can actually be helped out of their situations by private, charitable interests that know them and care about them. We have huge foundations built with the wealth of charitable captains of industry over more than a century that is now being hoarded or spent on trivial things because the government has wrongly usurped the responsibility to address need at the community and individual level.

    Collectivism is a sure path to moral ambiguity as well. In collectivism, reality becomes what the majority say it is, and those unwilling to comply find themselves devalued by the collective. As the group-sanctioned truth evolves over time, the status of members is at stake subject to their willingness to change, or ability to curry influence with the right members. Before long, this dynamic has created what is often referred to as the ‘rule of man’. It matters not whether it is an individual or a committee that holds such power over the rest. And without the underpinnings of the rule of law, the arbitrary power becomes absolute.

    Individualism, by contrast, is the concept that is at the root of the Constitution. Individualism says that each person has the natural right to liberty, happiness (read also: self-defense) and private property, and that these rights are inalienable, even by a government formed by the citizens so naturally empowered. The purest implementation of individualism known to man was the founding of the United States. It is the most politically powerful concept ever created.

    In collectivism, you have no natural rights. You are, in effect, the property of the collective. In individualism, you are your own property.

    In my mind, this is the essence of our differences with progressives of either party. You are either a believer in the power of individualism to unlock the human potential for everyone, or you are a collectivist, someone whose contempt for humanity has you believing that an even bigger government must accept even more responsibility because people are too lazy or stupid to be trusted with their own choices and responsibilities.