AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Militia: We Will Shoot You. By Accident.

[Spanz]

sherrif joe, by announcing his officers will shoot first and ask questions later...is pretty much guaranteeing his officers will get shot at, right?

 

[mattyw]

"Statist" is one of the most mis-used words on this forum. Unless, of course, you're all anarchists.

this is true, a lot of statist hating posts are made by people who likely or admittedly support some stripped down versions of statism.

It would make more sense to call out people for being totalitarian

 

[calsdad]

I don't think the word means what you think it means.

Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.[9][10] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[11][12][13][14][15]

Authoritarianism, on the other hand, views a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce morality and cultural practices.[citation needed] The ideology of statism espoused by fascism holds that sovereignty is not vested in the people but in the nation state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, prestige and well-being of the state. It repudiates individualism and the family and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[citation needed] Fascism and some forms of corporatism extol the moral position that the corporate group, usually the state, is greater than the sum of its parts and that individuals have a moral obligation to serve the state.

Looks like Juergen has got it exactly right.

 

[Martlet]

Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Looks like Juergen has got it exactly right.

Sure, if he's an anarchist.

 

[mattyw]

Sure, if he's an anarchist.

you can still practice minarchism and call other peoples statist, it's a bit hypocritical but the usage is still accurate

you don't have to be an anarchist to recognize a statist and you don't have to be a statist to be able to correctly identify an anarchist

 

[Martlet]

you can still practice minarchism and call other peoples statist, it's a bit hypocritical but the usage is still accurate

you don't have to be an anarchist to recognize a statist and you don't have to be a statist to be able to correctly identify an anarchist

You can call anyone you want a statist. However, unless you're an anarchist, you're a statist too.

 

[Dadstoys]

sherrif joe, by announcing his officers will shoot first and ask questions later...is pretty much guaranteeing his officers will get shot at, right?

He does seem to have his mouth in 4th gear while his brain is still in 3rd.
Now if there is an accidental shooting , it sure is going to look premeditated whether it was or not.
Things could get , well... interesting after that.

 

[squatch413]

I'm willing to try anarchy for awhile; it would be an improvement.

Can't be worse than a police state where cops shoot dogs at the wrong house with zero consequences and all the other bullshit that goes on daily.

 

[mattyw]

You can call anyone you want a statist. However, unless you're an anarchist, you're a statist too.

yes, agreed

 

[mattyw]

Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of STATISM

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

So my only choices are to support no government at all or to support concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry?

Damn. I thought we could maybe try a government that exists to secure the rights of the people and defend against enemy invasion without dicking around with the economy. But, I guess that isn't an option.

I guess it depends on the definition because the way I read the other one cited I would have to agree with martlet.

Statists support government say in any number of daily happenings, whether they be all safety related or all encompasing, any support of government oversight or interjection would be considered statism by definition. Even minarchists who also hate totalitarian statists would still be statist

all squares are rectangles by definition

 

[Martlet]

Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[h=2]Definition of STATISM[/h]: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

So my only choices are to support no government at all or to support concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry?

Damn. I thought we could maybe try a government that exists to secure the rights of the people and defend against enemy invasion without dicking around with the economy. But, I guess that isn't an option.

Sure it's an option. It's also a lesser degree of statism.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it depends on the definition because the way I read the other one cited I would have to agree with martlet.

Statists support government say in any number of daily happenings, whether they be all safety related or all encompasing, any support of government oversight or interjection would be considered statism by definition. Even minarchists who also hate totalitarian statists would still be statist

all squares are rectangles by definition

Exactly. Support of a State to any degree is statism. Civics 101. That's why a laugh at the idiots throwing around "statism" like it's a bad thing when they're statists themselves.

 

[Bonesinium]

Sure it's an option. It's also a lesser degree of statism.

I don't think the word means what you think it means.

Could it possibly be that you are defining statism to such an extreme that makes it devoid of meaning? Maybe? Possibly?

 

[Martlet]

 

[Martlet]

According the the definitions you and mattyw go by, sure. I was just offering up what I think of as statism, as defined by arguably the most popular source for definitions of words.

The definitions aren't really different. They just offer the option of taking it a step further by "often extending to gov't ownership of industry", which is actually an extreme option.

In a nutshell (and this doesn't disagree with the definition you posted), any belief in a centralized gov't at any level is statist. I believe most of us do.

 

[Jason Flare]

My son pulled this crap on me yesterday. He said, "Unless you're an anarchist, you are a statist." I said, "Fine, then I'm an anarchist. After that I'll be a statist."

 

[Boghog1]

I am ready to try anarchism since statism has crept into totalitarianism,

 

[Executive]

I completely support someone using necessary (armed) force to protect their own property against an unwanted intruder (invader) from within this country or from outside it.

I also support the concept of an armed and well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state. However: it seems that semi-organized militias "patrolling" the border are a huge potential problem. It's not too far a stretch to see competing militias arguing over territory and jurisdiction and clashing with local, state, and federal law enforcement. At best this is an accident waiting to happen, at worst, it leads to anarchy. I think that the locals need to step away from this function of law enforcement as unpalatable as that may be.

Far better for militias across the country to continue acting as a quiet hedge against overly oppressive government. Some (probably most on this forum) would argue that we are already there. There is no doubt that we are at or very near a precipice where the citizen militia may have to take a more active role in securing liberty. Personally, I don't think we're quite there yet and I truly hope that better solutions are utilized. It is reassuring to know that the militia option, however frightening, remains just that: an option. For the time being, these groups need to protect their own backyards, keep up the political pressure, and leave the border to the professionals.

As for Sheriff Joe. Enough already. This guy is a media whore and a caricature of tough law enforcement. His policies may fly with the Archie Bunkers of America, but the intelligent conservative (libertarian?) knows much better. Take your pension and go golfing, Joe; and let someone with some innovative yet still strict ideas run your county.

Chris

 

[CTpatriot]

That much is apparent. Read it again.

yea here is the post i responded to:
"yup, and legalizing drugs will do exactly zilch in relation to whether said 12 year old gets his paws on pot or not, but it will save a lot of lives and keep countless amounts of otherwise good people out of prison."

yea, it makes perfect sense. if there were no laws these good drug dealers selling pot to your 12 yo would not go to prison.

 

[squatch413]

yea here is the post i responded to:
"yup, and legalizing drugs will do exactly zilch in relation to whether said 12 year old gets his paws on pot or not, but it will save a lot of lives and keep countless amounts of otherwise good people out of prison."

yea, it makes perfect sense. if there were no laws these good drug dealers selling pot to your 12 yo would not go to prison.

Personal responsibility. Raise your kids to not smoke pot(or insert other bad habit here) the .gov isn't required.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Personal responsibility. Raise your kids to not smoke pot(or insert other bad habit here) the .gov isn't required.

+1

 

[CTpatriot]

Personal responsibility. Raise your kids to not smoke pot(or insert other bad habit here) the .gov isn't required.

12yo are stupid potential people which i agree need guidance. sell drugs to my kids and end up somewhere unhappy.

 

[joeendris]

Cops can and do point their guns at people every day, and there's no repercussions for them when they get it wrong.

there will come a day when they point at the wrong person..and 50 guns are pointed back...

I won't start the fire, but I sure as hell won't help put it out...

 

[JuergenG]

Sure, if he's an anarchist.

He ain't

 

[Martlet]

He ain't

Then he doesn't.

 

[mattyw]

so its settled, no more statist talk unless you are an anarchist. If you are a minarchist/statist then you should refer to the worse statists as totalitarians

 

[Terminator03]

Personal responsibility. Raise your kids to not smoke pot(or insert other bad habit here) the .gov isn't required.

While I would quickly agree with your point here, on further reflection...

12yo are stupid potential people which i agree need guidance. sell drugs to my kids and end up somewhere unhappy.

This is also quite true! If it weren't the case then 12 year olds (or even 18 year olds for that matter), wouldn't need parents at all, and could just move out on their own and find there own way in the world.

It comes down to the simple fact that regardless of laws on drugs, or any other "bad thing", people will still do something if they are so inclined.

This thread has taken many twists and turns, but has proved to be a very interesting read so far.

- - - Updated - - -

so its settled, no more statist talk unless you are an anarchist. If you are a minarchist/statist then you should refer to the worse statists as totalitarians

Yep, that's what I have derived after the past few pages also!

 

[Scarecrow]

FREEEEEDOOOOM. how about wanna be's just stay their assess home *or* join the LE agency they sooooo want to be a part of? nope, it's easier to play commando w/o having to meet the requirements, right? no real training, no knowledge of the TTP's, intel, Ect.

yeah, no.

ETA: especially when you have a multi-agency event - you get information about friendlies in the AO, information about "credible" threats and what not. you know, because it's a semi organized responce... are you familiar with ICS? probably NOT. NICS (not the gun check)? NIMS? probably not because you wanna play commando.

Actually, I'm trained through to ICS level [strike=line]700 IIRC[/strike] (EDIT: ICS Level 800b, actually.), and my unit doesn't get shit for intel from any of the other agencies involved in operations unless we send a runner over to the IC's trailer to get it manually, since no one bothers disseminating information via radio. Based on my experiences operating in massive operations in Maryland, Wisconsin, NH, Mass, and RI, we could have intel on a drug runner 3 weeks ahead of time, and we STILL wouldn't have anything set up until 2 weeks after the jackasses rolled through. ICS is a useless waste of time, albeit drastically better than the old method of "we do our thing, you do your thing, and we'll hope everyone figures it out as we go along".

Kinda tough to point the finger and scream at guys who go out at night, off their job, and risk their lives, health and sanity, when they do it for the sole purpose of defending their country, state, and fellow American. Ol' Joe is just an attention whore. Nothing new there. The reason why he's doing what. He does is to see himself on TV. Weird motivation IMO.

This. Armed invaders from another country are crossing the border and the solution is "don't interfere, let the authorities handle it!" This is obviously the right answer, after all the times we are hearing "The police have no responsibility to protect the people, they just clean up after the crime". Makes total sense, really.

Personal responsibility. Raise your kids to not smoke pot(or insert other bad habit here) the .gov isn't required.

Parental responsibility? That is SOOOO 1950's. Get with the times, yo!