The Perennial Faith of Mankind is Statism

In a way I feel for the activists. Begging the State for action is like praying to an idol for a miracle—noises are made, desires are expressed, but we are left disappointed.

“Nowhere is the perennial faith of mankind better seen,” wrote Herbert Spencer. “Thus, while every day chronicles a failure, there every day reappears the belief that it needs but an Act of Parliament and a staff of officers to effect any end desired”.

So it is and has always been. While the State moves with great speed towards any end that satisfies its own interests, but begrudgingly and with alacrity towards any interest of the people, the faith in its craftsmanship nonetheless remains.

Statism is a sort of idolatry, anyways. The mythology of social contracts and other polite beginnings are common narratives, but they scatter in pieces when one looks at the history of any state’s formation, which is invariably one of conquest and exploitation. The faith in its institution, though, and in the careerists who run it, no doubt continues to expand, as do the laws, the prohibitions, the controls, and the agencies tasked with enforcing them.

None of that bothers us. Assuming that, like money, the state has no power of its own, it goes to follow that we in the West, with our nobles and parliaments and congresses, willingly and obsequiously furnish it power each time we head to the ballot-box, where we get to select which human beings should have the right to our thraldom. Where one may on some days think it absurd to choose others to run his life, come election time he falls in line seeking suffrage.

No matter how we empower the State, whether by voting or begging or singing its praises, its growth equals a corresponding decline in social power, and the inevitable descent of man into state chattel. Perhaps that’s what we’ve wanted all along.

a reply to: CitizenZero

Great post!

A person who feels equal to the challenge of caring for him or herself looks to heaven to care for the soul.

statism is the logical way for this practical-world reality

but for the eclectic groups there's always religion or spirit induced prophecy as a road-map

and bully to those persons who are adept in 'pivoting' between-the-two ideologies

a reply to: CitizenZero

I venture that the mistake is in equating offices of regulation and legislation with the duties of protecting and serving. There is calibration and there is regimen. One is a structure and the other is a reaction, or to phrase it another way, creating a permanent barrier vs repairing the consequences of no barrier. The idea is that sufficient structure eliminates the need for reaction, and statism is the conviction in that philosophy.

I think it's the belief that if we only had enough rules and laws, everyone would have a perfect life.

The Old Testament law is a reflection of this. In order to be counted worthy in God's eyes, one simply had to follow them all ... perfectly for all one's life.

No one ever could.

Statism is the same concept only absent God. And it works as well.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It comes with it the conviction that one class of man should have power over another’s life and livelihood. If the state started as a means to control and exploit the vanquished, that is how it will remain, and has remained.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: TzarChasm

It comes with it the conviction that one class of man should have power over another’s life and livelihood. If the state started as a means to control and exploit the vanquished, that is how it will remain, and has remained.

It's a matter of minimizing the uncertainty factor to eliminate injury instead of encouraging spontaneous interaction at risk of wasted resources. This is the difference between service (reaction) and structuring (regime). Statism opposes democracy in that regard because democracy by nature is choice and choice is antithetical to structure. Helmut Bakaitis explains it better than I do.

a reply to: CitizenZero

Is that the same Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer that helped inspire the Nazis? You know, the ones who had the corporate state running everyone's lives?

Context is important.

a reply to: CitizenZero

Ah yes, the age old question, is human society truly bound to hierarchy?

a reply to: CitizenZero

So, back to communal tribes then? We can be as free as the leader of the band allows versus the massive bureaucratic mechanism that is the state? Or, some harmonious individualism where no one covets what their neighbour has?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: CitizenZero

Ah yes, the age old question, is human society truly bound to hierarchy?

The answer is yes. Coded right into our genetics.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Two, very bold statements.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: CitizenZero

Is that the same Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer that helped inspire the Nazis? You know, the ones who had the corporate state running everyone's lives?

Context is important.

Yes, his phrase “survival of the fittest” has been abused by everyone, mostly due to the result of certain caricatures of his philosophy. It was only recently that he is now being reassessed, and for good reason. Here is a fair assessment of him from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


In any case, it obvious by reading him that fascism and national socialism are directly opposed to Spencer’s politics.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think I agree with that, if I understand it correctly. I believe the state would become obsolete if true democracy and freedom were attainable. But for now democracy and freedom is always spoken of in reference to state power.