Anarchism And Property Rights

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340133882' post='2446385']
I wish I had more time today to give proper replies but I do not. However, [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html"]Immortale Dei[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html"]Libertas[/url] are both good readings to understand the proper understanding of Liberty, the role of the State or Civil Authority, and the role of the people. Both don't seem compatible with much of what Anarchists preach.
[/quote]
Which anarchist works have you read?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1340134563' post='2446387']
Taxation is morally neutral by what mechanism?

Anarchy would be the absence of coercion. Me not permitting you to take from me is not "tyranny".
[/quote]It's how society pays for things that benefit society as a group. So you think Jesus said to go ahead and perform an immoral act when he instructed us to pay taxes? He told the woman to go and sin no more but gave no such instruction to Zacch, the tax collector?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1340135569' post='2446391']
It's how society pays for things that benefit society as a group. [/quote]
So grants to Solyndra benefitted us as a group?

I won't mention your conflation of government with society. Oh, I guess I will.

[quote]So you think Jesus said to go ahead and perform an immoral act when he instructed us to pay taxes? He told the woman to go and sin no more but gave no such instruction to Zacch, the tax collector?
[/quote]
That is a new one. Are you arguing Zacchaeus was not a sinner?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1340135737' post='2446395']
So grants to Solyndra benefitted us as a group?

I won't mention your conflation of government with society. Oh, I guess I will.


That is a new one. Are you arguing Zacchaeus was not a sinner?
[/quote]Solyndra could be argued that the intent was to benefit society as a group.

A larger society needs a government in order to function in certain aspects. Society creates a government for it's purposes. I would argue that it's not conflation, but I'm not a semantic nazi. I'm doing the best I can with my 8th grade education.

Was Zacc a sinner because he was a tax collector, or what he got away with in his position as a tax collector? His sin wasn't his choice to be a tax collector, no more than a soldier is automatically a sinner.

(Edit to add the bible verse: Luke 3:12-13)
12Even tax collectors came to be baptized and they said to him, “Teacher, what should we do?”[url="http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/3#50003012-j"][sup][size="2"]j[/size][/sup][/url] 13He answered them, “Stop collecting more than what is prescribed.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Anomaly

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1340134563' post='2446387']Taxation is morally neutral by what mechanism?
[/quote]The general idea of morality is that acts (or laws in this case) are good, evil, or neutral.

Good acts are in accord with natural law or eternal law.

Evil acts counter eternal law or natural law (or divine law).

Morally neutral acts/laws are neutral in genus only and are determined as good or evil by their end or circumstances.

You'll be hard pressed to find anything against the practice of taxation within reputable Catholic sources, so it's either good or neutral. The Church's magisterium confirms this.

I argue that taxation is in genus neutral, but needs to be promulgated by a legitimate authority and must be directed toward the common good and in that way not contradict natural law.


Just out of curiosity, what would work as a valid authority for demonstrating binding teaching?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1340134905' post='2446388']
Which anarchist works have you read?
[/quote]

I have read your works, and the works of those you source. I have also read the works of others who advocate Anarchist apologetics, as well as the works of their sources. There are a couple things I noticed that each have in common. First most of the websites that are sourced look like they were designed in the '90's. But that's no biggie. That's just interesting to me.

Secondly each all seem to agree on some basic principles. [font=Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]The existence of the State is ether thought to be immoral, or the idea of that a State could have legitimate authority to govern is highly and fiercely doubted. Because the State is mostly seen as a unjust agressor which has a unjust monopoly on violence. The individual is his own authority, no other individual has authority over another unless it is expressly and willfully given by the individual. Taxation is seen as theft or voluntary. I do not believe these and other ideas taught by Anarchists are compatible with Church teaching found in [/color][/font][color=#282828] [/color][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html"]Immortale Dei[/url][color=#282828] and [/color][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html"]Libertas[/url][font=Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]. I also don't believe the idea that "majority rules" is compatible with Church teaching. [/color][/font]

Edited June 20, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Papist]

There, there little anarchist.

http://youtu.be/yJwIAlx5R0s

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340153570' post='2446502']
[font=Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]I also don't believe the idea that "majority rules" is compatible with Church teaching. [/color][/font]
[/quote]You should explain this, because if you get this from either, encyclical, you've taken it out of context. Libertas specifically in 44 states there isn't wrong if people [b]prefer[/b] a democracy. Possibly you meant that morality isn't "defined" by majority opinion?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1340194701' post='2446656']
You should explain this, because if you get this from either, encyclical, you've taken it out of context. Libertas specifically in 44 states there isn't wrong if people [b]prefer[/b] a democracy. Possibly you meant that morality isn't "defined" by majority opinion?
[/quote]

The rule of Law (based on Natural and Divine Law), given to us by the Divine Law-giver, rules society. The majority is subject to the rule of Law. The majority and the minority can have a say in how their government is run and who will be chosen to enforce the rule of law.

"...once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher." --[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html"]Libertas[/url]

Edited June 20, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340203009' post='2446686']
The rule of Law (based on Natural and Divine Law), given to us by the Divine Law-giver, rules society. The majority is subject to the rule of Law. The majority and the minority can have a say in how their government is run and who will be chosen to enforce the rule of law.

"...once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher." --[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html"]Libertas[/url]
[/quote]A simple 'Yes', would have sufficed. You don't happen to aspire to practice law in Phillidelphia by any chance?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1340203317' post='2446687']
A simple 'Yes', would have sufficed. You don't happen to aspire to practice law in Phillidelphia by any chance?
[/quote]

No Sir, I do not.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340153570' post='2446502']
[font=Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]I also don't believe the idea that "majority rules" is compatible with Church teaching. [/color][/font]
[/quote]
There's a healthy dislike for democracy amongst the anarchists I read.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Collectivism is freedom. Money is the root of all evil. Democracy is divine.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1340152048' post='2446488']
The general idea of morality is that acts (or laws in this case) are good, evil, or neutral.

Good acts are in accord with natural law or eternal law.

Evil acts counter eternal law or natural law (or divine law).

Morally neutral acts/laws are neutral in genus only and are determined as good or evil by their end or circumstances.

You'll be hard pressed to find anything against the practice of taxation within reputable Catholic sources, so it's either good or neutral. The Church's magisterium confirms this.

I argue that taxation is in genus neutral, but needs to be promulgated by a legitimate authority and must be directed toward the common good and in that way not contradict natural law.


Just out of curiosity, what would work as a valid authority for demonstrating binding teaching?
[/quote]
Doesn't answer the question. How do you attain the power to tax, which you feel is a moral means of claiming money backed with threat of force? This is the problem. Theft is immoral. The taking of property is theft. Tax is the taking of property. Supposedly, "States" (which are never solemnly defined, although they are talked about) have the right to tax. I see ways to justify it, but I'd like your take, if you feel inclined.

[Laudate_Dominum]

u mad bro?

hahaha

I troll u