“it is the rejection of illegitimate authority.”
But what person says they support illegitimate authority, though?
Not trying to be difficult. But this seems a problematic definition.
I’m reminded of a relevant quote regarding God’s right to torture you forever:
“So ownership is a bad thing?”
“…Of people, yes.”
My thoughts exactly. The more ancap I became the less religious I became, in fact I am starting to see better many religion’s views on god as god having sort of a totalitarian rule and everyone is fine with it. This is completely contradictory to the idea of anarchy.
@freeradicals, I was the other way around first. I used to be conservative and religious, but then became atheist and saw no use for social conservatism. A few more years of study and I found anarcho-capitalism, and figured antitheism and an-cap fit like two peas in a pod.
Although I suspect he was an atheist, Robert LeFevre has used the words in Samuel II to demonstrate the nature of government. Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist.
Yes, I should have clarified it and said “illegitimate”. That is correct. So if one believes God has legitimate authority, then I can’t argue with that. It is easier though (in my opinion) to show the illegitimacy of the state’s authority, because it is visible and is bound to the laws of nature, while theists can always say, that God is not bound by logic and physical laws.
Ok, I will retract my point about what is easier or not easier, because if I wanted to prove it I would contradict my previous post. I need more thinking. Statism is a last and strongest religion that has more followers than any modern traditional religion and that is a problem for anarchist when they try to convince statists.
Isn’t the idea of a first owner, or the first ones owning the children and so fourth down the line a concept derived from tribalism? I believe Autolykos told me that.
The question of hereditary ownership of person is irrelevant, as God (in granting free will) renounced His ownership over us in order to develop relationship (the entire point of creation, from His perspective). As God is omnipresent, however, He not only brought about creation (by spoken word, big bang, whatever), but He has quite literally mixed with every atom that exists even before sentient life existed. There can be no quarrel about His rightful ownership over everything He claims.
Note: I’m just arguing this from a Biblical perspective. I’m not trying to force anyone to believe it, just showing how it is an internally consistent philosophy.
God did.
While the Bible probably doesn’t put it that way (I haven’t read all of it), I’d say some kind of eternal ownership over one’s descendants is indeed an outgrowth of tribalism. If one presumes this concept, and one believes that the universe was created by some deity, then it follows that one is ultimately a descendant of that deity and therefore that deity ultimately owns him.
However, I don’t think these ideas were common to all tribal societies throughout history. Some tribes may well have followed more libertarian ethea.
-
It does not necessarily follow that granting free will means renouncing ownership. After all, animals have free will, but people typically consider them ownable.
-
If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we’re all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.
“If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we’re all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.”
This is panantheism (I think), which is not completely adopted by most major religions. Under Christianity, I would venture to say God is present in creation in that He upholds its existence, as in, without Him it would “disintegrate” (or not be in existant imprimus).
Or it could be that He granted humanity temporary stewardship/deputyship of the material universe, so in that way he is omnipresent by proxy.
Or it could be that He could be omnipresent but simply choses not to be in some cases.
There’s many way this could go. I’m not a theologian so I’m not that reliable.
I’m in agreement with Autolykos. It’s a tribalistic mentality. We need some authoritarian to “own” us. It all goes back to human ownership (i.e., slavery). Parents don’t “own” children because they had a large part in creating them, they are custodians of children. I was under impression that the rules for ownership of conscious creatures was different than that of inanimate objects. Apparently not.
“Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist.”
He is not a libertarian. He is a Christian reconstructionist who wants Christians to seize the state and subjugate or deport other religions or belief systems. It is basically the furthest position from libertarianism you can be as a Christian. And probably the furthest period.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
—“The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right”, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, pp. 24–25.
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.
—Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, p. 87.
“The stranger in ancient Israel did not serve as a judge, although he received all the benefits of living in the land. The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God’s people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?”
Christians do claim that god is omnipresent, just not all-knowing.
I think that God is supposed to be both according to Chrisitians?
“just not all-knowing.”
I’ve never heard this.
The Christian (Evangelical belief, at least) is that God cannot foresee the future. This is what I leaned when I used to do bible studies with the church. Hence he is omnipresent but not all knowing.
No, that’s open-theism, which is a view that’s in the extreme minority.