Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1255312175' post='1983504'] Only if labor organizes and organizes properly can the state step out. [/quote] Well, my goal is to help undermine moral support for the very existence of the State. Once the State is unable to stand, it won't need to step anywhere. Least of all on a human face. And the State will continue to exist as long as people believe they have the right to initiate violence against innocent people. By the way, I'm all in favor of socialism, as it is wholly voluntary. You know, the sort of socialism found in monasteries and the like. There's no coercion, and no violence, but it still works, because everyone there is present voluntarily, and is united by the same end. Only when coercive violence and "the common good" are conflated do we have the State, or any other bad form of socialism. ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Are you an anarchist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1255313656' post='1983552'] Are you an anarchist? [/quote] Of course! Don't [i]you[/i] believe that the only moral use of violence is in direct defense from a real and imminent physical threat? ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 We have different definitions of violence. I am a monarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1255314154' post='1983560'] We have different definitions of violence. I am a monarchist. [/quote] What's your definition of violence? Mine is "using force or the threat of force to accomplish an end." ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 But I do not include in that the rightful exercise of authority. Anarchy is unnattainable. Someone will be in power, even if it is very small groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1255314398' post='1983565'] But I do not include in that the rightful exercise of authority. [/quote] What is your definition of violence? Please construct it concisely. With words, and such. ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I haven't a problem with your definition, only its application to just action of government and the subsequent descent into anarchy, which is really just the period between one tyranny and another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester']Anarchy is unnattainable. Someone will be in power, even if it is very small groups. [/quote] Winchester, I did not expect a pragmatist argument from you. "We Kant do it" is not the old Catholic try. Do you know something else that will not happen? Everyone living in accord with the Golden Rule. Does that mean that we should not strive every day to live by it? You are called to fight evil and to embrace the higher good as perceived by the intellect. Insofar as violence against innocents is evil, you may not support it. But, to counter your misguided "practical" concerns, let me give you this list of articles. I ask you to read through them all. In lieu of your reading through them all, please desist from saying "it is unattainable." [url="http://mises.org/story/1855"]"But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?"[/url] by Robert P. Murphy. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html"]Libertarian Anarchism: A Response to Ten Objections[/url] by Roderick Long. [url="http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml"]"The Reluctant Anarchist"[/url] by Joseph Sobran (Catholic author, wrote for the very orthodox "The Wanderer" for many, many years. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html"]"What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist,"[/url] by Stephen Kinsella. [url="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1982"]"If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytic of the State"[/url] [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer182.html"]"The Myth of National Defense,"[/url] by Butler Shaffer. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html"]"What is Anarchy?"[/url] By Butler Shaffer. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/003299.html%20%20"]"Anarchy Reigns,"[/url]by Steven Kinsella If you're really interested, I suggest you purchase the book, "Anarchy and the Law." It is comprised of 720 pages of various authors thoroughly refuting your position. ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1255314975' post='1983579'] I haven't a problem with your definition, only its application to just action of government [/quote] So, why is it immoral for me to take money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint, from innocent people, and use it for something that "benefits everyone?" (While, of course, keeping a little for myself, to remunerate me for my noble efforts?) Let's say 51% of the population agrees with my using violence against innocents. Am I in the clear now? If using violence against innocents "benefits everyone," how can it be wrong? If you do not have the right to use violence against innocents for any reason, how can you bestow that right upon a third party, namely, a State actor? ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Pragmatism would be evaluating the morality of aranchy by the amount of good (as defined by pragmatism) it produces, which I am not doing. I am a monarchist by virtue of my Catholicism. I do not support anarchy because it's not logical. What I expect is the the article attenuate the meaning of anarchism. Perhaps it's tribalism, perhaps it expands to some manner of democracy. True rule by none would be chaos. People will eventually choose a leader. Anarchy can refer to a state of general lawlessness, but not as a guide for society. I grant something may appear anarchic insofar as the leadership is not codified, but it's merely a different structure. One defines violences as the normal demands of living in a society and voila! the state is evil. Replace it with smaller states and the problem is solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1255316017' post='1983606'] Pragmatism would be evaluating the morality of aranchy by the amount of good (as defined by pragmatism) it produces, which I am not doing.[/quote] No, you are evaluating the morality of statism by the criteria of "need" and the amount of good it produces, which is pragmatism. [quote]I am a monarchist by virtue of my Catholicism.[/quote] I am an anarchist by virtue of my Catholicism, which does not allow me to initiate violence against innocent people. Does [i]your[/i] Catholicism allow you to initiate violence against innocent people? [quote]I do not support anarchy because it's not logical.[/quote] It is clear that you have not read the articles I offered. What is anarchism, and what is illogical about it? I have stated that anarchism is the result of men believing they do not have the right to initiate violence against innocents, nor to choose someone to do so by proxy. [quote] What I expect is the the article attenuate the meaning of anarchism. Perhaps it's tribalism, perhaps it expands to some manner of democracy. True rule by none would be chaos.[/quote] Your expectations are misplaced. Read the articles. [quote] People will eventually choose a leader. Anarchy can refer to a state of general lawlessness, but not as a guide for society. I grant something may appear anarchic insofar as the leadership is not codified, but it's merely a different structure. [/quote] Again, your expectations are misguided, because you do not understand what anarchy is. Anarchy is not averse to leaders. It is averse to coercion. Anarchy is not a synonym for antinomianism. It is not a world where everyone does what he wants. It is not an embracing of chaos. Anarchy is, again, the "state" resulting from men believing they do not have the right to initiate violence against others. [quote]One defines violences as the normal demands of living in a society and voila! the state is evil. Replace it with smaller states and the problem is solved! [/quote] More pragmatism. I will rephrase what you said, to make sure you see what you said: "Violence against innocents is demanded by living in a society." Incorrect. Society, (properly defined) requires violence only insofar as the individuals who comprise it must defend themselves from aggressors. Society does not require inflicting violence against innocents. Society is a group of individuals engaging in mutually-beneficial, free-will exchanges. There is a reason we call robbery and murder "anti-social" behaviors. The State is the physical manifestation of the mental illness that causes men to believe they have the right to initiate violence against innocents. Now, if you desire to continue the discussion, and to know what anarchism is and what it entails, [i]read the articles. [/i]At the very least, read Joe Sobran's article. ~Sternhauser Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1255315678' post='1983601'] So, why is it immoral for me to take money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint, from innocent people, and use it for something that "benefits everyone?" (While, of course, keeping a little for myself, to remunerate me for my noble efforts?) Let's say 51% of the population agrees with my using violence against innocents. Am I in the clear now? If using violence against innocents "benefits everyone," how can it be wrong? If you do not have the right to use violence against innocents for any reason, how can you bestow that right upon a third party, namely, a State actor? ~Sternhauser [/quote] the government should only be taking from the rich like that... when it's taking from the rich to give to the poor, ie 'no boot straps poor'. ie, if it's understood right, that robin hood thing isn't as bad as it's usually said to be. the poor can who can't go plant corn to eat, due to man's laws etc, who is poor and will die or whatever or can't live plausibly decent... he's the one who the goverment should be acting for. if we deprive him of his right to survive and fight to survive, we have to reciprocate. if the earth were such taht a man had all the earth minus a little for a family, we'd all agree that that family should be able to branch off at least to a minimum. anything else is just manmade laws and technology which give the giant man any priority. then consider... the richest 1 percent own like 90% of the weealth or something like that. it's almost like that now, then. as the popes have said... justice demands property rights be subject to tehir livelihood.. it demands luxury taxes etc. if you are not aware of the popes saying this stuff eg 'property rights are not absolute' etc.. then go back and read my last posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1255315678' post='1983601'] So, why is it immoral for me to take money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint, from innocent people, and use it for something that "benefits everyone?" (While, of course, keeping a little for myself, to remunerate me for my noble efforts?) Let's say 51% of the population agrees with my using violence against innocents. Am I in the clear now? If using violence against innocents "benefits everyone," how can it be wrong? If you do not have the right to use violence against innocents for any reason, how can you bestow that right upon a third party, namely, a State actor? ~Sternhauser [/quote] Well, per capita it costs people 160 dollars where I work for fire protection. I'm one of those government thugs, so I'm your enemy. I've been injured on duty several times, missed three months of work for surgery due to one such injury. I get paid nicely, but I'm the sort of person you're looking to make useless. Forgive me if I don't support making me look for another job. You can take that as you like, but it's on the level of your demonizing government workers. If we're going to engage in ridiculous rhetoric, I'm certainly up to the task. Then again, being "The Man," I can afford to have this theoretical discussion whilst I sit upon a pile of my ill-gotten pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1255317328' post='1983617'] Well, per capita it costs people 160 dollars where I work for fire protection. I'm one of those government thugs, so I'm your enemy. I've been injured on duty several times, missed three months of work for surgery due to one such injury. I get paid nicely, but I'm the sort of person you're looking to make useless. Forgive me if I don't support making me look for another job. You can take that as you like, but it's on the level of your demonizing government workers. If we're going to engage in ridiculous rhetoric, I'm certainly up to the task. Then again, being "The Man," I can afford to have this theoretical discussion whilst I sit upon a pile of my ill-gotten pay. [/quote] There are firefighters in my Utopia, and they're considered super cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now