Religious anarchists; please explain

Miscellaneous General
61

I think I’ve said what needed to be said: that your religious principles contradict libertarian principles. The fact that you not only fail to deny this, but that you claim to have led me to such a conclusion seems a bit silly to me. After all, that is what the OP was asking in the first place…

As to the matter of doubt, I’m not sure what your religion is, but if it’s a strain of Christianity, (if it isn’t then this might not apply) then, as many other religions, absense of faith is deemed as damnable, this is pretty much the official dogma of these many organised religions. Or else why the whole concept of accepting Jesus (or anyone else) as your personal saviour, converting people and missionary work, and the so called “Faith crisis” some people exhibit. Of course, this is all to do with “saving their souls”.

Oh and you also conveniently ignored what I said about burden of proof…

In the end you’re going to keep your opinion that everything is irrational, and that the various exhibited irrationalities are somehow equal. You will continue attempting to juxtapose your libertarian principles with your religious ones. You’ll also probably keep your pompous know-it-all attitude (strange for someone bent on subjectivism). And I’ll keep disagreeing with you for what to me seem like obvious reasons.

But what does it matter? As you say yourself, your entire understanding of god is subjective, and for some reason god is in your mind a fairly cruel entity. You yourself say if god did not utilise its potential powers to take away human rights and do whatever it wants, it should not be granted god-hood. Why you omit the possibility of a benevolent god that may respect human rights I’m not sure, but then again you seem pretty close minded about these things in general.

Edit: Btw, I’m not surprised about any of these things. When I said “wow” it was sarcastic. I fully realise just how fanatic believers (not just theists, ideologists of various sorts too) can be, and I’ve encountered fanatics before. I haven’t, however, encountered any fanatical believers that tried to concomitantly hold libertarian intrinsic human rights and freedoms, and yet their violability by some deity of a higher plane. Moreover, I’ve never seen anyone justify their irrational beliefs by saying that all other beliefs are also irrational, and that these beliefs are equal in their irrationality. But yes you’re right, outrage is more correct than surprise, although it’s outrage not at the actions of some deity, but at your actions. Personally if some deity told me to go and kill someone, I’d think twice about it. Is it worth betraying my principles as a libertarian in order to satisfy some deity, or not? You seem to have no qualms about killing fellow humans, without asking why, as long as this was ordered by your god, who was basically using you as their executioner. Nice career you’ve planned out for yourself…

If you’re so quick to betray one set of beliefs for another, and already predict this, then you’re not really holding that set of beliefs very highly.

62

Except that they don’t. Your assertion to the contrary is mistaken, and pompous. It indicates a lack of understanding both of my position AND libertarian principles. Specifically, if you think libertarian law is binding on the gods of Valhalla, you’re very confused.

Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you’re talking about: atheists like to assume that they understand religion better than its adherents. It’s a tactical error, because it exposes ignorance in a particularly flagrant way. For example:

I am a Bible-believing follower of the Lord Jesus Christ who believes that “immortal souls” are superstitious hogwash–and can prove it from scripture. Consequently, my religion hasn’t the slightest thing to do with “saving souls.” There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.

Since I’m not trying to prove anything, the burden of proof has nothing to do with anything. You’re still confused. The role of the burden of proof in all this is that you are entitled to disbelieve until someone else convinces you, which I’ve never questioned. I merely corrected one mistake on your part: failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as proving the null hypothesis true.

I’ve consistently said the opposite, so why do you claim I’ve ever said this? NOT EVERYTHING IS IRRATIONAL. I’ve said that several times. It’s extremely irritating to discuss with someone who pays so little attention that he thinks I’m saying the opposite of what I’m saying.

Where the hell do you get that from? He invented the nonaggression principle and published it about 3,000 years ago. You’re just being a jerk.

You’re still confused: I said that gods, if they deserve to be called gods, can do “whatever the hell they want.” That obviously includes the possibility of benevolence. It’s ironic that you’re being so irrational–i.e., contradicting yourself and getting most of what I say exactly backwards–in the context that you wish to denigrate me as less rational than yourself (and, you’ve insinuated, possibly a dangerous schizophrenic). One of us has never contradicted himself in this thread; the other has done so scores of times.

That might be the most idiotic thing you’ve said so far. I’ve changed from Catholic to my current church; from a young-earth creationist to full acceptance of common descent; from a right-wing chickenhawk to an anarcho-capitalist; from a racist hater of hairy Arabs to an opponent of the slaughter in Iraq; and other things besides. I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.

The only closed mind is you: you harbor bigotry against religious people–so much so that you can’t even open your mind enough to understand what I am and am not claiming. So much so that you deny your bigotry in the same breath that you mock and cast aspersions. So much so that you impute various beliefs to me incorrectly even after I set you straight, repeatedly. Indeed, so much so that you couldn’t resist an ad hominem attack after I looked you in the eye and told you, in advance, not to do it.

–Len.

63

You’ve already confirmed your bigotry; no need to grind it in. But it does bring us full circle to my original point: you are fanatical. At least, I hope you are. If you aren’t fanatical about the non-aggression principle, then you aren’t libertarian–you’re at best a turncoat, and at worst subhuman.

I never said all beliefs are irrational. Please learn to read.

The statement is idiotic, but you don’t especially believe it; you’re repeating the same ad-hominem, for the third time (if my count is correct). For what purpose? To rub our noses in the fact that you almost instantly broke down and went for the low road?

You’re contradicting yourself again. One post ago I was closed minded for holding my opinions too strongly; now I’m fickle for ever having changed my mind. That is a false dichotomy: there’s a third choice in between “too quick” to change opinions and “too slow.” Let’s call it “just right.” That’s where you find the level-headed, reasonable human beings who neither change opinions with every conversation, nor cling to an opinion after having been proven wrong.

I tentatively regard you as closed minded because you are still battling on after having been proven embarrasingly wrong.

–Len.

64

I was referring to the belief in immortal souls of most Christians. You’re telling me most Christians believe “immortal souls” are superstitious hogwash? In fact, you’re not just a minority, you’re a minuscule minority. Extrapolating your beliefs to encompass the differing beliefs of other Christians is just stupid.

Oh and by the way, since you claim you can prove this, I would enjoy seeing a good proof, full of citations not taken out of context, so that I can submit it to a Christian friend of mine whose favourite hobby is reading the bible. Then I can see how they’ll respond, considering that I’m apparently completely ignorant. I’m sure it would lead to an interesting discourse. If you do manage to provide the goods, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Turncoat or subhuman…and I’m the bigot here? You automatically denigrate any opinion differing from yours as subhuman. After that you dare to call me a bigot for critisising some fanatics who believe that their subjective view is objective? You are being very hypocritical there.

Stop treating me as a bigot. This is the most cliched ad hominem I’ve encountered used against anyone of a differing opinion. The moment someone disagrees with you and doesn’t automatically respect your opinion, or worse yet, dares to argue against you, they become a bigot. Nice little win-win scenario you’ve created there. I respect your opinion while you don’t try to force it upon me through coercion. I’ve already covered this. But when you continuously employ ad hominems, saying that I’m a bigot, ignorant, pompous, etc. I am disinclined to take you seriously.

Moreover, never do I say that my beliefs are more rational than yours. You’re making this stuff up. I simply said that differing beliefs are not equally irrational. Other than the comparison between god’s existence and the wooden table, I made no subjective judgements. Here you made a fatal mistake. By making up something I never said, and assuming that I hold my beliefs to be more rational than that of others, you have shown your pre-conceptions regarding me, atheists, agnostics, Ayn Randians, etc.

“So much so that you impute various beliefs to me incorrectly even after I set you straight, repeatedly.” You also critisized me by generalising others belief. If you say that I did this, then by that same token you must admit you yourself also generalised.

My entire point was comparing the acknowledgment of beliefs I hold as potentially irrational, to the beliefs that some religious people hold as objectivelty rational. Not the nature of the beliefs themselves.

I do however concede the part about me saying that you interpreted everything as irrational, that was pretty stupid of me so sorry about that. The rest stands true.

Concluding, a lot of what you say makes cogent internal sense, and your arguments have clearly been worked out, while I’m improvising (look at my age, hence experience), but every now and then comments like “He [god] invented the nonaggression principle and published it about 3,000 years ago. You’re just being a jerk.” make me wonder if you’re even being serious about what you’re saying. No offense but when read out loud, that just sounds comical. Whether you’re making a joke or not I’m not sure, and that very fact is worrying.

65

You’re not talking to “most Christians.” You’re talking to me.

It’s OK; your reaction sounds pretty stupid to me. The Golden Rule is found in Deuteronomy, which dates back about 3,000 years plus-or-minus. Since Deuteronomy is scripture, I attribute it (wonder of wonders!) to God. So quite literally I worship the God who invented the nonaggression principle, and set it down as a commandment 3,000-ish years ago. Clearly I don’t think He’s mean and nasty, and your suggestion that I do think that is “just being a jerk.” If the God of Abraham weren’t the author of things like the Golden Rule, I’d probably think differently of Him.

Sure, I’ll be happy to teach you what an ad hominem is! Here goes. It’s an ad hominem argument if I say, “You’re wrong because you’re a bigot.” On the other hand, it’s NOT an ad hominem argument if I say, “You’re wrong AND you’re a bigot.” It’s an insult, I guess–but it’s not an ad hominem argument. If you feel insulted, though, I’m not sorry: you’re the one who specifically painted me as both murderous and dangerously schizophrenic. That was an insult–and worse, it’s one I anticipated and warned you not to indulge in! Your bigotry forced you to make that obnoxious remark even after I as good as said, “You want to say X. But don’t do it, or you’ll prove you’re just a bigot.” How blatant does it have to get? You owe me an apology. I don’t owe you one; I’m simply calling it like it is.

Absolutely, I’ll be happy to teach you what coercion is! All you need to do is ask. Here goes. Coercion is physical force, or the threat of physical force. I have never threatened you with aggression, and it’s impossible to commit aggression remotely via the Internet. Therefore, coercion is not involved in any way. Stating my opinion is not coercion. Defending it vigorously is not coercion. Telling you that your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries, is not coercion.

By the way, I never asked you to respect my opinion. I certainly never made the slightest attempt to convert you to my belief–and indeed, told you practically nothing of what I DO believe. I asked you to speak courteously. If I’m “forcing” something on you, it’s that you need to be more courteous, and drop your derision of believers.

No, I didn’t. At no time did I EVER impute ANY belief to you, except (tentatively) non-aggression.

I don’t remember claiming to be without bigotry. I regard aggressors as sub-human. Luckily, the nonaggression principle embraces all Homo sapiens, whether or not they’re human. I won’t aggress even against aggressors. But Hitler wasn’t human. Bush isn’t human. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Johnson and Truman were sub-human. The cop that tases innocent old ladies is sub-human. Since there’s a continuum, some aggressors are nearly human. For example, a hippie gal I know who believes in socialized medicine. She’s an aggressor, and hence defective–but she’s so close to human that I hardly ever even notice her moral handicap.

Yes, I know that sounds fanatical. But that’s because few people believe in absolute principles. Non-aggression with me is absolute: it still applies when you get away with aggression; when only aggression will save your life; or indeed, when failure to aggress means the doom of all mankind.

I don’t know if it’s that way for you. Since you deny being a bigot, even while in the same breath calling me a schizo, I can’t quite believe you when you claim to be a non-aggressor. I suspect that you’re only “mostly” non-aggressive. In real life I wouldn’t argue with you very long, because I’m not entirely certain whether you would commit assault when provoked. But I would hope that your non-aggression is absolute.

–Len.

66

A few thoughts:

Christianity and free market thought both have a very strong individualist strain.

I don’t feel the need to justify my faith on empirical grounds. Sorry if you worship empiricism and find that unacceptable. Jesus said we are blessed for believing without seeing. So I suppose if you demand empirical evidence for everything then you probably wouldn’t accept Jesus as anything more than a man who lived a long time ago. I see evidence of God and the teachings of Christianity all the time, but it’s not scientific evidence, and that doesn’t bother me. Why would I expect science to explain everything? That seems like a massive leap of faith.

There are plenty of things we can’t see that we all know exist: ethics, emotions, etc.

There are other things that we think about but have no way of knowing: How did the world begin? What happens when you die?

I don’t think the original point has been made convincingly - tell me again why Christianity and the free market aren’t compatible?

67

The cop is different from the hippie. I do not understand the continuum.

I understand the cop being sub-human because his action is clearly aggression. However, I do not understand how the hippie can be an aggressor simply because of her belief.

Her belief in socialized medicine is not an action. Why is she an aggressor? Is it because she indirectly admits to being a potential threat of aggression?

68

It’s not perfectly well-defined, because on one hand it’s multi-dimensional, and on the other “aggression” is not subject to rigorous measurement. But one extreme is the perfect libertarian: no aggression of any kind is ever exercised, nor condoned in theory or in practice. In moving away from that ideal, a person might aggress rarely but severely; often but in a minor way; or never, while aiding and abetting aggressors.

The hippie gal is at best an aider and abetter: by advocating socialized medicine, she at least encourages others to aggress. Free speach dictates that I can’t stop her, so advocating her views doesn’t make her a criminal–but it does make her “morally” an aggressor, and that does negatively impact my opinion of her. Depending on context, I might express my contempt in any number of ways, including “morally handicapped” or “nearly human.”

The water is further muddied by the fact that a fine line sometimes distinguishes advocacy from threatening. Reporting me to the authorities as a possible tax evader would be outright aggression. Calling me “tax evader” might be a bit of rhetorical advocacy–or it might be the implied threat to turn me in. Calling me “tax evader” loudly enough, or publicly enough, might constitute aggression (if she knows the authorities are listening, for example), or negligence, or just spirited debate. At the very least, I would regard her as a potential threat, and it isn’t always clear exactly when she crosses the line to actual aggression.

–Len.

69

Thanks, Len, for the explanation. I like it.

70

Free speach dictates that I can't stop her, so advocating her views doesn't make her a criminal--but it does make her "morally" an aggressor

Free Speech is not synonymous with carte blanche speech.

In a free society people would free. Free to live without slander and all other slough communication.

Free speech would prohibit all criminal speech, for example NAMBLA.ORG would be prohibited and punished because it advocates and teaches men how to molest young boys.

tu ne cede malis

carl

71

True. But the only “forbidden speech” is the threat of force. The only law in a free society is the nonaggression principle: it is illegal to touch the person or property of another without their consent; and it is illegal to threaten the same. Everything else is legal, even if it isn’t moral.

I too think that’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t work: for example, advocating my religion (which, for example, disapproves of homosexual behavior) has already been characterized as “hate speech” by my classmates at Brown (back in the '80s, it was–before the dawn of time). Many, possibly even you, would say, “In a free society, people would be free. Free from homophobic scum thumping Bibles and advocating outdated mores.” Which brings us crashing into a contradiction: in order to secure that “freedom,” I must be forcibly prevented from practicing my religion, or even mentioning it to people who object.

The fundamental argument for anarchy is precisely that nobody can be trusted to arbitrate others’ behavior. Defending aggressors against victims is something we can define rigorously–at least, as rigorously as anything in this imperfect universe. Defining “slough communication” is impossible, precisely because everyone has his own definition. Advocating my religion is “slough communication” to unbelievers, and advocating a homosexual lifestyle is, in my opinion. Who decides?

Here I’m even doubly sympathetic with your view. If I say, “Kill Carl,” and a bystander says, “Duh, okay!” and kills you, haven’t we both committed a crime? I think so. Even Rothbard does, but yet Rothbard takes pains to argue that “incitement” isn’t a crime. I.e., if I say, “It’s time for a revolution!” and hundreds of people shout, “Yeah!” and march on D.C. with muskets, Rothbard says I can’t be blamed for the ensuing riot. Only the idiots who rioted can. I can’t say I agree fully with him.

But I do agree with Rothbard that no crime is committed when a hippie chick says, “Gee, wouldn’t the world be wonderful if everyone had all the medical care they needed for free? Like, yeah, man!”

That doesn’t mean “society” is powerless to deal with legal-but-immoral behavior, though. I’m against prostitution, even though I accept the logic that says it must be legal in a free society: first they came for the prostitutes… and finally, they came for “homophobic Bible thumpers” like me. So how does a free society deal with prostitutes? Or, how does a society of prostutites deal with Bible thumpers like me? By shunning. I’ll move to a neighborhood of Bible thumpers who, if a brothel tries to set up shop, will refuse to do business with its owners, employees and patrons. Getting kicked out of the grocery store a few times will persuade the brothel owners to set up somewhere else. Las Vegas, maybe. Meanwhile, if I go to Las Vegas and start denouncing prostitution, the local establishments would probably kick me out, and I’d see the wisdom of moving elsewhere. We uphold “community standards” using purely voluntary social sanctions.

–Len.

72

That’s how I understand free speech as well. Making threats, asks for a proper reaction.

But isn’t the actual issue of this thread the fact that the bible ordains governmental authorities and that this makes a christian anarchist a contradiction in principle?

73

elbita - very thoughtful points indeed, and I can agree with most of them (speaking for myself, of course). But there are various kinds of Christianity - some of which emphasize the more communal aspects of belief (even to an extreme, cultish, group-think level). Yes mainstream Christian thought has always maintained the paramount importance of personhood, which does fall hand in glove with free-market proponents’ upholding of consumer sovereignty and Austrian Econ’s subjective valuation. And so I see them as most compatible really.

74

The Bible also says, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” and, “Suffer yourself to be defrauded.” That creates a lot of wiggle room. For one thing, it imposes on us the requirement of conscience to decide when “obeying the authorities” comes in conflict with “obeying God.” For another, it clearly indicates that “submitting to authorities” doesn’t imply endorsement, any more than “turning the other cheek” implies endorsement of assault.

Within that wiggle room there’s space for anarchists like myself. Most of us on this board stop at red lights and pay our taxes, if only because we’d rather be outside prison than inside. Arguably, a Christian can’t join in an armed revolution, but he can certainly advocate anarchy, and if it’s achievable by peaceful means, can support it. So the Christian and non-Christian anarchists–on this forum, at least–behave identically, albeit for slightly different reasons. The verse that comes to mind is, “If you’re a slave, think nothing of it–but if you have an opportunity to become free, take advantage of it.”

–Len.

75

" He has touched me with his noodely appendage."

the al dente one?

76

-------Within that wiggle room there’s space for anarchists like myself.-------

Yes Len a christian can advocate anarchy. A christian can also advocate rape and murder. None of which is good or moral.

In order to support freedom and private property first learn that God has given the government authority to punish criminals.

Crimes are immorals acts.

Theft is a crime and an immoral act. And the government has sole authority to dispense justice.

So protect freedom and private property

stand for righteousness and resist evil

quit advocating anarchy

carl

77

I am both a Christian and a market anarchist. I am thus because I believe that non-aggression is the fullest application of Christlike-ness in the secular world. There is no teaching in the New Testament that prescribes the use of force for anything other than defense, and even that is considered neutral rather than virtuous. I refer specifically to John 8, where the Pharisees brought a prostitute before Jesus to be judged, and he sent THEM away in shame.

The message is clear: under the new covenant, it is no longer permissable to treat sin with force. For a Christian to call for the force of law to be brought against people who do things that are sinful - no matter how despicable - is simply wrong. That’s the way of the Pharisees, not the way of Christ.

There are two specific verses in the New Testament that are used by Christian statists to justify servitude to the state: Mark 12:17 (Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s), and the first part of Romans 13, where Paul says:

“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

There are a few things that must be said here: in the first place, Paul is NOT endorsing the state in general. It is vividly clear that he is only endorsing just law. Under an unjust ruler, people certainly DO have reason to fear the government. Was Paul saying that the likes of Stalin and Hitler were established by God? That’s absurd. They were demonic men who had nothing to do with God-ordained justice.

Additionally, an exegesis of the Greek Paul used reaveals two important facts regarding the words “authority” (Greek ἐξουσία, transliterated “exousia”), and the word “wrong” (κακός, “kakos”) as in verse 3.

“Exousia” says nothing about the legitimacy of their power. It simply means that they bear the sword. Paul is not saying that the government is in any way better than or even deserving of respect - he is simply saying (as becomes evident in verses 6-7) that it’s a good idea to obey them. Because it’s simply not worth it, because of fear of punishment and for the sake of one’s conscience, to stand against a government - but ONLY SO LONG AS THAT GOVERNMENT IS GOVERNING JUSTLY. Paul says “submit to just rule”, not “prostrate yourself before the state”.

“Kakos”, denoting the evildoers that the authorities are empowered to punish, are not “sinners” in general. The type of behavior denoted by “kakos” is distinctly EVIL - destructive, aggressive, violent crime. Clear as day - the role of the law is to punish aggressors. Plain and simple, in the Greek - rather clouded by the ambiguity of the English langauge.

And now we come to the famous utterance of Christ: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”

The question begs to be asked: “what, then, is Caesar’s?”

Jesus never says. Let’s look at this in context, though. Jesus has been confronted by the Pharisees, who want to entrap Him into saying something that will either (1) discredit him as a teacher and prophet, or (2) brand Him an insurrectionist before the Roman authorities. If he says “God owns this, not Casear” He will be arrested and probably executed as an insurrectionist. If He says “Caesar owns this, not God” he goes against much of the Old Testament law and will lose his following.

So He says neither. He mocks the Pharisees by NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. And yet, this is taken as an endorsement of taxation. It’s silly. For one thing, it’s not an endorsement at all.

One final note about taxes: Jesus said to turn the other cheek if you are struck, but that by no means indicates that the person who struck you is in the right. So even if it is a good idea to pay taxes, that doesn’t mean the taxes are just. It is simply a good idea for a Christian not to be on the government’s bad side.

Which brings me to my final point: context. When Paul and Jesus spoke about the government, they lived in a world where the faithful were persecuted for their faith. At that time, when the Church was in its infancy, it would not have done to discredit themselves by resisting the government and giving them a legal reason to imprison them. “Obey the law” was an admonishment to stay the hell out of trouble, and nothing more.

But now - when the Church is firmly established on the earth, it falls well within the practical ability of Christians to resist injustice when they encounter it. And thus, their moral responsibility as well. Especially against the modern state, the “artificial man” that tries to be God.

I don’t have time to go into the theology of it now, but I am convinced of this as surely as I am of the gospel itself: the state is a false god, and the only business a Christian has at its altar is in tearing it down.

78

You’re being ridiculous. I made a brief, but comprehensive, case that a Christian may legitimately regard anarchy as consistent with Christian principles. The same cannot be said of “rape and murder.”

Funnier and funnier. Your overall post is pretty incoherent, but that last bit takes the cake. You have no authority with which to tell me to “quit” anything.

–Len.

79

In my county, I would be guilty of a crime if I had in my possession a snake longer than 6 feet in length. Could you explain to me why the crime of owning a snake greater than 6 feet long is an immoral act?

My impression is that when you encounter the word anarchy you think chaos. Instead of thinking chaos the next time you encounter this word consider substituting the word ‘autonomy’ or ‘individual sovereignty’. Anarchy is a homonym and has different meanings based on the context. Consider the word ‘bow’ it has about five different meanings based on the context.

80

The state is tyranny.

Absence of the state allows freedom.

Absence of the state is Anarchy.

Freedom=Anarchy.

Tyranny=state.

Having long since moved past ancestor worship- of the ‘founding fathers’ - and the religion of statism including minarchism,I find this embarrassing.