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

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 May 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1274504261' post='2115138']
I can only pray that you one day cease your promotion and love for the heresy and evils of voluntaristic anarchy.
[/quote]

May God's will be done on this matter, Knight.

[quote]I shall also pray that you will come to understand that the CCC is binding on the matters of the State.[/quote]

The teaching of the Church is binding on matters of Faith and Morals. Show me where the Church supports the initiation of aggression and mandates the support of and belief in the superiority of an aggressive entity with a monopoly on violence, and I'll abandon voluntaryism forever. Or, as I always ask for, and you never deliver a straight answer: what is the Church's definition of the State? It's defined marriage. It's defined lust. It's defined sin. It's defined adultery. It's defined transsubstantiation. It's defined original sin. It's defined what a sacrament is. Where is the definition of the State? I liked Fr. Fagothey's definition of the state: "The state is a perfect and self-sufficing natural society, consisting of many individuals and families, united under a common authority, for the attainment of the temporal welfare of the community." I can get on board with that one. But you haven't extended the Church's "official" definition yet.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 May 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1274503698' post='2115129']
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.
[/quote]
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.
Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.
Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?
[/quote]

Nihil,

Indeed. We must all submit ourselves to legitimate authorities. There is no doubt of that.

~Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1274503698' post='2115129']
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.
[/quote]

I was waiting for Knight to come into this discussion.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='22 May 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1274505521' post='2115159']
I was waiting for Knight to come into this discussion.


[/quote]
Name a successful Anarchy

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 May 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1274506506' post='2115177']
Name a successful Anarchy
[/quote]

How could I, when anarchy or an anarchist society, is such a thing that has no formation in which to truely label itself?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.[/quote]

A commentary on commentary. I'm sure it exist somewhere I shall try to find it. But since I sourced that from the Catholic Encyclopedia which carries both a Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur, what you read is very likely very close to the original tongue.


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, [/quote]

Yes, of course if the ruler is illegitimate or truly a tyrant such as Stalin.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?
[/quote]

Grave matters and the people can remove him from power. One only need to apply the Just War theory

[quote]The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. [/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='22 May 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1274506730' post='2115183']
How could I, when anarchy or an anarchist society, is such a thing that has no formation in which to truely label itself?
[/quote]
That's what I thought.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1274507321' post='2115196']
A commentary on commentary. I'm sure it exist somewhere I shall try to find it. But since I sourced that from the Catholic Encyclopedia which carries both a Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur, what you read is very likely very close to the original tongue.




Yes, of course if the ruler is illegitimate or truly a tyrant such as Stalin.



Grave matters and the people can remove him from power. One only need to apply the Just War theory
[/quote]
In my opinion Sternhauser has a valid point, or at least a point that deserves further study, when he claims that all modern governments are illegitimate through tyranny.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 May 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1274507489' post='2115200']
That's what I thought.
[/quote]

Hey bro, please allow me to pat you on the back if that's all you wanted.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1274499977' post='2115105']
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
[/quote]

Here I believe you give a perfect example of how voluntarism would actually work, the state even on the smallest and most useful level is to be thought an unjust aggressor. If there was doubt as to if you advocated anarchy there should be no doubt now. A policemen attempts to pull you over for say speeding which would endanger lives, and he's the bad guy? Then when you decide to run for it he's still the bad guy? Law enforcement is a vocation, because God calls some of us to serve and protect. Disregard for their authority over us is disregard for Gods authority over us.

Edited May 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1274507896' post='2115212']
In my opinion Sternhauser has a valid point, or at least a point that deserves further study, when he claims that all modern governments are illegitimate through tyranny.
[/quote]

Do you truly understand what an actual tyranny looks like? I should warn you it really looks nothing like Canada, a modern government. Applying the word tyranny to "all modern governments" is simply a gross misuse of the actual meaning of the word. The Governments of Hitler and Stalin where truly tyrannical, and not all modern governments are like their governments. China and others are, but to say all is just nonfactual and illogical.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1274508497' post='2115223']
Here I believe you give a perfect example of how voluntarism would actually work, the state even on the smallest and most useful level is to be thought an unjust aggressor. If there was doubt as to if you advocated anarchy there should be no doubt now. A policemen attempts to pull you over for say speeding which would endanger lives, and he's the bad guy? Then when you decide to run for it he's still the bad guy? Law enforcement is a vocation, because God calls some of us to serve and protect. Disregard for their authority over us is disregard for Gods authority over us.
[/quote]

Knight, once again, you are taking things completely out of context and misrepresenting the argument. We had been talking about [b][i]window tint,[/i][/b] not reckless driving or any other real crime, with a real victim.

I am all in favor of a body of men who are charged with stopping true crime: acts that violate the life, liberty and property of other human beings.

Your endless rash assumptions, straw men and misconstructions are becoming very tiresome.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 May 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1274526438' post='2115272']
Knight, once again, you are taking things completely out of context and misrepresenting the argument. We had been talking about [b][i]window tint,[/i][/b] not reckless driving or any other real crime, with a real victim.

I am all in favor of a body of men who are charged with stopping true crime: acts that violate the life, liberty and property of other human beings.

Your endless rash assumptions, straw men and misconstructions are becoming very tiresome.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

In context you still find a policemen to be an unjust aggressor. You did talk of running from the policemen and very clearly made the point that it would be wrong of him to try and stop you, because he would apply "severe physical violence". Heavily tinted windows can endanger other drivers, because of the way it limits vision of the driver. Anyway once someone decides not to stop they just as easily endanger others lives and that is justification for the policemen to catch you.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1274509008' post='2115231']
Do you truly understand what an actual tyranny looks like? I should warn you it really looks nothing like Canada, a modern government. Applying the word tyranny to "all modern governments" is simply a gross misuse of the actual meaning of the word. The Governments of Hitler and Stalin where truly tyrannical, and not all modern governments are like their governments. China and others are, but to say all is just nonfactual and illogical.
[/quote]
Well there's definitely a large difference in degree, but what about in principle? Would you agree or disagree that your government and mine do at least some things which are, in principal, tyrannical?