Central Council of Anarchy

[Lilllabettt]

I am amused by the title of this thread. "[u]central council[/u] of [u]anarchy[/u]". Haha. sort of oxymoronic, n'est ce pas?

I am reminded of this anarchist I know who would go to anarchist conventions. The theme one year was the oppression of the people in Latin America by the state. There was a major argument because some of the anarchists wanted vegan food, while others pointed out that vegan food is not representative of the people of Latin America.

[Aloysius]

I split this topic from another thread and chose the title from a Chesterton book: The Man who was Thursday. haha, yes, it's meant to be ironic

governments are legitimate when they have power and they exercise that power legitimately, according to the principals laid out in Catholic social teaching. when they exercise that power illegitimately, they are to be ignored or even rebelled against, but so long as they exercise their power legitimately in promoting the common good, they do indeed have legitimate authority to do what YOU term as aggression, but what the Church would consider keeping civil order.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#I

There are many more sources than the Catechism for this teaching, including the social encyclicals of popes, and the consistent teachings throughout the ages of the Church... you'll find it in the writings of any of the saints who have written on the subject, you'll pretty much find it around every corner of Church social teaching. You cannot escape it, despite attempting to wrangle Catholic principals to claim that Catholic principals are against governments who order people about... if Catholic principals were against such things, then the Catholic Church would be against such things. But the Catholic Church has always been on the side of such things and the simpler explanation is not that she has contradictory principals, but that you have simply misinterpreted her principals re: "aggression" and "authority"

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='26 October 2009 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1256570446' post='1991507']
What makes a government legitimate is that its controlled by the people, for the good of the people, and those who administer it, are able to do so, only because the people have elected them to do so.
[/quote]

What is "the people"? Is it 20% of the group? 51%? 90%? 100%? Each individual is required to give consent for this term to be legitimate. Otherwise, it is merely a term used to paper over the reality that some members of "the people" are using force against over members of "the people." You can't separate "the people" from the individuals who make up the people.

Edited October 26, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='26 October 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1256586926' post='1991658']
What is "the people"? Is it 20% of the group? 51%? 90%? 100%? Each individual is required to give consent for this term to be legitimate. Otherwise, it is merely a term used to paper over the reality that some members of "the people" are using force against over members of "the people." You can't separate "the people" from the individuals who make up the people.
[/quote]


Well, we live in a republic with democratically elected representatives. So, representatives represent
"we the people." The collective majority elects the representative, but that representative represents
all the people of his district, not just those who voted for him. Its what we as a society have accepted
to be our form of government.

Its a far cry better than what anarchy would give us.


Jim

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='26 October 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1256574456' post='1991528']
governments are legitimate when they have power and they exercise that power legitimately, according to the principals laid out in Catholic social teaching. when they exercise that power illegitimately, they are to be ignored or even rebelled against, but so long as they exercise their power legitimately in promoting the common good, they do indeed have legitimate authority to do what YOU term as aggression, but what the Church would consider keeping civil order.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#I[/quote]

My whole point is that they are [i]illegitimate[/i] when the infringe on an individual's rights of life, liberty, and property. As I explained above, each individual is, himself, the legitimate authority over those things.

I see nothing in the excerpt you posted that contradicts my position and says that I'm required to support a government that infringes on the natural rights of the individual. The terms used are a little vague, and I don't doubt that the individual who wrote these words accepted governments as they currently exist as being, generally speaking, "legitimate." I suggest that, if anything, the meaning behind the passage tends to support to my position, even if Pope John Paul II did not specifically intend that when he promulgated it. But putting that aside, it certainly does not [i]condemn[/i] my position:

[quote]If authority belongs to the order established by God, 'the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."
[/quote]

This supports my position. Rulers can't simply impose their rule; they must be chosen by "the citizens." Now, you may argue that "the citizens" refers to society as a whole. As I mentioned to Jim, concepts like "the citizens," "the people," "the common good," "society as a whole" are inseparable from the individuals who make up these collectives. Only individuals possess will and only individuals can chose which collective "the people" they're going to be part of in the first place. Why am I considered part of the same "the people" as individuals in Honolulu, we both being under the same federal government, but I am not, or only less so, part of the same "the people" as individuals in Toronto, despite the fact that I am geographically and perhaps even culturally more akin to the individuals in Toronto?

Thus, it seems to me that if the choice of rulers is left to the free decision of the citizens, it is left to the free decision of [i]each individual citizen[/i]. This point does not imply no rulers, no laws, or no authority; it only means each individual under the authority willingly consents to that authority and, if they don't, then they are left along. How is that principle different then the how it is in the Church herself. The Church possesses rulers, laws, and authority, yet does not force the unwilling to obey. She even allows people to leave her if they so desire without putting them in prison or any such thing. If this is with the Church, why not the State?

[quote]The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them.[/quote]

The term "the diversity of political regimes" also implies to me the ability to choose between regimes.

[quote]Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed....Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility"....Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."[/quote]

This all explicates the very important point that authority is [i]not the same thing[/i] as power. Just because one holds power, does not mean that one has legitimate authority. Thus, we would not be required to obey the laws of Hitler or some other despot. I would suggest this is also important to understanding Romans 13:1-2. St. Paul never uses the term "power"; he uses the term "authority," which implies legitimacy, and according to the Catechism, regimes are illegitimate and unathoritative if they act in ways contrary to "the natural law...the public order...the fundamental rights of persons...the common good...the moral order." All those terms imply to me that the regime must have complete respect for the individual's natural rights ("the fundamental rights of persons"), the individual's own authority over his mind, his body, and his property (or life, liberty, property in Lockean terms). And complete respect of those natural, fundamental rights implies [i]not[/i] coercing the individual into being subject to that regime if the individual does not wish to do so. In short, it implies a fully voluntary society with a fully voluntary government.

[quote]By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."....the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.[/quote]

Again, it impossible to fulfill this condition with respect for the "fundamental and inalienable rights" of the individual, which implies voluntaryism. It is unfortunate that the term "the common good" is also used in a collectivist way to paper over acts of aggression. Only respect for the natural rights and freedoms of every individual can favor the good of [i]all[/i] individuals (the "common good") in any meaningful sense of the term.

[quote]"Participation" is the voluntary and generous engagement of a person in social interchange. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person.[/quote]

The [b][i]voluntary[/i][/b] engagement...the is key. Having an "obligation" to participate does not mean that you should be thrown in a cage is you [i]don't[/i] participate. You also have an obligation to pray the Mass every Sunday, but if you fail in your obligation, you are not imprisoned. We are talking about a moral obligation rather than a legal obligation, and this is demonstrated by the use of that very important term "voluntary," as well as the fact that the Church deals with moral obligations, not statutory law.

[quote name='Aloysius']if Catholic principals were against such things, then the Catholic Church would be against such things. But the Catholic Church has always been on the side of such things and the simpler explanation is not that she has contradictory principals, but that you have simply misinterpreted her principals re: "aggression" and "authority"
[/quote]

In the old days, popes like Innocent IV and Nicholas V authorized such things as slavery and torture. Yet now we know that these are violations of justice and the Catechism that you linked to condemns them itself. Many popes have also tried, beginning in the 4th century, to direct the apparatus of the coercive state for the benefit of the Church. Over the fifteen hundred years, this created many scandals that are embarrassments even today, such as the execution of heretics, while kings and emperors continuously violated the rights of the Church and the faithful at least as much they protected them. I think it is fortunate for the Church that she lost political power. I see this as a great liberation for the Church. And I do not see where the Church compels you and me to accept the aggressive actions of any political regime, present or historical, as legitimate.

Edited October 26, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='26 October 2009 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1256591334' post='1991696']
Well, we live in a republic with democratically elected representatives. So, representatives represent
"we the people." The collective majority elects the representative, but that representative represents
all the people of his district, not just those who voted for him. Its what we as a society have accepted
to be our form of government.[/quote]

"We the people"..."the collective majority"..."we as a society." These terms have no meaning in the sense you're using them. You're just papering over the fact that some individuals are imposing their wills on other individuals with appeals to an abstract collective.

"Society" is a group of individuals. It has no independent will; it cannot "accept" anything unless every individual within the society accepts it. And [i]I[/i] do not accept the current system. [i]I[/i] do not accept the person who claims to represent me and I do not consent to their claimed representation of me. Clearly, either I am not part of this "we" or this "we" is not fully consenting and accepting of this situation. You see, even assuming that it were possible to have a functioning democracy, and I don't think it is, such a democracy would simply be tyranny of the majority. And that is still tyranny. Even all 6.7 billion people on Earth called themselves "society" and voted to murder one lone, non-consenting individual, it would still be an unjust act of aggression.

"Society" is the sum total of voluntary interactions between individuals. All acts of aggression are destructive to society. They sever the ties of society rather than strengthen. The freedom of the individual and the strength of society are not at odds; the support of one is the support of the other. Aggression, be it by one lone tyrant or a majority against a minority, damages both.

Edited October 26, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='26 October 2009 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1256568984' post='1991487']
The starving prisoners at Andersonville, initially, was more the result of the gang leaders who controlled the camp, who took the food that was provided away from the other prisoners, and horded it for themselves. When the confederate soldiers brought the wagons of food inside the compound, the two leading armed gangs of the camp would race forward and seize the food by force. The other prisoners were left to starve. Some, managed to pay high prices through batter for food. The gang leaders controlled the camp and anything that came into the camp. The camp had no laws other than those that the strongest of the prisoners established.

It was class anarchy.[/quote]

Sounds like they had a monopoly on violence to me.


[quote]Lincoln being responsible for the starvation at Andersonville because he refused to provide food to the enemy is about the most far fetched argument to justify the atrocities against human beings in a time of war, that I've ever seen.

By this logic, FDR would also be responsible for starving POWS in WWII, because he didn't provide the Germans and Japanese with food for the POWS they held.

Jim
[/quote]

Did you see the part about how more people died in Northern prison camps than in the Southern prison camps? Or how the prisoners got the same rations as the guards, and how they had the same death rate?

The Germans did not, as a rule, starve the prisoners. The Japanese deliberately starved the prisoners.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='26 October 2009 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1256570446' post='1991507']
What makes a government legitimate is that its controlled by the people, for the good of the people, and those who administer it, are able to do so, only because the people have elected them to do so.
Jim
[/quote]

The State is not controlled by the people. It is controlled by the people in power. You can't start an avalanche and then claim that you control it.

You speak of "the people." Who is that? And how many does it take?

How can you, as an individual, transfer a right (taking money by force, or forcing another man to fight) to a third party, a right that you yourself do not have? As Jacques Maritain said, "The subject of a right is a person." Collectives do not have rights. Individuals do. If you do not have the right, you cannot bestow it on a third party.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='26 October 2009 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1256572403' post='1991518']
I am amused by the title of this thread. "[u]central council[/u] of [u]anarchy[/u]". Haha. sort of oxymoronic, n'est ce pas?
[/quote]

Non. Ce n'est pas. See my "status," which has been up for a few weeks. "Oxymoron" means an apparent contradiction that is surprisingly [i]true.[/i] There is no contradiction between anarchy and a council: between anarchy and ordered interaction.


[quote]I am reminded of this anarchist I know who would go to anarchist conventions. The theme one year was the oppression of the people in Latin America by the state. There was a major argument because some of the anarchists wanted vegan food, while others pointed out that vegan food is not representative of the people of Latin America.
[/quote]

Those are some goofy anarchists. Unfortunately, there are many, many atheists in the ranks of anarchists. Many of the "anarchists" are merely socialists. Meaning, they just want the reins of power in their [i]own[/i] hands. [i]They[/i] want to wear the iron crown. I'll wager, however, that they did not "resolve" the dispute by killing off the opponents, but rather, they simply went their separate ways.

I know many anarchists/voluntarists. I can trust even the atheists with my life. I can trust them to not do violence against me unless I first do violence against them. That is not something, shamefully, that I can never say about many, many "Catholics" I know.


~Sternhauser

Edited October 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Edit: double post

Edited October 27, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Edit: double post

Edited October 27, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Aloysius]

I saw your reply, KRP, I haven't got the time right now to go through it all (i'll try to come back to it), but suffice it to say I think you're absolutely twisting the words of the Catechism to make them completely ineffectual and against their directly stated purpose based upon a theory that you're more attached to than to the social teachings of the Church. And the social teachings of the Church are in no way on par with slavery (though the popes always condemned racist slavery and only mildly tolerated other forms of slavery while introducing principals which always subverted the system of slavery) or torture; nor could you find anything through the ordinary universal magisterium supporting those things like you can find supporting the idea of governmental authority.

authority is legitimate when it does things for the common good. when it is exercised illegitimately, we either ignore and disobey it or rebel against it. a government will generally have some legitimate and some illegitimate exercises of its authority; as Christians we are called to obey the legitimate ones and work against the illegitimate ones.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='26 October 2009 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1256606855' post='1991820']
authority is legitimate when it does things for the common good. when it is exercised illegitimately, we either ignore and disobey it or rebel against it. a government will generally have some legitimate and some illegitimate exercises of its authority; as Christians we are called to obey the legitimate ones and work against the illegitimate ones.
[/quote]

What is "the common good?"

Is it distinct from and unrelated to the good of the individual?

If a group of people get together and want to violate the rights of one person, does their decision make their action moral, and can violating the rights of one individual ever "benefit" the common good?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='26 October 2009 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1256606855' post='1991820']
I saw your reply, KRP, I haven't got the time right now to go through it all (i'll try to come back to it), but suffice it to say I think you're absolutely twisting the words of the Catechism to make them completely ineffectual and against their directly stated purpose based upon a theory that you're more attached to than to the social teachings of the Church.[/quote]

It states quite clearly that a legitimate authority "is bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.." By definition, that means that the legitimate authority [i]can't[/i] initiate violence, since that would violate the fundamental rights of persons. I think the problem is that you conflate the concept of "a governing authority" with the concept of "a territorial monopoly with the power to initiate violence." But they are not necessarily the same thing. Furthermore, the latter sort of entity inherently contradicts the Catechism's standard that a legitimate governing authority must be bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.

[quote]authority is legitimate when it does things for the common good. when it is exercised illegitimately, we either ignore and disobey it or rebel against it. a government will generally have some legitimate and some illegitimate exercises of its authority; as Christians we are called to obey the legitimate ones and work against the illegitimate ones.
[/quote]

You keep using these terms without defining them or only defining them in a circular way. I have never disputed any of these concepts. I have never disagreed with the concept of government, legitimate authority, or the common good. My disagreement lies in your implied definitions of them. You say, for example, that "a government will generally have some legitimate and some illegitimate exercises of its authority." Fine. I don't disagree. But what [i]are[/i] the legitimate exercises? What are the [i]illegitimate[/i] exercises? Just asserting that they exist is meaningless. It's like saying, "Some things are wrong and some things are right. Therefore, we must do the right things and not the wrong things." Okay, and...? It is [i]my[/i] contention that when a government infringes on the natural rights of the individual--to his mind, to his body, and to his property--that is an [i]illegitimate[/i] exercise of its authority.

Edited October 27, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Aloysius]

yes, if/when governments infringe upon people's rights then that is illegitimate authority and is not to be obeyed. I quoted my hero Fr. Vincent McNabb (though I don't know that he coined this phrase, I just quoted it from him cause I read him saying it somewhere): "a bad law is no law"

Stern:
[quote][b]1905 [/b]In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

[b]1906 [/b]By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

[b]1907 [/b]First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

[b]1908 [/b]Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

[b]1909 [/b]Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense. [/quote]


KRP:
[quote]By definition, that means that the authority, to be legitimate, can't initiate violence, since that would violate the fundamental rights of persons.[/quote]
wrong.
[quote][b]CCC 2266[/b] The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67[/quote]

As regards not recognizing existing states as legitimate authorities: I absolutely sympathize with that and think that much of what they actually do is illegitimate exercise of authority. But the Church teaches that there always must be government with authority to give orders to men, and that this is based upon human nature. Therefore, if I object to this or that government, I must propose a different one; and I have the obligation to follow and obey anything that a government does legitimately.