"Statism v. Anti-Statism" will it replace "left v. right"?

[James Arryn]

Left vs. right has been pretty much seen as a cartoon in poli-scy/i.r. circles for some time now.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

As far as I know, wherever collectivism (voluntary or not) has been actually practiced, lack of incentive was never the problem.

Read up on Chinese collective farming communes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A thought occured to me. Is the Statist (right or left) someone who values security over liberty? Be it economic security or personal security the Statist wants the State to be strong to protect them.

[edited to change from leading question]

[Brienne the Beauty]

A thought occured to me. Isn't the Statist (right or left) someone who values security over liberty? Be it economic security or personal security the Statist wants the State to be strong to protect them.

These things are not exclusionary. A weak state doesn't necessarily mean freedom for the individual; the individual can be crushed under private heels as well as public.

[felice]

Exactly. A strong state is effectively a requirement for any meaningful liberty, though it by no means guarantees it (states can of course remove liberty just as easily as they can protect it). Any society more complicated than solitary hunter-gatherers is going to involve a lot of interaction between individuals, and their liberties are going to come in to conflict a lot. Maximum overall liberty can only be achieved by limiting people's liberty to interfere with the liberty of others. In a highly capitalist system where the state does nothing but protect property rights, the only freedom a lot of individuals would have would be choosing where to starve to death.

[int11]

I value equality, human welfare, pluralism, justice and individual liberty. That's why I believe the state should have a minimal amount of power, and why I side with the original "left"; those whose aim was welfare, before they got confused and started pursuing liberal ends by conservative means (compulsion, statism ...)

I'm a compassionate guy, and I think compassion is an important part of human nature. But I don't think you're a better person for trying to force people to do what you think is right.

So, to answer the original question, "left v. right" doesn't really cut it for me.

[Galactus]

Read up on Chinese collective farming communes.

Kind-of-true, kind-of-not. Incentives were a problem, but not in the direct sense. (eg. that people were lazy, although that often happened as a further consequence) but rather the slowness and problems of handling the feedback system. (and various misincentives that came out of that)

The problem generally wasn't incentivizing in the regular way, but rather an inability to deal with shortages efficiently. (the price mechanism does that automatically, east-bloc planners proved unable to)

Providing incentives for the workers really isn't an inherent problem of planned economies (at least not any more than they are in any market-driven corporation) there are other problems with command economies that far outweigh any problems with incentivization. (the most important is the lack of the automatic feedback mechanism that a supply-demand price system implies)

[Brienne the Beauty]

I'm a compassionate guy, and I think compassion is an important part of human nature. But I don't think you're a better person for trying to force people to do what you think is right.

It seems to me that the first thing a weak state gives up is compassion, and the last thing it gives up is control. Instead of a weak state, why not have a good state, that supports liberty not control? Afghanistan is a weak state; not much freedom there.

[int11]

It seems to me that the first thing a weak state gives up is compassion, and the last thing it gives up is control. Instead of a weak state, why not have a good state, that supports liberty not control? Afghanistan is a weak state; not much freedom there.

Just to clarify, what do you mean by the "state" giving up compassion? The politicians? Yes, I'm all for a good state (as opposed to a bad one), and I'm not advocating a weak state (as in liable to collapse and not be able to do its job). Maintaining freedom and allowing gay people to marry and people to trade as they see fit doesn't make it a weak state.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Just to clarify, what do you mean by the "state" giving up compassion?

I mean the way that the right-wing politicians are more eager to cut food stamps than subsidies to oil companies. Compassion for the poor and weak.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BtB,

But isn't the difficulty that there is strong disagreement about what a "good State" should be doing?

(I agree with you about cutting business subsidies.)

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I mean the way that the right-wing politicians are more eager to cut food stamps than subsidies to oil companies. Compassion for the poor and weak.

If the state provides subsides to the oil companies then how exactly is it a weak state that doesn't take a role in shaping economy?

If the same state stops subsides and only provides some welfare but has much less military budget, is generally small, and so on, wouldn't it be smaller than the other state though with more compassionate (in one's views) priorities?

Also why is small government necessarily equal with weak government that can't enforce its laws, have stability, and so on? I don't think very corrupted countries like Afghanistan who have several problems that might not be found in some other societies are good examples.

[Brienne the Beauty]

If the state provides subsides to the oil companies then how exactly is it a weak state that doesn't take a role in shaping economy?

I dunno, but the same folks who call for a small state generally have zero problem with oil subsidies, or intrusive laws that don't affect them (anti-abortion laws spring to mind)

My opinion is that except for a few hardline libertarians, for most people "small state" means "small state in things I don't like, overbearing state in things I do like."

[Reposado]

"small state in things I don't like, overbearing state in things I do like."

this describes the desires of both left and right accurately. and that's what this thread is about. that a different type of polarity is possible

and galctus is right, incentive isn't as big a problem for planned economies is calculation.

in soviet russia, fields went unharvested with mostly good tractors rusting in them because of need of a single part that wasn't produced.

in a market economy, rising and fall prices are signals to producers. without prices, planners will simply not know what to make or how much of it.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I dunno, but the same folks who call for a small state generally have zero problem with oil subsidies, or intrusive laws that don't affect them (anti-abortion laws spring to mind)

My opinion is that except for a few hardline libertarians, for most people "small state" means "small state in things I don't like, overbearing state in things I do like."

I think there are multiple different philosophies which philosophies do have differences, in regards to how big state to have and also where you prefer it to be big and where you prefer it to be small.

You get the extremely social conservative, want a lot of investments to go to the military somewhat economically libertarian on some issues in favor of subsides in others. These guys want a big state but small on things like heathlcare. I consider these (republicans) to be extremists and far right.

You get those who are similiar to the above only they want some more healthcare and goverment expenses on other issues and are not as much socially conservative and in favor of government intrusion in issues like abortion. They like the above group are not against their government having the ability to assassinate citizens, use power abroad in ways that other countries might not, and other stuff. They have differences but also important similarities. I think these are the American Democrats.

You get those who want a very high welfare state, a lot of environmental legislation and so on.

You get the centrist leaning libertarian who want a smaller state than the above but also doesn't mind some government intervention in the economy and in other issues (immigration) so smaller does not necessarily mean as small as possible. Also they are socially liberal.

You get those who are very libertarian who want an extremely small state

You get anarchocapitalists

Of course communists also exist too

There might be others I forgot and there are various variations of the above. (a somewhat social conservative leaning party that is also somewhat economical libertarian for example that is quite saner and less anti-rights or theocratic than the republicans, which isn't impossible at all ).

[paddington]

A thought occured to me. Isn't the Statist (right or left) someone who values security over liberty? Be it economic security or personal security the Statist wants the State to be strong to protect them.

For me Scot security is a very easy concept to understand, I suspect for a lot of people that aren't as politically educated as most posters here, or as minded it's similar.

Liberty, well when I first read your question, I went and had a look at the wiki. An I am still very confused/unsure about the concept of liberty, as I think you mean it.

So I guess in the end, I want a state that protects my liberties, not one I have to protect my liberty from.

[Kalbear]

Isn't the Statist (right or left) someone who values security over liberty?

No, and you don't get to use the 'sacrifice a bit of liberty for security' quote that I know you're just dying to use, Scot. Try to be a bit less obvious in your leading questions next time.

Scot, isn't a Statist someone who values community over individuality, who thinks that we can do more and are better people when working for each other and with each other?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Paddington,

I think that's an excellent point but I do think it suggests another question: what is a better state a small state with limited but well defined powers or a large state with expansive powers that can be asserted without warning or awareness that the State is even interested in the area the State is now asserting power?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

The question was leading, I've changed it. Old habits die hard. I was not attempting to conceal the source of the question. I assumed people reading this thread are bright enough to figure it out without connecting all the dots for them.

As to your second point. I do not believe "community" is coextensive with "State". As such I do not agree Statists are simply people who value "community" over the individual. People can and do act communally without the monopoly of force the state posseses hanging over their heads.

[Howdyphillip]

I generally fall in the anti-statist political point of view and urge for a strong form of centralized government. One of these exceptions is that I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed and that states should appoint their US Senators instead of bringing the position of a general election. In an election, especially one that is as big as a Senate seat requires tons of money campaigning. That money is raised nationally and internationally. I would rather that a Senator be beholden to the State for his or her job rather than special interest.