The Future of the USA

[futurepres]

Is the USA heading toward being statist or already statist?

[stegosaurus]

The state determines laws for society, with minimal input by the citizenry, and then enforces them under threat of force. "Give us your money or we'll show up at your door with guns, take you away, and take what we're 'entitled' from your family. ". One might think this is the modus operandi of any given crime syndicate, but it's also the essence of the state's attitude toward paying taxes.

I'm not sure if it's statism or not, but any institution whose authority derives from force and intimidation can be accused of thuggery - which is really where our federal government is heading.

[Link]

Is the USA heading toward being statist or already statist?

Great Newt Gingrich learns a new word and the rest of us have to be subjected to it for months.  We have 300+ million people crammed together in one country... there have to be laws.

[後援会]

"Statist" is a funky word. At what point does a society or nation become a "statist" society? I can't really answer that.

Though I can answer with confidence that as a proportion of the total economy, the government will become larger. The reticence of the American public to deal with entitlement programs makes it almost a certainty.

[ag]

Define statist.

[futurepres]

Statist being defined as a Dictatorship.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I think "Statist" means that a nation-state's culture or economy is primarily run through the administrative and judicial powers of the state. This is so whether or not everyone or only a few people got to decide on that fact. 

[Torie]

I don't think the term "statist" is any more helpful than "socialist."  Why do the youngs get so fixated with labels?  I include myself to some extent, but then I am no longer young.

[ag]

Statist being defined as a Dictatorship.

then why do you need a new word for it?

Anyway, no chance then: there isn't ever going to be an American Pinochet

[opebo]

It has been 'statist' from its inception.  It is a state which applies brutal force against an owned class on behalf of an owning class - the latter being as we all a tiny, privileged minority.

[Old Europe]

Definition of "statism" on Wikipedia:

Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts. Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions. Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all encompassing state. Limited government, welfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism. Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.

So, the answer is yes, obviously. The United States has a government and will probably continue to have a government in its future.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I guess its a definition that has a lower s and an upper S definition.

"statism" means that there is some form of state and "Statism" means that a nation's economy, anthropology or both is primarily administrated by police power.

So Democrats believe in more police power to administer the economy and more market or anarchical structures to shape the anthropology of the nation while Republicans believe the opposite.

and Anarchism doe not necessarily mean lawlessness.

[asexual trans victimologist]

So Democrats believe in more police power to administer the economy and more market or anarchical structures to shape the anthropology of the nation while Republicans believe the opposite.

That would be a convenient Terminus Est if it were true, wouldn't it?

[© Tweed the Younger]

has been since Reagan.

[© Tweed the Younger]

CHOMSKY: The Reagan and Bush administrations say they are conservatives trying to give a right-wing thrust to the courts. But they are actually statist reactionaries who believe that the courts should control you. That's exactly what's happening in the courts.

QUESTION: And that is quite ironic because conservatives are always preaching about how they are against big government and the intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens.

CHOMSKY: Yes, but the Reaganites are not conservatives. I'm much more conservative than they are. Any old time conservative would turn over in his grave if he could see how the term conservative was used in the 1980s.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----.htm

[InsaneTrollLogic]

So Democrats believe in more police power to administer the economy and more market or anarchical structures to shape the anthropology of the nation while Republicans believe the opposite.

That would be a convenient Terminus Est if it were true, wouldn't it?

Well, yeah....but there is probably some form unifying theme that explains how people think, though. Its probably too complicated to explain quickly and easily, though.

[krazen1211]

Government spending has steadily grown for 60 years.

For instance, education spending per pupil used to be $4300 per pupil in current dollars. That has more than doubled.

[opebo]

Government spending has steadily grown for 60 years.

Government spending has nothing to do with statism, krazen.  What you think of as 'private' spending is precisely determined and allocated by the state as well.

[Vosem]

Government spending has steadily grown for 60 years.

Government spending has nothing to do with statism, krazen.  What you think of as 'private' spending is precisely determined and allocated by the state as well.

No. The government doesn't determine whether or not I choose to buy a pack of gum when I walk home or not (for instance). Obviously, that's an extremely small-scale example, but the same principle applies the further up you go.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Government spending has steadily grown for 60 years.

Government spending has nothing to do with statism, krazen.  What you think of as 'private' spending is precisely determined and allocated by the state as well.

No. The government doesn't determine whether or not I choose to buy a pack of gum when I walk home or not (for instance). Obviously, that's an extremely small-scale example, but the same principle applies the further up you go.

lol

[ingemann]

I don't see why this question have any relevance? USA will inn all likelyhood keep having a functioning government, whether it will embrace increase social justice or become even more of a corporate lapdog have nothing to do with lowering or increasing the so called "statism". A weakening of statism will not come from politicians, but from the inhabitants of USA, if we see areax of the south west end up under the rule of the Mexican drug cartels, we will have seen a decrease of statism, if we see abortion doctors being murdered and their clinics being closed through violence and threats of violence we will have seen a decrease of statism. Whether people pay 10% or 30% in tax have no relationship with statism, neither will any ban of cigarettes, the only thing which matter is whether the state can enforce its own laws and rules.