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

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1274494107' post='2115046']
So, final question for this thread: Is there a place in the "ideal" anarchic society for some form of the death penalty?
[/quote]

In the "ideal" voluntaryist society,(I know you know what I mean by anarchy, but for the sake of others, I'll use that term) insofar as it is a true society and thus devoid of anti-social behavior such as murder or rape, there is no place for the death penalty. It is a void that has not been given space.

In a mostly voluntaryist society, on the other hand, I believe there is a role for the death penalty. It has a place not so the wrath of man can worketh the justice of God, but it has a place as a last resort to protect other individuals from a violent individual.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

I love this thread.

I am learning a lot.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1274497004' post='2115072']
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]

As much as a fantasy of men living according to the Golden Rule. A fantasy worth striving for, if you ask me. I have no right to initiate aggression against my fellow man because they are sinful.

[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]

Who is "we?" We are Church. (Sorry, bad joke, had to say it.) If we can't beat 'em, (either literally or figuratively), we may not join 'em.

[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?
[/quote]

I gave several examples of initiating violence earlier. I will give some more. It would be an initiation of violence to pull someone over and demand to see a plastic card with his photo on it, that says "Driver's License." It would be an initiation of violence to put someone in handcuffs for making alcohol with an unlicensed still. It would be an initiation of violence to rob someone. It would be an initiation of violence to arrest someone (take into custody under threat of violence or death) for carrying a firearm without a permission slip. It is not an initiation of violence to stop a robber. It is not an initiation of violence to resist someone who tries to arrest you for carrying a firearm without a permission slip. It is not an initiation of violence to punch a rapist. It is not an initiation of violence to use violence to stop a violent aggressor.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1274497728' post='2115078']I gave several examples of initiating violence earlier. I will give some more. It would be an initiation of violence to pull someone over and demand to see a plastic card with his photo on it, that says "Driver's License." It would be an initiation of violence to put someone in handcuffs for making alcohol with an unlicensed still. It would be an initiation of violence to rob someone. It would be an initiation of violence to arrest someone (take into custody under threat of violence or death) for carrying a firearm without a permission slip. It is not an initiation of violence to stop a robber. It is not an initiation of violence to resist someone who tries to arrest you for carrying a firearm without a permission slip. It is not an initiation of violence to punch a rapist. It is not an initiation of violence to use violence to stop a violent aggressor.[/quote]
I think there might be some legitimate ways to criticize something like licenses (I think society has become increasingly obsessed with something like certification). But I would be skeptical of your framing your criticism on the basis of "initiation of violence."

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1274498107' post='2115081']
I think there might be some legitimate ways to criticize something like licenses (I think society has become increasingly obsessed with something like certification). But I would be skeptical of your framing your criticism on the basis of "initiation of violence."
[/quote]

If I don't have a piece of plastic that says I have had training in the operation of a vehicle, and I am safely driving without it, harm no one, and in the course of my safe driving, you pull me over for having tint that is "too dark," using colorful blinky lights which signify a threat of death if I do [i]not[/i] stop, and you arrest me for not having a piece of plastic that [i]says[/i] I am capable of being a safe driver, then [i]you, [/i]sir, [i]are[/i] an aggressor, as skeptical as you may be.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1274498391' post='2115083']
If I don't have a piece of plastic that says I have had training in the operation of a vehicle, and I am safely driving without it, harm no one, and in the course of my safe driving, you pull me over for having tint that is "too dark," using colorful blinky lights which signify a threat of death if I do [i]not[/i] stop, and you arrest me for not having a piece of plastic that [i]says[/i] I am capable of being a safe driver, then [i]you, [/i]sir, [i]are[/i] an aggressor, as skeptical as you may be.[/quote]
This assumes that society does not have a right to create laws to which the people in that society are subject. If someone pulled you over arbitrarily, with no legal basis to do so, then that might perhaps be an act of aggression. But if you are going to take part in a society of laws (e.g., by driving on its roads), then I would say that you are putting yourself under that society's laws.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1274497209' post='2115074']
In the "ideal" voluntaryist society,(I know you know what I mean by anarchy, but for the sake of others, I'll use that term) insofar as it is a true society and thus devoid of anti-social behavior such as murder or rape, there is no place for the death penalty. It is a void that has not been given space.

In a mostly voluntaryist society, on the other hand, I believe there is a role for the death penalty. It has a place not so the wrath of man can worketh the justice of God, but it has a place as a last resort to protect other individuals from a violent individual.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Right, I suppose I have to differentiate between the "ideal" utopia, and the "pretty good" possibility.

So how would the death penalty be carried out in the mostly voluntaryist society, where nobody in theory holds any form of coercive power? How is it prevented from descending into mob rule?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1274498694' post='2115086']
This assumes that society does not have a right to create laws to which the people in that society are subject. If someone pulled you over arbitrarily, with no legal basis to do so, then that might perhaps be an act of aggression. But if you are going to take part in a society of laws (e.g., by driving on its roads), then I would say that you are putting yourself under that society's laws.
[/quote]

A law is not merely a decree passed by a majority. "It" doesn't "have" roads. I am harming no one by my actions. Violence may only be used to stop real aggression that actually harms another person. If you think otherwise, I haven't got much else to say.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1274498999' post='2115090']Violence may only be used to stop real aggression that actually harms another person.[/quote]
You are assuming that a cop pulling you over is "violence." That's a questionable assumption.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1274498939' post='2115089']
So how would the death penalty be carried out in the mostly voluntaryist society, where nobody in theory holds any form of coercive power? How is it prevented from descending into mob rule?
[/quote]

How do we prevent Mob rule? You mean what we have now? There is no way to prevent it except by a virtuous population, comprised of sober, calm and rationally-thinking men. No way whatsoever. I will be the first person to tell you that. I will also be the first to tell you that an unvirtuous population giving [i]anyone[/i] an artificially large amount of "legitimized" power over their fellow man by is [i]far[/i] more dangerous than a society in which no one has a "legitimate" claim to artificially large amounts of power. The mafia doesn't claim a [i]right[/i] to threaten and rob people.

I don't know how the death penalty would be carried out in a mostly voluntaryist society. I've never seen one.

But I know it is the society one gets when men refrain from initiating aggression against each other. It is the most moral way men can interact with each other. The death penalty cannot be more poorly implemented than it is now. And given the milieu of virtuous men required for a mostly voluntaryist society, it would be infinitely more seldom and wisely implemented.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1274499791' post='2115102']
How do we prevent Mob rule? You mean what we have now? There is no way to prevent it except by a virtuous population, comprised of sober, calm and rationally-thinking men. No way whatsoever. I will be the first person to tell you that. I will also be the first to tell you that an unvirtuous population giving [i]anyone[/i] an artificially large amount of "legitimized" power over their fellow man by is [i]far[/i] more dangerous than a society in which no one has a "legitimate" claim to artificially large amounts of power. The mafia doesn't claim a [i]right[/i] to threaten and rob people.

I don't know how the death penalty would be carried out in a mostly voluntaryist society. I've never seen one.

But I know it is the society one gets when men refrain from initiating aggression against each other. It is the most moral way men can interact with each other. The death penalty cannot be more poorly implemented than it is now. And given the milieu of virtuous men required for a mostly voluntaryist society, it would be infinitely more seldom and wisely implemented.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Your points, as always, are consistent and compelling. Thanks.

I do agree that the democracy we see today is comparable to mob rule.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1274499194' post='2115094']
You are assuming that a cop pulling you over is "violence." That's a questionable assumption.
[/quote]

He flashes lights at me. If I do not pull over, he will chase my car down and [i]force[/i] me to stop, with the help of other people like him. If I do pull over, he will give me a citation, a threat that I [i]must [/i]pay $200 and remove the tinting, [i]or else[/i]. Is his flashing lights at me merely a polite[i] suggestion[/i] that just happens to be backed up with the threat of initiating severe physical violence, and therefore, not a violent act itself?

Question away, Era. Begin now.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1274499894' post='2115103']
Your points, as always, are consistent and compelling. Thanks.

I do agree that the democracy we see today is comparable to mob rule.
[/quote]

Yet in error, voluntaryism is just an off shoot of anarchy. And anarchy is a condemned heresy of Mother Church.


Anarchy is an evil, and the occasion of many calamities, and the source of disorder and confusion. For as, if you take away the leader from a chorus, the chorus will not be in tune and in order; and if from a phalanx of an army thou remove the commander, the evolutions will no longer be made in time and order, and if from a ship thou take away the helmsman, you will sink the vessel; so too if from a flock thou remove the shepherd, you have overthrown and destroyed all.

Anarchy then is an evil, and a cause of ruin. But no less an evil also is the disobedience to rulers. For it comes again to the same. For a people not obeying a ruler, is like one which has none; and perhaps even worse. For in the former case they have at least an excuse for disorder, but no longer in the latter, but are punished.

Homily 34 on Hebrews - Chrysostom, Church Father.


For anarchy, be where it may, is an evil, and a cause of confusion. After having said then whence governments come, he proceeds, "Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God." See what he has led the subject on to, and how fearful he makes it, and how he shows this to be a matter of debt. For lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that he makes them subject in doing this. For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient.

Homily 23 on Romans - Chrysostom, Church Father.

Also in earlier discussions with Sternhauser on voluntarism and the the parts of the CCC that spoke of the State, he stated something to the effect that the CCC was not binding.

[Sternhauser]

Knight, there's nothing to be said to counter anything you copy and paste. So in light of the fact that there are people who might be gulled into your warped understanding of voluntaryism, I'll just say that your logical leaps, false assumptions and misrepresentations are smileful. And if that wasn't a word, it is now.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 May 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1274504148' post='2115134']
Knight, your logical leaps and misrepresentations are smileful. And if that wasn't a word, it is now.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I can only pray that you one day cease your promotion and love for the heresy and evils of voluntaristic anarchy. I shall also pray that you will come to understand that the CCC is binding on the matters of the State.

Edited May 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist