Comments on: “Statism” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=statism Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:05:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3331 John Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:30:02 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3331 <blockquote>The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.</blockquote> But if that's what's at stake, then <em>no one</em> (by which I mean: no one in the US with any real political influence) is a statist, and so the GOP's legendary "anti-statism" simply amounts to their ability to fight a powerless and largely mythical bogeyman.

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

But if that’s what’s at stake, then no one (by which I mean: no one in the US with any real political influence) is a statist, and so the GOP’s legendary “anti-statism” simply amounts to their ability to fight a powerless and largely mythical bogeyman.

]]> By: Mike Farmer http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3330 Mike Farmer Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:08:43 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3330 Most people who use "statism" as an indictment of central control go by the definition of -- The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. This seems pretty useful to justify the term -- by any other name it would be the same. And killing the term by stretching it to those who propose a minimal state is misleading -- a reaction to the term that hits a nerve. Most people who use “statism” as an indictment of central control go by the definition of –

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

This seems pretty useful to justify the term — by any other name it would be the same. And killing the term by stretching it to those who propose a minimal state is misleading — a reaction to the term that hits a nerve.

]]> By: John http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3329 John Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:15:12 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3329 <blockquote>Have you seen Larison’s post?</blockquote> Yep - never miss 'em.

Have you seen Larison’s post?

Yep – never miss ‘em.

]]> By: Cascadian http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3328 Cascadian Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:40:08 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3328 "Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right. Yep. At least about right." I'll second that. Have you seen Larison's post? “Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right.

Yep. At least about right.”

I’ll second that. Have you seen Larison’s post?

]]> By: John http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3332 John Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:58 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3332 <blockquote>Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right.</blockquote> Yep. At least <em>about</em> right.

Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right.

Yep. At least about right.

]]> By: Mark G http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3333 Mark G Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:58:53 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3333 Trying to get a bead on your idea of appropriate military expenditure. Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right. If not, if you are down with Wilson/FDR/Nixon interventionism, the gripe about our bloated defense budget (voted for my members of both parties) rings a little hollow to me. Trying to get a bead on your idea of appropriate military expenditure. Sounds as if you think the early 20th century isolationists had it about right. If not, if you are down with Wilson/FDR/Nixon interventionism, the gripe about our bloated defense budget (voted for my members of both parties) rings a little hollow to me.

]]> By: The Tone-Deafness of the “Statism” Charge | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3334 The Tone-Deafness of the “Statism” Charge | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:52:33 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3334 [...] Wilkinson and John Schwenkler respond, arguing that at the end of the day, anyone other than an anarchist is a [...] [...] Wilkinson and John Schwenkler respond, arguing that at the end of the day, anyone other than an anarchist is a [...]

]]> By: The Statist Elephant (Ha!) in the Room http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3336 The Statist Elephant (Ha!) in the Room Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:15:47 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3336 [...] John Schwenkler: While we’re on the subject of war, though, isn’t that the elephant in the room here? I mean, I’m not a tenth the social liberal that Will is, nor am I an open borders devotee, etc. etc., but the fact remains that I wouldn’t think of supporting the GOP so long as it remains the party of bloated defense budgets, unapologetic support for the Iraq war, and bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, not to mention freedom fries, FISA, the PATRIOT Act, torture, and the rest. That’s statism, my friends, and if Jonah Goldberg really can’t see why a committed libertarian might regard such a party as a lost cause to be jettisoned in favor of an admittedly unattractive other, then he clearly needs to think things through again. [...] [...] John Schwenkler: While we’re on the subject of war, though, isn’t that the elephant in the room here? I mean, I’m not a tenth the social liberal that Will is, nor am I an open borders devotee, etc. etc., but the fact remains that I wouldn’t think of supporting the GOP so long as it remains the party of bloated defense budgets, unapologetic support for the Iraq war, and bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, not to mention freedom fries, FISA, the PATRIOT Act, torture, and the rest. That’s statism, my friends, and if Jonah Goldberg really can’t see why a committed libertarian might regard such a party as a lost cause to be jettisoned in favor of an admittedly unattractive other, then he clearly needs to think things through again. [...]

]]> By: Cascadian http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3337 Cascadian Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:22:42 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3337 Let's try this one more time in the right thread: Will’s definition of Statist is pretty broad. Any non anarchist qualifies. I suppose I’m a statist too. I want my State to have more freedom. But once we’ve erased the difference between Federalists and anti-Federalists, there’s not much left to argue about. One of my main problems with Will’s position, is a porous border. If the State is nothing more than an imaginary line on a map is it still a state? Amazingly, I think that securing the borders and instituting an intelligent immigration policy like Canada’s is necessary for many of the social goods we seek, from labor to schools. Let’s try this one more time in the right thread:

Will’s definition of Statist is pretty broad. Any non anarchist qualifies. I suppose I’m a statist too. I want my State to have more freedom. But once we’ve erased the difference between Federalists and anti-Federalists, there’s not much left to argue about.

One of my main problems with Will’s position, is a porous border. If the State is nothing more than an imaginary line on a map is it still a state? Amazingly, I think that securing the borders and instituting an intelligent immigration policy like Canada’s is necessary for many of the social goods we seek, from labor to schools.

]]> By: Will http://www.theamericanconservative.com/schwenkler/2009/02/18/statism/comment-page-1/#comment-3335 Will Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:51:17 +0000 http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/statism/#comment-3335 I think your last point on foreign policy often gets lost in these discussion. Goldberg goes to great lengths to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats on economic policy. And fair enough - there are a few real differences between the two parties on fiscal policy. But someone ought to tell him that libertarians also care about civil liberties, foreign policy, and (to varying degrees) social egalitarianism, and on these issues, it's much easier to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. I think your last point on foreign policy often gets lost in these discussion. Goldberg goes to great lengths to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats on economic policy. And fair enough – there are a few real differences between the two parties on fiscal policy. But someone ought to tell him that libertarians also care about civil liberties, foreign policy, and (to varying degrees) social egalitarianism, and on these issues, it’s much easier to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans.

]]>