By Joshua Mawhorter

A subtle subset of the statist non sequitur is what we may now name the statist insinuation or statist implication. This commonly occurs in conversation or media. It involves the unquestioned assumption that the state is the natural or necessary agent of moral order, safety, or progress. Typically, some societal problem is recognized and state interventionism is subtly (or not so subtly) insinuated, implied, or suggested as the evident solution. The negative form involves the implication that, absent particular actions of the state, disaster would be inevitable.

The statist insinuation seems to occur in societies so used to the modern nation-state that, not only do they assume the necessity and obviousness of the political state as the solution, but the concept of the state is so ingrained that it is often insinuated or implied in the very statement of an issue. Whenever a problem is stated by certain persons or most popular media, it can be almost guaranteed that the insinuation will inevitably involve greater power to the state. Further, because it involves little personal cost or thought and may often involve a boost to perceived social status, statist insinuations or direct advocation for increased state action incentivize virtue signaling.

Given the nature of fictional popular media—distinguished from media that seeks to directly communicate factual information—and the cultural influence of romanticism, it should not surprise us that the statist insinuation is rife in fictional media.

Most impressions are shaped by media, even popular media. In fact, all the impressions that form our internal model of reality which do not come directly from rightly-applied logic and/or empirical sense experience must come from some form of media. Put another way, all our indirect information about the world is mediated. This does not mean that mediated content is untrue, rather that media is crucial and—since it fills this role in human society—it is both susceptible to manipulation and an irresistible potential battleground for communication of values.

Rothbard discusses the nature of art as “necessarily communication.” Rothbard also points out that art is selective communication of values and view of reality,

Art is not only communication; it is necessarily also selection. No one…can present all of reality as it really is. He must select some aspect of reality to communicate. But the moment this is conceded, it must also be granted that the artist or the historian can only select according to some standard of selection. (emphasis in original)

Fictional art is more flexible than direct communication of information because “the artist creates his own events.” Following this, Rothbard gave his definition of art: “the reshaping of reality in accordance with the artist’s values, and the communication of these values to the reader or beholder” (emphasis added). Art, therefore, always has a normative goal rather than an empirical one: “Since the artist must choose, and therefore must choose according to his values, all artists are presenting reality not as it is, but as they believe it ought to be.” Art is more about communicating values rather than facts. Further, “Every novelist, whether he knows it or not, is a moral philosopher and teacher.”

Art is also a subtler way to argue—or insinuate—a point and it is more difficult to argue against artistic insinuations in popular media. Mises 

© Eurasia Review