Is Statism a religion?

[an anarchist]

Statism: the doctrine in political science that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.
I believe Statism is the world’s largest religion. In debate and discussion, I find that nearly everyone is in some form a statist. I used to be. To not be a statist is to be an anarchist.
I believe people treat it like a religion. As I’m sure will happen in this thread, any suggestion that the state is illegitimate, and does not have the best interest of the general populace in mind, will be met with sarcasm and complete dismissal. “How would society be able to function without government? Who would build the roads?”
The philosophy of how society could function without a state is not some far-off crazy idea. There is nearly a century of devoloped economic theory explaining how such a society would function. Austrian theory of economics, from professors like Mises. Anarcho-capitalism is a thoroughly developed economic theory, not just some utopic wishing.
The fact that people can not grasp that society can function without the tyranny of government rulership is reminiscent of religious habits, in my view. A believer often times may not be able to grasp how the universe could be functioning without a creator God supporting it, just as an atheist thinks vice versa.
The extreme defensiveness is another reason why I feel this way. Also, indoctrination happens beginning at infancy in most cases.
When we see the North Koreans cheering for their dictator, we recognize it as tyranny and oppressed people. When we make kids pledge alliegeance to the flag, how come we can’t see the same thing?
Just think about all the evil that is a result of government. War is the easiest example. War would not exist in it’s present grand scale if government didn’t exist. Yet people think it is necessary, which in itself necessitates and keeps its existence.
As a Christian, I believe Satan and sin rules the world, hence the complete control government has. If you’re a Christian, as well as a statist, I recommend reading Judges-2 Kings I believe that there is the most obvious Biblical support of anarchism.

 

[Kooky]

As an anti-state libertarian, let me tell you: "Statism" as a coherent ideology does not exist in the first place; however, in addition to that, you have so far failed to provide a sufficiently consistent definition of religion to be able to answer your question one way or another.

Further, your entire argument seems to boil down to "I kinda-sorta feel this way, therefore it must be true" which I do not consider a particularly solid foundation for debate. If you feel it, good for you. I don't... so I guess this 'debate' is over now?

 

[epronovost]

I believe Statism is the world’s largest religion. In debate and discussion, I find that nearly everyone is in some form a statist. I used to be. To not be a statist is to be an anarchist.

That's incorrect. Anarchism is a political doctrine that seeks to abolish hierarchical power structure nor the State. There is still a State within anarchist doctrine else there would be nothing to prevent hierarchical power structure to simply establish themselves again.

The philosophy of how society could function without a state is not some far-off crazy idea. There is nearly a century of devolved economic theory explaining how such a society would function. Austrian theory of economics, from professors like Mises. Anarcho-capitalism is a thoroughly developed economic theory, not just some utopic wishing.

Anarcho-capitalism, much like national-socialism, isn't a form of anarchism since capitalism is a hierarchy and it does require a State to function (though a very minimalist one).

Also Austrian economics is largely considered as complete bunk if only because the concept of praxeology is completely useless to assess economic relationships.

Just think about all the evil that is a result of government. War is the easiest example. War would not exist in it’s present grand scale if government didn’t exist.

Actually, within an anarcho-capitalist framework, war is absolutely possible between powerful and rich landowners who would scarcely be different then feudal lords and since anarchism isn't opposed to concepts of society (or government really) its not opposed to the concept of war as societies can go to war.

 

[Kooky]

That's incorrect. Anarchism is a political doctrine that seeks to abolish hierarchical power structure nor the State. There is still a State within anarchist doctrine else there would be nothing to prevent hierarchical power structure to simply establish themselves again.

I think we're getting into terminological quibbles here, but anarchists generally do not consider distributed and non-violent forms of governance to be "States". In anarchist thought, one major component is the idea that State power is intrinsically tied to the State's ability to do violence. Any alternate model of governance arising from anarchist premises would therefore have to discard that foundation of statehood.

 

[epronovost]

I think we're getting into terminological quibbles here, but anarchists generally do not consider distributed and non-violent forms of governance to be "States". In anarchist thought, one major component is the idea that State power is intrinsically tied to the State's ability to do violence. Any alternate model of governance arising from anarchist premises would therefore have to discard that foundation of statehood.

The problem is that any association with rules, however you want to call them, must be able to enforce those rules against people who would not follow them willingly. Any anarchist pseudo-state must be able to apply its rules may they be as basic as "don't kill your neighbors/pillage" from people who would very much like to do so and since nor everybody is equally gifted in self-defense and that people who like to use violence are pretty much systematically very good at it (if only thanks to experience) you will need something a bit more sophisticated than "well just don't get killed bub" as a way to enforce the "don't kill/pillage your neighbors rule".

Though I will agree that if you redefine "States" as "all the government stuff that I don't like" then yes anarchist societies can be stateless, but that would be making a definitional fallacy.

 

[Viker]

Statism is not a religion. Unless we're going to corrupt the meaning of religion to include everything.

Anarcho-capitalism is basically a rebranding of feudalism. With todays temperaments and deadly implements would be horrifying, imo.

 

[Kooky]

The problem is that any association with rules, however you want to call them, must be able to enforce those rules against people who would not follow them willingly. Any anarchist pseudo-state must be able to apply its rules may they be as basic as "don't kill your neighbors/pillage" from people who would very much like to do so and since nor everybody is equally gifted in self-defense and that people who like to use violence are pretty much systematically very good at it (if only thanks to experience) you will need something a bit more sophisticated than "well just don't get killed bub" as a way to enforce the "don't kill/pillage your neighbors rule".

Though I will agree that if you redefine "States" as "all the government stuff that I don't like" then yes anarchist societies can be stateless, but that would be making a definitional fallacy.

Obviously, any political ideology will look mighty silly if you don't accept its fundamental premises.
I could pontificate at length about the many silly, self-contradictory nonsense beliefs modern political liberalism is founded on, for example, but honestly I should probably use my time in a more productive manner than that.

 

[Stevicus]

Statism: the doctrine in political science that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.
I believe Statism is the world’s largest religion. In debate and discussion, I find that nearly everyone is in some form a statist. I used to be. To not be a statist is to be an anarchist.
I believe people treat it like a religion. As I’m sure will happen in this thread, any suggestion that the state is illegitimate, and does not have the best interest of the general populace in mind, will be met with sarcasm and complete dismissal. “How would society be able to function without government? Who would build the roads?”
The philosophy of how society could function without a state is not some far-off crazy idea. There is nearly a century of devolved economic theory explaining how such a society would function. Austrian theory of economics, from professors like Mises. Anarcho-capitalism is a thoroughly developed economic theory, not just some utopic wishing.
The fact that people can not grasp that society can function without the tyranny of government rulership is reminiscent of religious habits, in my view. A believer often times may not be able to grasp how the universe could be functioning without a creator God supporting it, just as an atheist thinks vice versa.
The extreme defensiveness is another reason why I feel this way. Also, indoctrination happens beginning at infancy in most cases.
When we see the North Koreans cheering for their dictator, we recognize it as tyranny and oppressed people. When we make kids pledge alliegeance to the flag, how come we can’t see the same thing?
Just think about all the evil that is a result of government. War is the easiest example. War would not exist in it’s present grand scale if government didn’t exist. Yet people think it is necessary, which in itself necessitates and keeps its existence.
As a Christian, I believe Satan and sin rules the world, hence the complete control government has. If you’re a Christian, as well as a statist, I recommend reading Judges-2 Kings I believe that there is the most obvious Biblical support of anarchism.

I'm not sure I would classify statism as a religion, although when one considers how people often feel about their country, patriotism, nationalism, or consider things like "property rights" and the "rule of law" to be sacrosanct, then it might have certain religious overtones.

Courtrooms might be something like a state church, considering how much they are sticklers to form and ritual. Judges wear black robes as if they're priests, and usually sit higher than the rest of the people in the court, like a priest on a pulpit. And, what's more, they have summary, whimsical authority to punish anyone for blasphemy (although they call it "contempt of court," but it's basically the same thing).

Every government in the world requires the collective faith of its constituency. Religion and politics do share a great deal of overlap in that both require beliefs and faith. The main difference is that most states and governments can prove they exist, while no one has yet proven that God exists.

 

[Link]

I been an anarchist mostly except for God and his rope, I believe we need to turn away from all other claims of authority.

I believe the path forward:

- Legislation becomes a matter of democracy in the hands of the people.

- Society becomes enlightened enough to legislate according to wisdom.

- People strive to either see proofs for or prove the laws and legislations they attribute to God.

- Quran reaches new levels of enlightenment and is sought for all answers (there is nothing people need for guidance but somehow is in there I believe)

- No interpretation is accepted of Quran unless it has some backing in the Sunnah (to prevent opinions by desires as Messenger (s) and his successors (a) surely would have explained all matters as well)

- Government is no longer called government but instead "Implementation" and "governors" no longer governors, but "implementers" and it's understood it's just their job to implement the will of the people.

- People are responsible for judging and legislating just laws.

- All major decisions (like war) are decided by the people as a whole (votes taken) and never by "implementers" alone.

God's light, Quran, and Ahlulbayt (a) can't rule unless people become mass aware of the light, otherwise, their light will be hidden in most people's minds.

The Quran says "their affair/authority is council between themselves" (In Surah 42).

My hope is to turn Iran into this one day, and that they can pave the way forward for humanity if they do.

 

[Kooky]

All social constructs require a degree of faith.
Money requires faith in the institutional power of currency as well as faith that the value ascribed can be exchanged for equivalent goods and services in the future.
Representative democracy requires faith in the compelling power of political procedure to allow for peaceful transitions between elections.
Even scientific work often requires faith in the fundamental decency of researchers to not publish complete falsehoods in their research journals on purpose, because no amount of peer reviewers can check each and every single element of each and every single research paper for blatant fabrications.

 

[epronovost]

All social constructs require a degree of faith.
Money requires faith in the institutional power of currency as well as faith that the value ascribed can be exchanged for equivalent goods and services in the future.
Representative democracy requires faith in the compelling power of political procedure to allow for peaceful transitions between elections.
Even scientific work often requires faith in the fundamental decency of researchers to not publish complete falsehoods in their research journals on purpose, because no amount of peer reviewers can check each and every single element of each and every single research paper for blatant fabrications.

That's true, but any solid social construct has contingencies to deal with potential hurdle and weaknesses in its system. In a monetary system for example currency exchange and "world currency status" is what keeps the monetary system somewhat safe from implosion. If one currency looses all trust and value, another one can be used for trade purpose. In a representative democracy, separation of powers is a fundamental requirement to limit the rise of new dictators. As you mentioned before, peer review, collegiality and replicability allow scientific inquiries to limit scientific frauds. None of these systems are perfect. They all have weaknesses, but some systems have way more weaknesses then others and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. In a sense, faith might be a bit of a misnomer too. It requires trust and a trust based on a rational analysis and experimentation. If a social construct can't even deal with the most basic hurdle to its objective, its not a very good construct you are designing there.

 

[Kooky]

It requires trust and a trust based on a rational analysis and experimentation. If a social construct can't even deal with the most basic hurdle to its objective, its not a very good construct you are designing there.

I was using the word "faith" here specifically in its meaning of "to have faith in somebody/something" so yes, absolutely.