one thing i notice about statists, whether liberals or conservatives: i.e. everybody. they give an argument. i blow it up, twice for good measure. then they give another, perhaps totally incompatible with the first. i vaporize it. then another. then, remarkably, back to the first as though nothing ever happened. now some of these people regard themselves as "reality-based" and rational (that's the left's current persona). but it's incredibly obvious that reasons don't matter at all to them in this: any reason to believe in the legitimacy of the state is a good-enough reason; no reason not to is any good at all. it's exactly like arguing with a believer about god: they might give arguments, but arguments have nothing to do with it.

what it is about, in my view, is the desire to be subordinated. it hardly matters how or why or by whom or for what. oh we'll play with the policy preferences, but the overwhelming reality of domination is ignored, precisely because it is the affective heart, the libidinous bit. we've got too many bottoms chasing not enough tops.

Comments

[Henry]

I am a statist who does not fit your description. This is because I concede the illegitimacy of the state. Without a god or gods to make it legitimate, or without every living person who is affected by it agreeing to it, how could it possibly be legitimate?

But, as (roughly speaking) a utilitarian, I don't care whether the state it legitimate: I care whether it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But, actually, I don't care about that either, because the state is a given, so it doesn't matter whether, on the whole, it is a good thing. What I really care about is whether each separate act of the state brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. War almost never does, so I oppose almost all wars. Providing services such as universal health care, fire protection, mass transportation, and the like, usually is good for people and could not be accomplished as effectively without the state, so I generally favor them.

I find that libertarians and anarchists tend to conflate their principled arguments and their utilitarian arguments. That is, they argue not only that the state is illegitimate, but that everything it does is bad. But the latter claim is typically based on the former, and not on empirical judgments.

[CB]

Henry,
Wouldn't that make you more of a libertarian-socialist (which is the branch I lean most towards). If there is a state, the only role you (i) want it playing is one along the lines of socialism, otherwise it can bugger off.

To crispy, I think there might be more to these pro statists than you first recognize: "what it is about, in my view, is the desire to be subordinated." It may also be that proponent is so well off in the state that he/she wants to do the subordinating. Standard Marxist criticism, that the higher classes are just defending their bourgeois way of life?

[Henry]

CB, I had not known of the possibility of being a libertarian-socialist; that sounds like an oxymoron. In any case, I am not a socialist. I accept capitalism, but regulated to prevent its most harmful effects. I also want the state to guarantee that no one will go without the necessities of life, including health care, but I do not view that as socialist.

[anony]

It is because people innately crave order and predictability, which creates a sense of security. The state provides this, as does religious belief.

The real challenge would be to convince a statist or theist that you could achieve order and predictability without subordination. It should perhaps be the fundamental goal of anarchist theory.

[CB]

If you're interested, it's a nice intro henry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-60

[marcus]

The tops cause trouble too, no? I guess what we need is a society of masturbators.

[regirock]

The real challenge would be to convince a statist or theist that you could achieve order and predictability without subordination.

Order is everyone having a place, knowing it, and not deviating from it. Therefore order and subordination are necessarily synonyms.

[John Q. Galt]

Somebody tie up Henry and tickle his nipples with ostrich feathers before he votes again.