There is another, broader, and less emotion-laden definition of statism; and I am surprised your source does not mention it. Statism is any of many theories of government, institutions, and political practices placing the state above individuals. It is a belief in government as a positive value. Governments vested in serving institutions rather than individuals are statist. Governments by and for the people qualify, but only those in which individual rights take a lesser place to those of the state or collective (e.g., the French Terror of 1793-94 and Directorate 1795-1899). Thus, the statist sees government as the answer and less the problem. This makes statism the more general case of both republican and socialist government. George Bush has demonstrated he’s a statist because he sees government as the solution in a number of novel venues that are best left to individuals to manage (e.g, drug subsidies, education, social security reform). He is much less the statist, however, than any Democrat because his agenda is much less socialist.

Monarchies vest sovereignty in a supreme individual or class geared to serve its interests, making monachies non-statist. Ditto for theocracies, though the distinction may not seem thin. The real distinction, then, is whether a particular government acts in ways that serve people as individuals or disregards the individual in favor of the the many or the state; and the statist is anyone supporting this approach or view of government.

Also see:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~kimball/sttism.htm
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
http://statismwatch.ca/

Considering the arguments in the public square and in the SCOTUS concerning abortion, fairness doctrine, and emanate domain it seems these three concepts are NOT absolute. So, what makes you believe that they are not “mere privileges”? Is it a right to receive a check in the form of a tax refund if you have paid NO tax?

jeaned
How do we respect those that blame Bush for everything when we know that many problems were out of his control or started well before his tenure?

Can’t you read?

“Whichever man wins November 4th, it will be critical that we establish civil discourse through which to debate, disagree and confront. No conservative or liberal should be asked to abandon honestly held views (provided they are not beyond the pale) — that would be unAmerican. But those views should be tested against reality. The problem this election is that the media has failed to do its objective duty, which has helped fuel the frustration on the right side of the discussion.”

This paragraph is moderate, reasonable and above all wise. I believe it captures the essence of this election season and suggests a standard to live by that is ultimately humane and American. In the end, whoever holds the presidency, from radical leftwing illuminati to hardened conservative, we have to find a way to live in peace with one another and respect our differences.

Of course the key word here is “rights”. What are often loosely referred to as “rights” are in fact mere privileges, or something entirely different, like “authority”.

To add to the list of definitions, here’s Wiki’s for STATISM:

Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
3. The belief that a political group should maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area.

There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism. Thus, at one extreme, some anarchists consider that the mere existence of a state is enough to make a country statist, while at the other extreme it is argued that only the most rigid totalitarian systems are truly statist. Usually, however, the term “statism” is used with a negative or derogatory connotation, in reference to something that the speaker considers to be an example of too much state intervention.

The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.” Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term “statism” to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism. “Statism” is also used to refer to specific policies in countries that would not be identified as statist overall (for example, the state monopoly on mail delivery in the United States).

Just google “You have two cows”.

Furthermore, this definition does not due justice to the terror imposed under communism. The true nature of communism can only be appreciated by reading Gulag Archipelago.