By Dean Dwyer for
Harbinger's Daily
In 1966, Russian-born American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand (who was actually born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum) wrote an essay called “The Roots of War”. In it, she argued that the ultimate cause of war lies in the deadly ideology of statism. She described statism as the idea that “man’s life and work belong to the state – to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation – and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own, tribal, collective good.” Therefore, some have argued that if you are looking for the root cause of war, you won’t find it just by looking at how nations treat each other. You have to look first at how nations treat their own citizens. Rand’s point, therefore, is this: when statism takes hold, the result is dictatorship at home and war abroad.
Whether or not Rand’s theory has proven true in relation to wars fought under the umbrella of statism, what is undeniable is that statism does lead to a radical shift in the relationship between a ruling state and its citizens. According to philosopher Harry Binswanger (an associate of the late Ayn Rand’s) fascism and communism (which the world has suffered immeasurably under) are two of the more well-known variants of statism. He is quoted as saying: “Fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class.” However, as we have experienced in the modern day, some leftist democracies should also be considered a form of statism, particularly where the state plays a significant role in regulating the economy, introducing and regulating social welfare programs and engaging in social engineering. You see, even though our lives are full of freely made choices, we are also constrained by the rules and regulations of the State which rules over us.
Therefore, in this age, the human experience is an uneasy duality of autonomy and regulation. I say “uneasy” becomes it is becoming apparent that as time goes on, those who see statism as a worthy replacement of democracy are really advocating for less autonomy and more regulation.
At this point, it is helpful to address the fact there is a difference between statehood and statism. In simple terms, statehood implies the condition or status of being a state, whereas the “ism” of “statism” indicates a philosophy or worldview within the State.
The problem with statism is that, like most worldly ideologies, it claims to be the ultimate reality and ultimate authority. As we have seen with other political and social ideologies in the past and present, the purveyors of this reality then set out to dethrone God. That is why all forms of statism must be rejected by Christians. We should not entertain the acceptance of any ideology which seeks to usurp God.
We must also recognise that the idea of statism is not merely intellectual. When the government is perceived or claims itself to be the ultimate reality and ultimate authority, it greatly influences how we raise our families, how we educate our children, how we approach our careers, how we seek out medical care and how we choose to worship.
In fact, it even goes so far as to influence our search for meaning in our lives. This is due to the fact that statism insists on the subjugation of everything to the interests of the State. Because statism holds that government is the only source of morality and law, the individual suffers greatly, particularly when the rule of law evolves into the arbitrary rule of an elite class unchecked by natural law, religion, common law or tradition. In fact, what we observe is that all forms of statism consist of an elite ruling class that imposes rules on the remainder of society, sometimes enforcing those rules through lethal force (in extreme cases) or public ridicule (particularly reserved for Christians).
More
Harbinger's Daily
In 1966, Russian-born American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand (who was actually born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum) wrote an essay called “The Roots of War”. In it, she argued that the ultimate cause of war lies in the deadly ideology of statism. She described statism as the idea that “man’s life and work belong to the state – to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation – and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own, tribal, collective good.” Therefore, some have argued that if you are looking for the root cause of war, you won’t find it just by looking at how nations treat each other. You have to look first at how nations treat their own citizens. Rand’s point, therefore, is this: when statism takes hold, the result is dictatorship at home and war abroad.
Whether or not Rand’s theory has proven true in relation to wars fought under the umbrella of statism, what is undeniable is that statism does lead to a radical shift in the relationship between a ruling state and its citizens. According to philosopher Harry Binswanger (an associate of the late Ayn Rand’s) fascism and communism (which the world has suffered immeasurably under) are two of the more well-known variants of statism. He is quoted as saying: “Fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class.” However, as we have experienced in the modern day, some leftist democracies should also be considered a form of statism, particularly where the state plays a significant role in regulating the economy, introducing and regulating social welfare programs and engaging in social engineering. You see, even though our lives are full of freely made choices, we are also constrained by the rules and regulations of the State which rules over us.
Therefore, in this age, the human experience is an uneasy duality of autonomy and regulation. I say “uneasy” becomes it is becoming apparent that as time goes on, those who see statism as a worthy replacement of democracy are really advocating for less autonomy and more regulation.
At this point, it is helpful to address the fact there is a difference between statehood and statism. In simple terms, statehood implies the condition or status of being a state, whereas the “ism” of “statism” indicates a philosophy or worldview within the State.
The problem with statism is that, like most worldly ideologies, it claims to be the ultimate reality and ultimate authority. As we have seen with other political and social ideologies in the past and present, the purveyors of this reality then set out to dethrone God. That is why all forms of statism must be rejected by Christians. We should not entertain the acceptance of any ideology which seeks to usurp God.
We must also recognise that the idea of statism is not merely intellectual. When the government is perceived or claims itself to be the ultimate reality and ultimate authority, it greatly influences how we raise our families, how we educate our children, how we approach our careers, how we seek out medical care and how we choose to worship.
In fact, it even goes so far as to influence our search for meaning in our lives. This is due to the fact that statism insists on the subjugation of everything to the interests of the State. Because statism holds that government is the only source of morality and law, the individual suffers greatly, particularly when the rule of law evolves into the arbitrary rule of an elite class unchecked by natural law, religion, common law or tradition. In fact, what we observe is that all forms of statism consist of an elite ruling class that imposes rules on the remainder of society, sometimes enforcing those rules through lethal force (in extreme cases) or public ridicule (particularly reserved for Christians).
More
