The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

"Statist" should be added to debate.org's list of general political spectrums

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 887 times Debate No: 1540
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Farooq

Pro

What is Statism?

Statism or Estatism- sometimes dubbed "populism" (though populism is a vaugue term that could refer to many poltical philosophies) this is "big government" type of poltical philosophy that prefers lefttist minded economic policies such as high taxes and more social programs but at the same time adhering to social conservative values and generally supportive of more aggressive foreign policy. Essentially it is the opposite of libertarianism.

When editing one's profile on debate.org one question asks what your general spectrum is. They than give you options such as conservative, liberal, progressive, green, labour, socialist, moderate, and libertarian. Yet no statism. Why so?

It is a common viewpoint amongst many peoples of the world, and yet is not represtneted here on debate.org, whereas all three other ends of the political sqaure (World's Shortest Political Quiz) are as well as some molds very simliar to the basic blocks.

This is my postion. Feel free to challenge my assertions.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Statism is by and large used as a derogatory term, and rightly so. Few if any are going to describe themselves as such (except Italian fascists). There is no "statism" that cannot be adequately coveredd by the term "socialism" (provided) in basic dictionary definition. Fascists would dispute that they are socialists, but the fact remains they are guild socialists. If we want to have the term for self-described ideologies rather than just covering them in the basic facts (which might be the case, greens are also in essence socialist most of the time, and progressives), what we should do is just have an "other" option (perhaps with a box to type it in,), but adding statist to a default list is pointless as no one will pick it. Waste of programmers' time.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
It's not mine, it's webster's.

Did these "anarchist collectives" WORK? And even if they did, can they really be called socialist as such? Socialists would dispute it for one thing. Sounds to me at face value kind of like a commune, which relies on the ability to send noncompliant types out into the greater capitalist society.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
I would argue that you definition of socialism is flawed. I don't think advocacy of governmental ownership means socialist necessarily. The anarchist collectives in Spain during their civil war were socialist, but they were also decidedly anti-government.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't have been that funny. I'll tell you if I think of anything good, though. = ^ )
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Show me a statism that does not imply socialism. Show me one. Keep in mind the definition of socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". And the definition of statism, "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." Both from Webster's.

In other words, yes, statism, by including "concentration of economic controls and planning" (assuming that entails ownership and administration, which naturally it does, to control and plan is to administrate and those who would "advocate" government owning such things would necessarily reject any other definitions of ownership), entails socialism. There is no statist who is not a socialist.

As to whether you should mock rand, it depends how funny it is and on what question. There are certain things she could be mocked on that I'd even agree with, although they are mostly in her aesthetics :D
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
I agree with the con that statists are not at all common, and I might have voted for him but he said something that is patently wrong. Socialism does not necessarily cover statism at all. The lack of individualism does not logically necessitate big government even slightly.

I briefly considered mocking Rand to tick you off, but I decided against it. I've always detected a significant lack of a sense of humor when dealing with people who really like Rand.
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
Can I just say that while I don't really have an opinion on the subject, you two are two of the most capable and intelligent debaters this site has ever seen. Congratulations on having good brains! This is a truly deep philosophical debate, and something that I hope to see more of in the future. I look forward to reading the insight in its entirety at the end of this debate!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TeaandScarves 9 years ago
TeaandScarves
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
FarooqRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03