First, I want to clarify what is meant by “statism”. It is the belief that the State is necessary, and benefactor to some extent. That is, it includes all those who believe in it, whether it is supposedly a minimum or a maximum one. And I say “belief” explicitly because, as we will see, it cannot be explained scientifically. 

The State could be defined as the monopoly of violence, which arrogates itself, with which, to begin with, it collects taxes to survive. If it did not have this monopoly, it would be just another private organization that would compete in the market to try to finance itself. Violence is a force extrinsic to the natural order, which seeks to divert its spontaneous path (cf. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas).

So, all statists have a serious problem with science since it is impossible to justify the use of violence scientifically. Now, those who believe in the “minimal” State are relatively comfortable with science since they have not reached the point where public opinion requires them to prove the scientific viability of their belief, given that practically 100% of people today believe that violence is necessary in certain cases.

On the contrary, those who believe in a larger State – when the monopoly of violence, violence is more ample – are pressured by public opinion. And, since it is impossible to justify their position scientifically, they have begun to confuse public opinion by distorting language with the ultimate goal of affirming that science is dead, in fact, they have already begun to say it only not in such a crude and direct way, but indirectly.

As an example of this deliberate distortion of the language we have the........

© Eurasia Review