Statism: Difference between revisions
Deleted User (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "]]Cat" to " [[Cat") |
m (Text replacement - "nature" to "nature") Β |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=== Counter-arguments === | === Counter-arguments === | ||
Anarchists in particular argue that such compromises don't need the role of a mediating state, opting instead for a common social contract enforced voluntarily by free individuals. Moreso, it is argued that by giving the state the monopoly on violence and ultimate decision making in regards to individuals, it's very existence is an attack on personal liberties and totalitarian in nature. | Anarchists in particular argue that such compromises don't need the role of a mediating state, opting instead for a common social contract enforced voluntarily by free individuals. Moreso, it is argued that by giving the state the monopoly on violence and ultimate decision making in regards to individuals, it's very existence is an attack on personal liberties and totalitarian in [[nature]]. | ||
== Positions against == | == Positions against == | ||
Latest revision as of 17:02, 17 February 2023
Statism (Plural: statisms) is a political and social philosophy developed sometime during or quickly after the Agricultural Revolution, simultaneously wherever it arose (from modern day Mexico to Mesopotamia to China).
Definitions
- (often derogatory) The belief that most or all political power should be centralized in national governments.
- The belief that most or nearly all political power should be decentralized to provincial governments.
- (rare, obsolete) Synonym of statecraft or statesmanship.
- (derogatory, obsolete) Synonym of secularism: subservience of religious issues to politicalofficials and expediency.
- (obsolete) Synonym of government or governance.
Positions in favor
Most modern political ideologies support the concept of statism. The concept of the state itself, however, varies significantly between different philosophies; nonetheless, it is accepted as a basic block of political discourse.
Arguments
It is commonly argued that a state is necessary to regulate conflictual behavior (or to render more efficient "matching" behavior - such as the exchange of goods) within a society. Moreover, a state is commonly thought to naturaly rise from technological development, in particular because of the specialization of roles within a society.
Counter-arguments
Anarchists in particular argue that such compromises don't need the role of a mediating state, opting instead for a common social contract enforced voluntarily by free individuals. Moreso, it is argued that by giving the state the monopoly on violence and ultimate decision making in regards to individuals, it's very existence is an attack on personal liberties and totalitarian in nature.
Positions against
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
βJean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
The most notable oppositions to statism belong to Anarchism, Communism and certain beliefs within the fields of Economics.
Arguments
Communists in particular offer a critique of the state itself, claiming that it would eventually "dissolve" once the ideal form of Communism is reached; more directly, Anarchists advocate for a direct abolition of it, instantenously. For specifics, see Anarchism.
Counter-arguments
For specifics, see Anarchism (section "critiques").
Deviations within the application of Statism
Statism is applied everywhere in the world, with some notable exceptions:
- Antarctica, which is officially property of no-one (though there are some claims)
- "Nations within Nations" such as Christiania, officially Fristaden Christiania.
- Lands unclaimed, such as Bir Tawil.
- Territories with a jurisdiction of no official nation, such as the bottom of the sea within international zones or the Moon.