Chinarchy

From Childhood To Statism: Introduction

by Anderson | 04/10/10 | 1 comment

This series is the result of an idea I’ve been toying with for the past several weeks. The idea is to identify some of the ideals, values, and lessons that children learn and to explain how these lessons from childhood lead to statism in adulthood.

I want to show some of the ways that schools, teachers, and parents train children to become statists.

In this introductory post I want to set up and explain what this series will cover.

For starters, this is not a complete analysis of the origins of statism in childhood. I will use the examples that I have seen first-hand. It will be based on my experiences.

Secondly, it is not about the origin of statism as an intellectual theory. I don’t want to examine where the idea of statism came from, but rather where the psychological acceptance of that idea comes from.

In order to explain the difference, we should start with some definitions.

Statism

Statism is the ideology that proposes and supports the use of states — or governments — to organize human society.

A state, if we go by the standard political science definition provided by Max Weber, is an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This is actually a pretty good definition, considering it’s widely accepted by academics.

Let’s break down a little bit more, just so we can be really clear on what we’re talking about when we say “statism.”

The word entity is of course meant very loosely in the definition. There is not a physical thing that exists called The State. There is a group of people. They may be fixed or they may be a rotating group of people but they are just people. They are the bureaucrats, politicians, policemen (and so on and so on) that fill offices and buildings and barracks. This aggregation of people is what we call the state.

And this group of people “claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.” What does that mean? It means they claim that in a given area, only the people making up the state are allowed to use violence and it is moral for them to do so but immoral for anyone else to do so.

This is starting to sound a little bit like “I’m allowed to hit you, but you’re not allowed to hit me.” And it should, because at its basic and truest form that’s the idea of statism. One group of people is allowed to use violence against the rest.

As Leo Tolstoy famously put it: “Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us.”

Acceptance of Statism

Despite the endless justifications for statism (“voting this” and “social contract that”) the core premise is completely…retarded and insane.

The idea that you can solve complex social problems like education or health care or poverty by allowing one small group of people threaten and coerce everybody else is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard. And one reasonable people would never accept. But almost everyone does…maybe even you.

I’m not here to convince you that statism is evil and supporting it is immoral — maybe I’ll do that in another post. So before you start writing me emails saying, “But Anderson, if one group of people didn’t have a monopoly on violence who would build the roads?” I want to remind you that my purpose in this series is to identify why people accept such a clearly retarded and wrong idea.

Because, although the idea may be wrong, it’s only dangerous when people buy into it.

If I had the idea that every human being should drink bleach, well, without widespread acceptance it’s just a stupid idea. But imagine if everyone starting believing in it and supporting it? That’s where the real danger lies.

The same analogy can be made with slavery. The idea that one person should be able to own another is an evil idea — and an idea not unrelated to statism — but it was only truly vile because people accepted it.

That is why I’m not interested in the origin of the theories that promote and support statism, but rather the origin of the acceptance of statism.

It is the acceptance of statism that has allowed it to become a plague on this planet. In the 20th century alone states have murdered over 260 million people — I’m talking about unarmed, innocent people, not soldiers in war. Faced with this pile of bodies, most people still never question whether or not statism is a good idea.

And as I said in the first section, I believe it is because we are trained to accept it as children.

So, over the next few posts I want to talk about some of the “lessons” I see that lead directly to this unquestioning acceptance.

Check back soon…