If statism is in fact the root of most evil, then why do many moderately statist societies appear to “work just fine” contrary to the prediction of the theoretical model? Why do countries that rely on socialistic principles not turn into dehumanizing monsters of oppression and tyranny? I have run into these and other similarly structured questions in the past – especially during exchanges with the friends from another side of the house. In particular, this questioning is predominantly used as a technique to dismiss the experience of the Soviet Union as mere singularity, rather than a systematic byproduct of statist government structures.
To an anti-statist, however, this challenge is not a challenge at all. The theory of anti-statism does not hold that all the statist societies will degenerate into tyrannical totalitarianism. After all, if the theory could prove such a trend, then there would be no rational human being that opposed it. The fact of the matter is that there can be societies that function perfectly well under severe central government. It is, quite unfortunately, the reality of the world in which we live. What the anti-statist does hold, however, is a firm understanding that the probabilities of tyrannical totalitarian deterioration shift in direct proportion to the nation’s degree of statism. The metaphor of smoking helps to illustrate my point. While one cannot prove that every single smoker will die due to lung cancer, one can firmly state that the probability of lung cancer increases in direct proportion to the degree of smoking of the individual. Smoke a little, and you may just get off easy; smoke a lot, and you are playing with your own death sentence.
In other words, the anti-statist would respond in the following way: although it may be true that certain European countries are demonstrating occasional advancements in productivity and quality of life, it does not follow that the existence of such benefits is perpetual or that the society is immune to the probabilities of totalitarian degradation that immediately follows a growing central state. The reality of the situation is simple: as individualism, federalism, and free markets decline, so do the checking mechanisms that counterbalance the power of the state. Benevolent statism can only go on for so long – for all it takes is a good election and a good demagogue to unleash the devastation of the unchecked state.
