I'm searching for a good word to represent the opposite of "Statism" (specifically over-reliance on state attempts to manage economic and social outcomes). It's tempting to use an "-ism". Concepts I want to invoke but can't find an ideal "-ism" for: liberty, free markets, civil society, enterprise, initiative, volunteerism, opportunity, etc.
Some words in the ballpark, but less than ideal:
Anarchism: means the absence of a state, too extreme for what I'm seeking.
Liberalism: in its classical sense, okay. But the modern usage is way off.
Libertarianism: Similiar to classical liberalism. Unfortunately, many now misconstrue the term to mean outright support for unattractive behaviors, as opposed to the disfavoring of regulation through government coercion.
Dynamism: as coined by Virginia Postrel. Not bad, but perhaps insufficiently evocative in a political sense.
Individualism: Sounds lonely, and seems to ignore the positive role of voluntary, non-state-based collective action.
Suggestions anyone?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Email ThisFor local governance, I'd go with Libertarian Municipalism on the local level, coordinated reginally through a loose Federalism, based upon population and economic necessity.
For economics, that is a tough one. What would preserve individual initiative without trampling on the rights of the community, and vice versa? I would go for a libertarian syndicalism based upon an industrial classification model, regulated not by the state, but through free negotiation with the Municipalism above.
None of the above would preclude the rights of personal property.
Ask a silly question...
Posted by: t.p.n. on June 10, 2007 02:22 PMI've often thought it unfortunate how the collectivist/statist Left has taken over the word "liberal" in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK. Outside of here and the UK, "liberals" aren't the candidates on the Left. Think of Australia where John Howard, a solid supporter of the U.S. and pro-business prime minister is the leader of the Liberal Party. Or just look to the north of us where the anti-socialist center-right run under the banner of the British Columbia Liberal Party.
It's actually pretty outrageous that the collectivist left has taken over the word "liberal" here. It's much too good for them.
My suggestion for the opposite of statism is "classical liberalism". That will make people ask questions and it will give us an opportunity to point out that the people called liberal today are not liberals in the classical sense at all but are in reality, watered-down socialists and only watered down enough to the minimum extent necessary to win elections.
Posted by: Brent Boger on June 10, 2007 02:40 PM
What does the Liberal Party stand for ?
We are the party of initiative and enterprise.
We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.
We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.
Powerline has great commentary on "the forgotten man:"
Shlaes frames the book around Roosevelt's invocation of "the forgotten man" on behalf of his expansion of the government and government power. In an act of intellectual recovery that is itself a revelation, Shlaes shows that Roosevelt borrowed (and twisted) the phrase from the Yale philosopher William Graham Sumner. Here Shlaes quotes Sumner and elaborates on the passage:
"As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose tp get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law proposes to determine...what A, B, and C shall do for X." But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, "the man who is never thought of."
Shlaes explains:
In 1931, a member of Roosevelt's brain trust, Ray Moley, recalled the phrase, although not its provenance. He inserted it into the candidate's first great speech. If elected, Roosevelt promised, he would act in the name of "the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." Whereas C had been Sumner's forgotten man, the New Deal made X the forgotten man -- the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.
Read the whole thing on Powerline here
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 10, 2007 03:50 PMI would agree with pudge at 2 who uses "little-l libertarian", although I would call it "small-l libertarian" or "small-l liberal". "Classic Liberal" is good too.
Also "statist" is too mild for the core left - try "totalitarian". It fits so much better.
Why not go to the source of the libertarian movement--Ayn Rand. The word she coined was "Objectivism". She even had a newsletter back in the late 60's/early 70's called "The Objectivist".
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 10, 2007 06:57 PMIn the film a beautiful mind the perfect formula is invented by John Nash,and has never really been adhered to.
Laissez-faire (IPA: [lɛse fɛr]) is a French phrase meaning "let do". From the French diction first used by the 18th century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights.[1] In this view, it is not the job of the state to intervene in the economy in an attempt to reduce inequality, poverty or protect worker's rights (except to protect the right to unionize but not to force employers to negotiate with unions, to protect worker's freedom to not join a union, and protection of other rights covered under property rights). Free-market anarchists take the idea to its full length by opposing all taxation. Laissez-faire also embodies free trade, namely that a state should not use protectionist measures, such as tariffs and subsidies, in order to curtail trade through national frontiers. It also contains the idea that the government should not create legal monopolies or use force to damage de facto monopolies.
In the early stages of European and American economic theory, laissez-faire economic policy was contrasted with mercantilist economic policy, which had been the dominant system of the United Kingdom, Spain, France and other European countries, during their rise to power.
The term laissez-faire is often used interchangeably with the term "free market". Some use the term laissez-faire to refer to "let do, let pass" attitude for matters outside of economics.[2]
What we have is a very restricted version of the Free market.
Cannabis product are not allowed to compete with big oil ,cotton,dupont,medicine and thousands of other products.
That is called a de jure monopoly
A legal monopoly, statutory monopoly, or de jure monopoly is a monopoly that is protected by law from competition. A statutory monopoly may take the form of a government monopoly where the state owns the particular means of production or government-granted monopoly where a private interest is protected from competition such as being granted exclusive rights to offer a particular service in a specific region while agreeing to have their policies and prices regulated. [
A defacto monopoly is a Bill gates Microsoft monopoly.
Some services are restricted to to added cost from the Feelers entitlements which constrict sales volumes by increasing gove4ment overhead,and prices,and limiting participation by the poor.
The closest we have come I feel is before the drug war was sterilized and homogenized into its current industry.
Prices were low enough and poor people's participation was higher,thus sales tax revenues were at a peak that has long since been lost.
Notice the correlation between the legislature staying late and spending revenues back then,and now.
The incentive has long since been lost,the profitability has been taken out,the participation limited to the rich.
The lack of competition,Government overhead,higher prices has driven the poor out of the formula.
John Nash's formula was that there had to be something in it for everybody.
Now we have killed the golden goose before it has had a chance to lay the golden egg.
The conservative movement is anything but classically liberal orm objectivisit. There is nothing about gay marriage, marijuana legalization, porn, freedom form G-d, etc that is liberal in the traditonal sense.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 10, 2007 07:31 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 10, 2007 07:54 PMAnd no, Christianity is not the opposite of statism. That falsely implies that there is a religious (or anti-religious) component to statism. While I do agree (esp. if you read through Romans 7, 8, 9, etc.) that Christianity embodies many of the ideals of whatever one wishes to call "anti-statism," Christianity also encompasses far more than "anti-statism" does.
Posted by: pudge on June 10, 2007 10:21 PMMost true Monarchies, while denying political freedom, do not hold a candle to Socialism as a "Statist" enterprise. The ideological revolution in the 20th Century, principally from the (mostly 19th century) work of Hegel, Darwin, Marx and Freud, was to exalt government as a replacement for God.
The spiritual children of that revolution, both under Hitler and the Communists, having shouldered the burden to transform the whole of society, to become God, as it were, were more coercive and brutal that all but the most evil monarchies in history.
In most historic monarchies, the king's rule went unquestioned. But he didn't take everything you had, and he didn't run human extermination Gulags, either. He was not truly "totalitarian."
Yes, of course there is much more to Christianity than government. That is precisely why it is the opposite of Statism. The role of government, in Christian thought, is limited, not non-existent. Statist thought, by contrast, attempts to completely wipe out the functional role of God in society. Assuming that all men are as evil as they, themselves, are, Statists scoff at freedom as a working concept in society. They think "freedom" is just a ploy to ruin their plans and they are sincere. This is the mindset of Socialists and Environmentalists.
"If the government doesn't control it, [they think] it must be the evil corporations!"
But freedom in a society with just laws works... because, contrary to the positions of the New York Times, NEA and MSNBC,
God is real.
But I DO know that it won't be found by leadership in any political party.
Posted by: Independent voter on June 11, 2007 05:16 AMNo, statism is not anti-religious. Many statists are anti-religious, but it's not inherent to the philosophy. Your claim that "Statist thought ... attempts to completely wipe out the functional role of God in society" is false (and obviously, even if it WERE true, then it would not be the opposite of Christianity, since Christian thought, as you state, does not seek to make God central to everything in society). Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama are statists, and they do not seek to wipe out the role of God in society. Far from it.
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2007 07:27 AMI believe in individual rights far more than Libertarians do. Of course, I am a libertarian Republican, but not a Libertarian.
Then don't get an abortion.
I colud care less if women get abortions or not: just as long as I'm not stuck picking up the tab, regardless of the decision.
Posted by: Libertarian on June 11, 2007 08:17 AMI would take ancient Greece or Rome over ancient Israel just about any day. And during the dark ages the Islamic world was the center of freedom and free thought. Today its mostly the Christian areas. Religions, like political movements, are no better or worse then their current adherents. They can go from good to evil in a generation.
That’s why a pluralistic democracy is such a great thing as it allows for shifting power. Even as a strong liberal atheist I am glad there are countering voices present. My viewpoint is just as likely to produce tyranny absent check then any other. Also, I know that my point of view is flawed. There are plenty of cases were other voices can make liberal policies better and vice verse.
And I think CS Lewis would disagree with you a bit. His Christian utopia was rather socialistic if memory serves. Also having read the bible I don't really see the argument in there for American government. Not that I would expect it to as it was written by people with no concept of it, but lets give credit were it is due. And that is with the people of the enlightenment. I’ll grant you many were Christians, but they were different Christians then what came before and the simultaneously began a change In the faith as they changed society. While debatable, I would include Martin Luther in that as well as he brought “Republicanism” to the church.
Believe whatever you want to believe, pal.
Posted by: Libertarian on June 11, 2007 08:34 AMAs to whether abortion may be made illegal, yes, absolutely it will, though maybe not until birth control is foolproof and nearly free. But for crying out loud, do you really think, as the LP platform calls for, the FCC will ever be abolished? That real property taxes will ever be abolished? All federal corporate subsidies will be eliminated? All utilities will have prices set by the free market alone? Repeal all illegal drug laws?
Thise things are all far less likely, yet your party favors them, so don't talk to us about favoring only the things that are possible.
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2007 09:16 AMThis requires us all to live with faith in our fellow citizens. We have to believe that our neighbors will act according to the social contract, our neighbors have to trust us to behave ourselves.
It also requires us to forgo the knee-jerk "we have to do something" reaction every time someone behaves in a way that harms someone else. Most of these are torts, and harm can be redressed through civil action. Instead, we criminalize all behavior until we reach the point that behavior comes from adherence to government law, not a code of conduct based on a personal commitment to do our best for ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Get a clue. You know less about the Libertarian Party than you do about particle beam physics. The Libertarian Party stands for small government, individual rights and responsibilities, and not getting involved in foreign quagmires.
Posted by: Libertarian on June 11, 2007 12:53 PMAnd for the record, I do know a little something about particle beam physics, for a layman. But I know far more about the Libertarian Party, as one with many LP friends, and as a former member.
I know quite well that the LP, like me, stands for small government, individual rights and responsibilities, and isolationism when possible. All are good conservative principles. I was merely remarking on the hypocrisy of the fact that you were attacking Republicans for being against abortion because "ordinary abortion will continue" regardless, and yet the majority of the LP platform also is fighting a losing battle.
To put it another way: if Libertarians believed you should only fight the fights you have a good chance of winning, then the Libertarian Party would not exist.
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2007 01:05 PMOne time someone, totally seriously, called me an "anarchist communist."
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2007 02:49 PMGranted, people like Pat Buchanan have their own brand of "conservative populism" or "populist conservatism," but it's not what immediately jumps to mind when most people use the term.
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2007 07:04 PMIn practice, I believe, all anarchical societies decay into chaos, because the good will (fraternity) is at odds with the individual's desire to express their freedom (liberty), and the sense that they are entitled to more because they made more "valuable" contributions to the society (anti-egalitarian).
The French Republicans had it exactly wrong. Liberty and Egalitarianism cannot co-exist unless you slip something into the water to make everyone excessively fraternal.
Posted by: huckleberry on June 12, 2007 10:19 PMSocialism is the enemy, not communism. Soviets used the term communism as part of their marketing spin to sell socialism, but it never was. Families are communistic. They are not democracies, they are not libertarian. Within a family, Marx's doctrine, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is widely applied.
Anarcho-socialism and anarcho-statism are oxymorons. So is libertarian socialism, though there are more and more lefties who wear this label.
Objectivism is not the opposite of Statism. Rand advocated limited government: Courts, Police, National Defense.
Anarchy is the opposite of statism, and for many it is not a dirty word. Look into such great anarcho-capitalists as Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner or the Austrian School of Economics.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 14, 2007 11:25 AM