Twenty One Reasons Why Statism Is A Radical And Radically Incoherent T

[Sternhauser]

[url="http://www.strike-the-root.com/twenty-one-reasons-why-statism-is-radical-and-radically-incoherent-theory"]Twenty-one Reasons Why Statism Is a Radical and Radically Incoherent Theory.
[/url]
By Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski.

I truly, truly wish that I had compiled this list. Spreading it around is the next best thing.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 21, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

21 reasons that many tiny states are better than larger states. Still statism.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='21 May 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1274447852' post='2114647']
21 reasons that many tiny states are better than larger states. Still statism.
[/quote]

These points do not advocate, nor do they support "smaller" States. They directly contradict the notion of the State. (Not governments.)

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

They establish a straw man, then they pretend that capitalist entities operating without being subject to a large governement are not in themselves government.

You know why governments form?

What is the difference between government and state?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Winchester

[Laudate_Dominum]

I miss government ch[s][/s]eese.

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1274455689' post='2114682']
I miss government ch[s][/s]eese.
[/quote]

While my father was in the army we would often get government che[i][/i]ese and other food rations/MREs. Those were yum.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='21 May 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1274455425' post='2114679']
They establish a straw man, then they pretend that capitalist entities operating without being subject to a large governement are not in themselves government.[/quote]

A capitalist entity is not a State.

[quote]You know why governments form?[/quote]

Why do States form, is what I believe you are asking. States form because men believe they have the right to initiate violence against other men. If men properly governed themselves according to the will of God, the State would not exist, as indicated in 1 Samuel 8. Voluntary groups can be ordered toward a common good without being a State.

[quote]What is the difference between government and state?
[/quote]

Government is the direction of action. Violence, especially coercive violence, is not intrinsic to the nature of government. One can be voluntarily governed. An example of a non-violent, non-coercive government is the Church. It does not coerce anyone in its articles. It is a completely voluntary organization. It can withhold powers and privileges, but it does not use violence. It is an institution of convincing, not coercing.

The State is the physical manifestation of the wrong idea that one has some right to initiate force, fraud or coercion against one's fellow man. Aggression (the [i]initiation[/i] of violence) is intrinsic to the nature of the State. No one has the right to initiate violence against one's fellow man. If you, as an individual, do not have the right to do violence against your fellow man in any given situation, then it is impossible for you to give that right to a third party, whether you call that third party a "politician," or a "policeman."

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Okay. Thanks.

I don't agree with your definitions, premises or conclusions, but thanks for responding.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='21 May 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1274487614' post='2114967']
Okay. Thanks.

I don't agree with your definitions, premises or conclusions, but thanks for responding.
[/quote]

That's all right. At least, hopefully, you take the time to articulate and examine precisely what you do believe.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

Hey Stern, I feel this is as good a time as any to bring up a question I have.

I've got two passages from the Catechism. First:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

and second:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


These passages seem to assume, and in the case of 2267, require, the presence of a State that has some coercive ability. I'm wondering how you respond to this. Do you chalk it up to "The CCC isn't infallible", which to me would be somewhat disappointing, or is there a way to reconcile it with your (anti) political philosophy?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1274486624' post='2114957']If men properly governed themselves according to the will of God, the State would not exist, as indicated in 1 Samuel 8.[/quote]
If men properly governed themselves according to the will of God, the world as we know it would not exist. We live in a world of sin and violence.

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1274486624' post='2114957']An example of a non-violent, non-coercive government is the Church. It does not coerce anyone in its articles. It is a completely voluntary organization. It can withhold powers and privileges, but it does not use violence. It is an institution of convincing, not coercing.[/quote]
The only way the Church can operate non-violently is if its members are willing to be martyrs (which is precisely what the Gospel invites us to). The secular world is not operating on this principle.

Furthermore, could you clarify what you mean by coercion? For example, the Church baptizes infants, thus bringing those individuals into the Church. Is this an act of coercion, since an infant cannot consent? And if not, is it coercion for the State to claim authority over an individual because that individual was born into that particular society?

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1274490914' post='2115003']
Hey Stern, I feel this is as good a time as any to bring up a question I have.

I've got two passages from the Catechism. First:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.[/quote]

The first question we have to ask is, "What is 'legitimate public authority?' The Church acknowledges that can take many forms. The goal of the "state" in the definition of the Church (which, if it is like Fr. Fagothey's definition, which I will post later, I can agree with) is the maintenance of order, and upholding the rights of men. Whose order? Which rights? Again, the Church leaves room for people to argue a few possibilities.

Me? I believe that morally, physical violence may only be used [i]defensively[/i]. And not only must it only be use defensively, but that it must also be intended only to directly defend physical things. I believe that physical violence cannot be used to directly defend "virtue, honor, morality, etc." Those things are all protected as a secondary effect of the direct intention of protecting physical things and physical actions.

I do not believe that "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense" means that inflicting violence should be directly intended to make the other person recognize the evil of his action, or that inflicting suffering should be directly intended to bring about his repentance. That would be coercion of the free will. Any attempt to coerce that which God has made free is gravely evil. Further, I do not believe that men have any prerogative to attempt to right the disruption of the cosmic order, to attempt to work the justice of God, through violence. We have the prerogative to [i]stop[/i] and to [i]prevent[/i] injustice. It is better to do those things through non-violent means whenever possible. However, it is absolutely up to [i]God[/i] to do [i]justice [/i]in the spiritual realm. It is pure arrogance for men to try to measure "an amount" of intangible injustice using a physical scale. Worse, it is pure arrogance [i]and[/i] an [i]atrocity[/i] against human nature for a man to try to balance the spiritual scales, to "make things spiritually and morally right again," through physical violence. God is the only one who can possibly fathom such true, universal justice, let alone provide for its implementation.

"'Vengeance is [i]mine[/i],' saith the Lord." The role of men in "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense" must be only to A) Restore physical property/lost wages due to an injury, etc., and B) protect other individuals from further harm, if it is at all likely.

Punishment must never be intended as a means of coercing the will. You kill a rabid dog because it is a threat to individuals in society. You do not kill it because he is a "bad dog," and with the psychotic notion that things will be better for the people who were bitten by it because it is now dead. Likewise, you imprison or kill a murderer because he poses a threat to other individuals. Not to work God's justice.

It says in Romans 13 that a principality (literally, any man in a powerful position,) is the "minister of God, a revenger to execute the wrath of God upon the evildoer." When men are virtuous, the State is small and does not slaughter on a wide scale. When a majority of men are very evil, the State is a mechanism that not only reflects, but concentrates that evil, and through its mechanations, it executes the wrath of God upon evildoers. And the just suffer along with them. Because he is a creature of God, even Satan, even in all his evil works, cannot wholly escape being a minister of God's will, even if indirectly.

[quote]2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


These passages seem to assume, and in the case of 2267, require, the presence of a State that has some coercive ability. I'm wondering how you respond to this. Do you chalk it up to "The CCC isn't infallible", which to me would be somewhat disappointing, or is there a way to reconcile it with your (anti) political philosophy?[/quote]


I have an issue with your use of the word "coercive." I do not consider "coercion" to be the mere use of force. To illustrate my point, I'll bring up a movie. I'm not at all a fan of Bond movies. But the example will suffice to explain what I mean. In the movie [i]Goldfinger,[/i] James Bond, strapped on a table with a cutting laser directed at him, asked Goldfinger, "Do you expect me to talk?" He responded, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to [i]die[/i]." Bond might have thought Goldfinger was trying to coerce him to do something. Goldfinger did not want to coerce him into any particular action (speaking, paying taxes, etc.) He merely wanted to kill him. When a murder is committed, one doesn't say, "He coerced him into dying." Coercion is not the same thing as the use of force.

I fully believe that men can work together and morally use violence to secure their lives, liberty and property. I have a problem with the idea that that right is somehow beyond the scope of the individual. Do I advocate that every individual seeks restitution for himself when he is wronged? Absolutely not. Multiple acts of that sort would likely lead to a state of interaction that would be contrary to the end of societal order. I do believe that one should act, whenever possible, only after having accrued support from a healthy segment of society. Not because one's action is rendered intrinsically righteous by their consent and support, but because their consent and support is what allows the aftermath of the action to be conducive to peace and order.

For example, if my neighbor broke into my house, and I had video documentation of him breaking in and stealing my goods, saw him do it myself, saw my goods in his garage, and he admitted it to me, then told me to pound sand, I would be justified in taking my possessions back. I am not directly morally required to go about, show evidence of the crime to my neighbors, and come to a consensus with them that taking my possessions back would be moral. Indirectly, however, it might be morally required, in order to prevent greater evils from occurring. My taking back my goods would not be a direct injustice to anyone. It could, however, contribute to an environment in which other people felt at liberty to make rash assumptions of how another person had wronged him, and how best to mitigate the injustice. Because I want to avoid the onset of such an environment, I go around to my other neighbors, show them that I have proof my neighbor had stolen my goods, and secure their support in my endeavor to regain possession of them.

I am against the notion that any individual or any group has a [i]monopoly[/i] on the just use of violence. If you or I do not have the right to do violence against another individual, then you or I cannot possibly give that right to anyone else. I am also against the notion that a group of individuals who have no right to do something as individuals, can not only impart a monopoly on certain types of justifiable violence to a third party, but I am against the notion that they can [i]create[/i] the right to do violence in cases where it would be completely [i]unjust[/i] for any one of those individuals to inflict violence. For example, I have no right to pull you over for a turn signal that is out. I have every right to bring it to your attention through safe means, but I have no right to stop you with the threat of violence if you refuse to stop for me. And [i]no one else[/i] has that right, either. Such an action does not become moral even if a 99% of a population approves of it. An island with 100 inhabitants do not get to force ten people to do all their work for them because they decided upon it. Nor does a continent of 300,000,000 have any right to decide that 43% must support the others.

If I don't have a right to come and take your money to fund an army, then nobody else does, either. I may not threaten anyone with violence to acquire money to accomplish a good end. If my neighbor creates a machine that takes pollution out of the water and the air, and I benefit from it, he does not have a right to come over and take my money at gunpoint to pay for it, because "I benefit from it."

Lastly, all monetary interactions and property exchanges must be wholly voluntary. Anything else is robbery or fraud.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1274493666' post='2115036']
The first question we have to ask is, "What is 'legitimate public authority?' The Church acknowledges that can take many forms. The goal of the "state" in the definition of the Church (which, if it is like Fr. Fagothey's definition, which I will post later, I can agree with) is the maintenance of order, and upholding the rights of men. Whose order? Which rights? Again, the Church leaves room for peopel to argue a few possibilities.

Me? I believe that morally, physical violence may only be used [i]defensively[/i]. And not only must it only be use defensively, but that it must also be intended only to directly defend physical things. I believe that physical violence cannot be used to directly defend "virtue, honor, morality, etc." Those things are all protected as a secondary effect of the direct intention of protecting physical things and physical actions.

I do not believe that "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense" means that inflicting violence should be directly intended to make the other person recognize the evil of his action, or that inflicting suffering should be directly intended to bring about his repentance. That would be coercion of the free will. Any attempt to coerce that which God has made free is gravely evil.

"'Vengeance is [i]mine[/i],' saith the Lord." The role of men in "redressing the disorder introduced by the offense" must be only to A) Restore physical property/lost wages due to an injury, etc., and B) protect other individuals from further harm, if it is likely.

and second:



I have an issue with your use of the word "coercive." I do not consider "coercion" to be the mere use of force. To illustrate my point, I'll bring up a movie. I'm not a big fan of Bond movies. But the example will suffice to explain what I mean. In the movie [i]Goldfinger,[/i] Bond, strapped on a table with a cutting laser directed at him, asked Goldfinger, "Do you expect me to talk?" He responded, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to [i]die[/i]." Bond might have thought Goldfinger was trying to coerce him to do something. Goldfinger did not want to coerce him into any particular action (speaking, paying taxes, etc.) He merely wanted to kill him. When a murder is committed, one doesn't say, "He coerced him into dying."

I fully believe that men can work together and morally use violence to secure their lives, liberty and property. I have a problem with the idea that that right is somehow beyond the scope of the individual. Do I advocate that every individual seeks restitution for himself when he is wronged? Absolutely not. Multiple acts of that sort would likely lead to a state of interaction that would be contrary to the end of societal order. I do believe that one should act, whenever possible, only after having accrued support from a healthy segment of society. Not because one's action is rendered intrinsically righteous by their consent and support, but because their consent and support is what allows the aftermath of the action to be conducive to peace and order.

For example, if my neighbor broke into my house, and I had video documentation of him breaking in and stealing my goods, saw him do it myself, saw my goods in his garage, and he admitted it to me, then told me to pound sand, I would be justified in taking my possessions back. I am not directly morally required to go about, show evidence of the crime to my neighbors, and come to a consensus with them that taking my possessions back would be moral. Indirectly, however, it might be morally required, in order to prevent greater evils from occurring. My taking back my goods would not be a direct injustice to anyone. It could, however, contribute to an environment in which other people felt at liberty to make rash assumptions of how another person had wronged him, and how best to mitigate the injustice. Because I want to avoid the onset of such an environment, I go around to my other neighbors, show them that I have proof my neighbor had stolen my goods, and secure their support in my endeavor to regain possession of them.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Ok, that's a good detailed answer. Thanks.

So, final question for this thread: Is there a place in the "ideal" anarchic society for some form of the death penalty?

Edited May 22, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1274492283' post='2115011']
If men properly governed themselves according to the will of God, the world as we know it would not exist. We live in a world of sin and violence.[/quote]

May we sin and initiate violence against our neighbors to ameliorate the evils of the world?

[quote]The only way the Church can operate non-violently is if its members are willing to be martyrs (which is precisely what the Gospel invites us to). The secular world is not operating on this principle.[/quote]

No, they certainly are not. And we are called to be in the world, but not of it.

[quote]Furthermore, could you clarify what you mean by coercion? For example, the Church baptizes infants, thus bringing those individuals into the Church. Is this an act of coercion, since an infant cannot consent?
[/quote]

Coercion is an act that uses force, or the threat thereof, to elicit an action from another party. Baptism is not an act of coercion, not only because it does not involve violence, but because the parents are the custodian of the child's will, and the child's will has barely even begun to be formed. It [i]would [/i]be coercion to point a gun or threaten the parents with imprisonment if they did or did not baptize a child.

[quote]And if not, is it coercion for the State to claim authority over an individual because that individual was born into that particular society?[/quote]

It is coercion for the State to claim the right to initiate violence over anyone. The distinction between "authority" and "the right to initiate violence" is [i]paramount! [/i]The two terms are not interchangeable, and are not even related! Authority, by its nature, does not necessitate the use of violence. Authority, the moral power to command obedience, has one ultimate source: God. It has three subsidiary sources: first, it is natural, such as the natural authority of parents over their children. Second, it is divinely ordained, such as the Pope over the Church. Third, it is voluntarily given, such as an employer over his employee. There is no natural right to initiate aggression. There is no God-given right to initiate aggression.

The State, as I have defined it, is [i]aggressively[/i] violent by its very nature. Once again, a clarification between "violence" and "aggressive violence." Violence is the use of force or fraud to achieve an end. Aggression is the [i]initiation[/i] of force, fraud or coercion. [i]Aggression[/i] can never morally be used defensively. Therefore, it is always immoral.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1274496356' post='2115066']
May we sin and initiate violence against our neighbors to ameliorate the evils of the world?[/quote]
My point was simply that if you're basing your social theory on a world where "men properly govern themselves according to the will of God"...then your social theory will never be anything more than a fantasy.

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1274496356' post='2115066']No, they certainly are not. And we are called to be in the world, but not of it.[/quote]
Who is "we"? The world is of the world. The Church is not supposed to be of the world, but the world is of the world. Do you believe that the world can operate like the Church? If it did, then there would no longer be a "world" that the Church is not supposed to be "of."

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1274496356' post='2115066']It is coercion for the State to claim the right to initiate violence over anyone. The distinction between "authority" and "the right to initiate violence" is [i]paramount! [/i]The two terms are not interchangeable, and are not even related! Authority, by its nature, does not necessitate the use of violence. The State, as I have defined it, is [i]aggressively[/i] violent by its very nature. Once again, a clarification between "violence" and "aggressive violence." Violence is the use of force or fraud to achieve an end. Aggression is the [i]initiation[/i] of force, fraud or coercion. [i]Aggression[/i] can never morally be used defensively, and hence, it is always immoral.[/quote]
Maybe you can give some practical examples of what you're referring to, because I don't really understand what you mean by "initiating violence." Is having laws (which apply to those born into that society) an initiation of violence? Is having consequences for breaking those laws an initiation of violence?

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might