Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.
Oh and sorry about any spelling mistakes there are am about to go to bed 
I think Gary North has.
IMO, Christians believe that because God permitted man to create government that this necessarily means that God condoned man’s creation of government.
Lyle,
As is the case with most generalizations, all “Christians” do not believe any one thing, except those things that are required for them to meet the definition for group membership.
God quite clearly states that it is his perfect will for the Israelites not to have a king, but he lets them sign away their own lives to tyranny. Contrary to common misconception, this cannot be logically construed as condonement, nor can it be argued that because the Israelites once submitted to a king, we must all likewise submit.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Thats as close as you get!
Thanks, this is more than I was looking for lol!
I ment to quote filc there.
You can check out
Jacques Ellul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul
also this blog has some useful references:
The bible is not a clear text, like a science book. It’s a religious book. This means that the believer will see in it what he wants to see in it (i.e. the way he was raised). If someone is a neo-con hawk then they will believe the bible supports that.
My advice would be: don’t try to change one religious belief (statism) through another religious belief (god-ism). Instead, try to get him to drop his religious beliefs and see reality.
It seems very manipulative to me to say: “Believe in liberty because the Tooth Fairy says so!!” Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.
Or stop trying to get theists to stop being theists, and just have them read Gary North.
For the record, Gary North is not an an-cap.
He belongs to the Christian Reconstructionists who want to exchange the US state for a completely Christian theocratic state.
God is right, and His essence (the logical framework of His mind, which is reflected in humans – though imperfectly because of humans’ lack of information/non-omniscience – as logic/reason) is the perfect realization of logic. God’s commands are a relay of information about the nature of His essence. They would be right independent of His choice to relay the message, but they are not independent of Him (as nothing is independent of Him, seeing as he is omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent). What is right or wrong is not arbitrary, as this constitutes merely statement about the nature of that framework. God is perfect, and so the framework must be perfect, and therefore the framework is also not arbitrary.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma misses the point if it is used in the intent to disprove God. It merely exposes a fatal flaw in the logic of many Christians, who divorce logic from the nature of God.
I think what Matticus is saying, in too many words, is that you should just use regular arguments anyone else would use.
I find that consistent, devout Catholics are among the most receptive when it comes to hearing ideas regarding ancap.
Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.
My discussion of Euthyphro’s Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it.
Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma.
That’s my view by now.
P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more “guts” so to speak than the invisible. That’s why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.
"Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.
My discussion of Euthyphro’s Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it."
Understood.
On the second point:
ED is not trying to disprove God. But saying that morality doesn’t depend on God’s commandments.
And for that matter, I don’t see economics being any different. Though, if one believes Christianity, obviously, one would appeal to what is easiest: to what the other person is biased towards.
Anarchism is not the rejection of authority – it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner – all of our “ownership” merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.