• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Statism is a religion

M

Maximatic

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
49
Reaction score
12
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The statist believes that people should not be trusted to run their own lives, but that a bureaucracy, comprised of people, should be trusted to run the lives of millions of people, and that such a bureaucracy can do a better job of it.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that having won elected office changes the qualifications of any one person to run the lives of millions of others in any way, in fact, there is no evidence to that effect at all, of any kind. The belief, that having won elected office can qualify a person, or a group of people, to run the lives of millions of others is a belief in a mechanism by which a person who is unqualified can be transformed into one that is qualified, a mechanism which does not exist.

It is a belief in that which does not exist.

The statist does not believe that people are ends, in and of themselves, but that they are the means to an end that the statist has identified as society. This is a metaphysical belief about the nature of people, also known as a religious belief. Since society cannot be defined, in a literal sense, as anything other than the sum of the people living in an arbitrarily defined geographic area,

the ultimate good of the statist does not exist either.

The statist believes his desires, and their implementation, to be justified by what he calls a social contract. He believes that all people within the arbitrarily defined geographic area are morally and/or lawfully bound to obey those in the bureaucracy by a contract that none of them have ever signed, read, or even seen.

Such a contract, however, not only does not exist, it cannot possibly exist in any possible world. A contract is an agreement between two parties. If one of the parties has never agreed to the terms of an arrangement, that arrangement cannot possibly be a contract. A social contract, then, entails a logical contradiction.

The statist believes that something we know to be a logical impossibility actually exists.

If you are a statist, you are religious, the state is your god.
 
Just think people can't be trusted to govern themselves, but at the same time they can be trusted to govern the lives of others. The statist religion is pretty stupid when you really think about it.
 
Last edited:
Lets all talk about the social contract and how we all agreed to it. Then when asked for proof of this contract say it's not a literal contract and your agreement is not necessary. You know, because having proof of a contract is not necessary when you're trying to hold someone to the terms of it. No, you can just say it's not a contract at all, but for some reason it acts exactly like one and even goes by the same name.

Statists are awesome.
 
Maximatic said:
If you are a statist, you are religious, the state is your god.
Click to expand...

To be a religion you have to have a STANDARD set of values, rituals, and beliefs.

None of what you listed is standard, it is just your opinion. I have no idea what the fascination is with trying to label non-religious things a religion, but it is quite idiotic.
 
The internet that you use to publish this nonsense was created by statists. The underlying technology was built with state funded research and the physical cables used to transmit your message were subsidized by the state.

The correlation between a good standard of living and a stable central government is 100% in the current era. The idea that getting rid of the state leads to some kind of magical utopia is what requires faith.
 
Statism is more of a mental disorder. Its the idea that one can know whats best for another taken to the extreme. It think it results from poor potty training resulting in control issues.
 
Maximatic said:
The statist believes that people should not be trusted to run their own lives, but that a bureaucracy, comprised of people, should be trusted to run the lives of millions of people, and that such a bureaucracy can do a better job of it.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that having won elected office changes the qualifications of any one person to run the lives of millions of others in any way, in fact, there is no evidence to that effect at all, of any kind. The belief, that having won elected office can qualify a person, or a group of people, to run the lives of millions of others is a belief in a mechanism by which a person who is unqualified can be transformed into one that is qualified, a mechanism which does not exist.

It is a belief in that which does not exist.

The statist does not believe that people are ends, in and of themselves, but that they are the means to an end that the statist has identified as society. This is a metaphysical belief about the nature of people, also known as a religious belief. Since society cannot be defined, in a literal sense, as anything other than the sum of the people living in an arbitrarily defined geographic area,

the ultimate good of the statist does not exist either.

The statist believes his desires, and their implementation, to be justified by what he calls a social contract. He believes that all people within the arbitrarily defined geographic area are morally and/or lawfully bound to obey those in the bureaucracy by a contract that none of them have ever signed, read, or even seen.

Such a contract, however, not only does not exist, it cannot possibly exist in any possible world. A contract is an agreement between two parties. If one of the parties has never agreed to the terms of an arrangement, that arrangement cannot possibly be a contract. A social contract, then, entails a logical contradiction.

The statist believes that something we know to be a logical impossibility actually exists.

If you are a statist, you are religious, the state is your god.
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to defend this truth against those who don't want it discussed let alone mentioned?
 
TheNextEra said:
To be a religion you have to have a STANDARD set of values, rituals, and beliefs.

None of what you listed is standard, it is just your opinion. I have no idea what the fascination is with trying to label non-religious things a religion, but it is quite idiotic.
Click to expand...

It is a religion when it is based on putting faith into something higher than oneself. In the statist's case, he puts his faith in government and there are certain doctrines that all are expected to follow lest they be punished for heresy. Just some catechisms in the Statist doctrine:

Stated moral intentions are far more important than actual results of what government does and justify exaggerating benefits while ignoring negative results or consequences.

Stated rules for what constitutes politically correct speech shall be the law of the land and the people are encouraged to enforce them.

Stated principles of collective ownership of all property entitles government to take what it needs for whatever purpose it deems appropriate.

Stated uniform demonization of all who do not faithfully adhere to the principles that government knows what is best for the people more than the people know what is best and government will spend the money people earn far more effectively and efficiently than the people will spend it themselves.
 
TheNextEra said:
To be a religion you have to have a STANDARD set of values, rituals, and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Really? Why do you say that?

TheNextEra said:
None of what you listed is standard, it is just your opinion. I have no idea what the fascination is with trying to label non-religious things a religion, but it is quite idiotic.
Click to expand...

I described what statists literally believe. Everything I said can be falsified by showing that no statist believes any of it. My statements are about the world, external to me, not about my preferences for or opinions of that world, but about that world itself, and, as such, are matters of fact, not matters of opinion.
 
In my experience, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed by the government is highly unusual in the US. However, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed without the government is extremely common.
 
What exactly is a statist? Is anyone who believes there should be a state (gov) make them a statist?
 
voting.jpg

Pretty much.
 
Maximatic said:
Really? Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Because that's the definition of religion:

the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Click to expand...

There is no ORGANIZED bleliefs, ceremonies and rules to "worship" the "state" as you claim.

I described what statists literally believe. Everything I said can be falsified by showing that no statist believes any of it. My statements are about the world, external to me, not about my preferences for or opinions of that world, but about that world itself, and, as such, are matters of fact, not matters of opinion.
Click to expand...

No, you ahve made up this entity called the statist and applied it to people you don't like. You might as well named unicorns while you're at it. Who are these statists? Give SPECIFIC examples, not just some made up mythical "statist".

Sorry but words ACTUALLY have meaning, not just what you WANT them to be.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is a religion when it is based on putting faith into something higher than oneself. In the statist's case, he puts his faith in government and there are certain doctrines that all are expected to follow lest they be punished for heresy. Just some catechisms in the Statist doctrine:

Stated moral intentions are far more important than actual results of what government does and justify exaggerating benefits while ignoring negative results or consequences.

Stated rules for what constitutes politically correct speech shall be the law of the land and the people are encouraged to enforce them.

Stated principles of collective ownership of all property entitles government to take what it needs for whatever purpose it deems appropriate.

Stated uniform demonization of all who do not faithfully adhere to the principles that government knows what is best for the people more than the people know what is best and government will spend the money people earn far more effectively and efficiently than the people will spend it themselves.
Click to expand...

See my above post, there is no ORGANIZED set of rituals, beliefs, and ceremonies involved. IT is not a religion, sorry but words have definitions and they are not just what you WANT them to be.
 
TheNextEra said:
To be a religion you have to have a STANDARD set of values, rituals, and beliefs.

None of what you listed is standard, it is just your opinion. I have no idea what the fascination is with trying to label non-religious things a religion, but it is quite idiotic.
Click to expand...

1) Which statism has in A) there is no higher authority than the state's, B) federal holidays, significant moments in the state's existence, militarism, etc & C) the state is almighty.

2) There are many avenues that lead to the equivalent of religious conviction. Statism just happens to be one of them.
 
zoetherat said:
In my experience, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed by the government is highly unusual in the US. However, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed without the government is extremely common.
Click to expand...

I don't find either very common. There are things that even the most devout and faithful statist would not dream of entrusting to government, such as everything in his own life, so nobody really wants an actually limitless government.

I don't know any antistatists who believe that every problem is best addressed without the government. Most of us believe that no person has a right to systematically, unilaterally address the problems of others against their will.

Your statements are about caricatures of people's beliefs. Do you find our actual beliefs irrational? If so, why?
 
Jango said:
1) Which statism has in A) there is no higher authority than the state's, B) federal holidays, significant moments in the state's existence, militarism, etc & C) the state is almighty.
Click to expand...

Than specifically say who these statists are? Give a person as an example. You can't, because it's made up.

2) There are many avenues that lead to the equivalent of religious conviction. Statism just happens to be one of them.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Again, there is no organized set of beliefs. Which state? Which country, which region? they don't agree so they aren't organized. You can't even give a specific example of these mythical statists.
 
zoetherat said:
In my experience, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed by the government is highly unusual in the US. However, the irrational, ideological belief that every problem is best addressed without the government is extremely common.
Click to expand...

I don't find either very common. There are things that even the most devout and faithful statist would not dream of entrusting to government, such as everything in his own life, so nobody really wants an actually limitless government.

I don't know any antistatists who believe that every problem is best addressed without the government. Most of us believe that no person has a right to systematically, unilaterally address the problems of others against their will.

Your statements are about inaccurate caricatures of people's beliefs. Do you find our actual beliefs irrational? If so, why?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What exactly is a statist? Is anyone who believes there should be a state (gov) make them a statist?
Click to expand...

See, I disagree with this simplistic definition. Statism, from my observations & interactions, is akin to religion in the sense that there is unwavering support for the state, they take a lot of what they're told On Faith Alone & the state is funded by them.
 
Jango said:
See, I disagree with this simplistic definition. Statism, from my observations & interactions, is akin to religion in the sense that there is unwavering support for the state, they take a lot of what they're told On Faith Alone & the state is funded by them.
Click to expand...

So now statism is just if you trust your government?
 
rathi said:
The internet that you use to publish this nonsense was created by statists. The underlying technology was built with state funded research and the physical cables used to transmit your message were subsidized by the state.
Click to expand...

To make that argument you must argue that theft is justified if those that steal from you give you something in return for it.
 
Maximatic said:
I don't find either very common. There are things that even the most devout and faithful statist would not dream of entrusting to government, such as everything in his own life, so nobody really wants an actually limitless government.

I don't know any antistatists who believe that every problem is best addressed without the government. Most of us believe that no person has a right to systematically, unilaterally address the problems of others against their will.

Your statements are about inaccurate caricatures of people's beliefs. Do you find our actual beliefs irrational? If so, why?
Click to expand...

There are no "statists". When it comes to the size of government, there are libertarians who favor a small limited government ideologically, and then there are people for whom the size of government is not an ideological issue. You may call the later "statists", but I don't think it accurately describes their own ideological position, which is why you don't find anyone calling themselves "statists" in the same way you find libertarians calling themselves libertarians. You only find libertarians calling *other* people statists, people who would never label themselves as such.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Because that's the definition of religion:
the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Really? I see several definitions of religion, including these:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Why is yours special?

TheNextEra said:
There is no ORGANIZED bleliefs, ceremonies and rules to "worship" the "state" as you claim.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between religion and organized religion, but it wouldn't do much to make it because the state is quite organized. You even have rituals and ceremonies, observances, and membership; forced membership, so it's worse than most other religions, in that they, at least, let you leave peacefully.

TheNextEra said:
Sorry but words ACTUALLY have meaning, not just what you WANT them to be.
Click to expand...
I know. You should look them up.


TheNextEra said:
No, you ahve made up this entity called the statist and applied it to people you don't like. You might as well named unicorns while you're at it. Who are these statists? Give SPECIFIC examples, not just some made up mythical "statist".
Click to expand...

No I haven't. Read it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom