Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.
Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.
Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:
Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.
You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.
You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.
A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.
Arguing extremes seems a fruitless path to walk when defining relations.
I have tried to explain a few times on this forum that any system inside our universe needs to have both static-like and dynamic-like components to be able to interact with the environment and not have it's structure dilluted.
When you take either the static or dynamic component to its extreme the system will stop functioning.
It is all about the right balance in a given situation.
Taken to the extreme the statist view becomes too static and the anarchist view too chaotic.
Thinking in singular extremes is a poor way to define systems.
Basic morals are not negotiable.
Murder is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
It is not extreme to argue that it is wrong to use violence to get what you want against others who do not harm you in any way. That is even taught by statists in the education of children. But when they become adults it is suddenly okay to bully and force others.
The truth is that these morals are a human notion and not written in stone.
What you think of as morally justified is not well defined and will be different from person to person.
Of course things like murder are obvious, but what if a serial killer is murdered?
Morals too have their static and dynamic parts.
And both statist and anarchist children will need to learn how to both play nice and stand their ground to be able to survive as a species.
But what i was actually talking about is the way JoelKatz argues for some extreme position by taking the consequenses of the opposite to the extreme. This extreme is not a natural balance and in fact does not represent reality in any way.
Society is a dynamical emergent system. It cannot exist without structure and it cannot exist without degrees of freedom.
Both chaos and order are
required so this type of reasoning seems counterproductive.
These 'principles of non-agression' are only possible because some bigger structure assures a basic security for JoelKatz.
Were he to live in a true anarchy he would find out that agression is the defacto standard of securing resources in nature.
By securing resources you secure the survival of the individual, then the social group and finaly the whole species.
Securing resources, by any means necessary, is the only way an individual, group or species can survive.
Sometimes this can be done most efficiently by cooperation. But other times the only way to ensure your own survival and even the survival of our species is to use agression.
I think it is naive of JoelKatz to think his ideal of non-agression is a viable strategy outside of (by now) global control structures.
It would fall apart the very instant humans lose the cohesive forces of the bigger structures.