Central Council of Anarchy

[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?

If I take money from an individual by violence or the threat of force, but the money goes to "the common good," is what I have done blameless?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

Stern, again, this is the common good (according to Holy Mother Church):
1905 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

1906 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:

1907 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

1908 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

1909 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.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='26 October 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1256613485' post='1991880']
Stern, again, this is the common good (according to Holy Mother Church):
1905 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

1906 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:

1907 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

1908 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

1909 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]

Aloysius,

I do not deny what the Catechism says here.

Regardless, the Catechism is not an answer to my questions. It does not justify your position, either. Nor are "society" and "the State" synonymous. The Catechism stipulates "morally acceptable means." It did [i]not [/i]say where authority gets the right to exercise force against non-violent people, a right that other individuals do not have. It did [i]not [/i]say that anything anyone does for "the common good" is morally legitimate. It says nothing about initiating violence. I'd like an answer from [i]you[/i].

~Sternhauser

Edited October 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

your question was what the common good is and how it is related to the good of the individual.

and I'm sorry, but you do indeed disagree with the Catechism. you deny that governments are allowed to rule through what you call "coercion" but the Catechism clearly defines authority as "the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and [b]give orders to men and expect obedience from them.[/b]" It is this authority which the Catechism says is founded "in human nature". And yet you deny that anyone can give orders and expect obedience from them, calling that act an act of "coercion" which is inherently "violent"

as regards whether the current systems truly have legitimate authority... that is up to debate. but Church teaching would demand that if the current system has illegitimate authority, it must be replaced by some other authority which can give orders and expect obedience from those orders.

and you ask where the state gets rights that individuals do not have. the answer is simple: authority, which comes from God. I posted CCC 2266 above, which clearly permits the state to threaten punishment against what you term "non-violent" people; it threatens punishment, and carries out that punishment if its legitimate orders are disobeyed. now, certainly, 'the state' and 'the society' are not synonymous terms, which is why the next chapter specifies their relationship: "It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies. CCC 1910"

honestly, have you sat and read the relevant catechism sections objectively, or have you merely responded to my quotes of it on a case by case basis attempting to wrangle those quotes into line with your thoughts? You ought to at least be honest and admit you disagree with the Catechism... it's not in and of itself infallible (though it contains infallible teachings) and there are ways of doing that... but to do that you'd first have to admit and accept that it said what it said and have a real reason to oppose it.

[JimR-OCDS]

King's Rook's Pawn

[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.
[/quote]

Well society does impose its will on individuals in order to protect individuals. Society decides which laws are to be accepted in order to protect individual liberties. We don't allow rape and murder, because those infringe on the individual rights of the victims. So it is with other laws which make us a civilized society.


[quote]"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.
[/quote]

Doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, society as a whole does, and as long as you chose to live among this society and benefit from the protections and resources this society provides, you'll have to learn to adjust. Also, representatives claim to representation is only from the will of the people, who elected him/her. Its not something they took to themselves.




[quote]Clearly, either I am not part of this "we" or this "we" is not fully consenting and accepting of this situation. [/quote]

Well as the saying goes, "No Man is an Island." You do not have total anonymity from the world where you survive completely independent from it. You can either chose to live within it and make it better, or move out into the desert. However, even in the later case, you'll still end up reaping some benefit from society, even if its the roadkill you are forced to scrape off the highways and eat, in order to survive.



Jim

Edited October 27, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[JimR-OCDS]

'Sternhauser

[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. [/quote]


Yes, but I wasn't attempting to show who was more inhumane. Instead, I brought up Andersonville, to show what anarchy is.




Jim

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='27 October 2009 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1256640062' post='1992024']
your question was what the common good is and how it is related to the good of the individual.

and I'm sorry, but you do indeed disagree with the Catechism.[/quote]

I said I did not disagree with what the catechism says [i]here[/i]. According to the catechism, violence may not be used as a means of "punishing" criminals. I happen to agree with that. You probably do not.

[quote]You deny that governments are allowed to rule through what you call "coercion" but the Catechism clearly defines authority as "the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and [b]give orders to men and expect obedience from them.[/b]" It is this authority which the Catechism says is founded "in human nature". And yet you deny that anyone can give orders and expect obedience from them, calling that act an act of "coercion" which is inherently "violent"[/quote]

There is a difference between using force and coercing the will. If I use force against someone, it is to stop his act of initiating force or fraud. That is all the right that anyone has. You have yet to show that authority equals the right to use force. I ask again: does the husband (who has authority over his wife) have the right to beat compliance out of his wife? Does the priest have the right to threaten to shoot his spiritual charge?

[quote]
and you ask where the state gets rights that individuals do not have. the answer is simple: authority, which comes from God. I posted CCC 2266 above, which clearly permits the state to threaten punishment against what you term "non-violent" people; it threatens punishment, and carries out that punishment if its legitimate orders are disobeyed. now, certainly, 'the state' and 'the society' are not synonymous terms, which is why the next chapter specifies their relationship: "It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies. CCC 1910"[/quote]

Did God tap Barack Obama on the shoulder and said, "You have the authority to use force to collect money?" [i]Where did Barack Obama get his authority? Does his authority come from the fact that he has acquired power? How do we know God gave Barack Obama some special authority that the rest of us do not have? And does [/i]authority[i] necessarily mean "a special right to initiate violence?" [/i]

[quote]honestly, have you sat and read the relevant catechism sections objectively, or have you merely responded to my quotes of it on a case by case basis attempting to wrangle those quotes into line with your thoughts? You ought to at least be honest and admit you disagree with the Catechism... it's not in and of itself infallible (though it contains infallible teachings) and there are ways of doing that... but to do that you'd first have to admit and accept that it said what it said and have a real reason to oppose it.
[/quote]

I disagree with the Catechism on several points, because it makes hundreds of points arguing from [i]practicality, [/i]not intrinsic morality. I do not disagree with the infallible teachings of the Church on faith and morals.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 28, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='27 October 2009 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1256649909' post='1992057']
Yes, but I wasn't attempting to show who was more inhumane. Instead, I brought up Andersonville, to show what anarchy is.

Jim
[/quote]

Andersonville, a prison created by the State during a war of aggression, where the inmates, forced into artificial living conditions, believed they have the right to initiate aggression, is what you call an example of a society in which the interactions therein are voluntary exchanges? No. There is nothing anarchic about Andersonville. Nothing.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 28, 2009 by Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='27 October 2009 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1256649696' post='1992055']
...society does impose its will....Society decides which laws are to be accepted....society as a whole does[/quote]

Jim, society has no will. Society has no soul. Society has no mind. Society has no consciousness. Society wills nothing, thinks nothing, does nothing, decides nothing. Society is an abstraction. Society is simply the sum total of voluntary interactions between individuals. When some persons within society behave aggressively, it damages this network of voluntary interactions. Thus, aggression is [i]antisocial[/i]. It is antisocial even when it is done in the name of society, by individuals calling themselves "society."

[quote]Well as the saying goes, "No Man is an Island." You do not have total anonymity from the world where you survive completely independent from it. You can either chose to live within it and make it better, or move out into the desert. However, even in the later case, you'll still end up reaping some benefit from society, even if its the roadkill you are forced to scrape off the highways and eat, in order to survive.[/quote]

This is a straw man. I never made any of these claims. I support voluntary interaction, which is pro-individual and pro-society. I reject all aggression, which is anti-individual and anti-society. Since I very much support [i]voluntary[/i] trade, for example, I'm obviously not going to be living off of roadkill. I also do not oppose charity, family life, community life, and everything else you support. I just oppose aggression.

By the way, how do you feel about [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermit#Contemporary_eremitic_life"]holy hermits[/url]?

[Aloysius]

Barack Obama has his position because the existing social structure grants it to him. You have the duty to be part of this social structure; if you wish the social structure no longer to recognize Barack Obama as President, you ought to work to make that so. but no man is a personal authority unto himself, no man is an island, and you have the duty to remain a part of this social community that you live in. This social community gives Barack Obama the status as President... and that's not because of the majority vote or event he majority electoral college vote; it's simply an observable fact. Who do the people of the united states recognize as their government, for better or worse? The President and the congress and their state governor and their state congress. it is a social fact.

this is not to say democratic majorities therefore decide who has authority necessarily, for the Church permits any type of regime including monarchies and such; the person who has authority is the person whom the social community considers to have authority. it is that person who has authority from almighty God to rule. if there is doubt, confusion, or argument about two different possible authorities... one picks one's side depending on which one thinks is a more just authority; but the point of the matter is the Church considers it everyone's true duty to be a member of a social community, and believes it essential to a social community that there be someone to rule, who can give orders and expect them to be obeyed, and who can punish crimes.

the CCC does not argue from practicality. these ARE the Church's principals; she's not saying "well this is just true because it works"... she's clearly saying "this is true because it is an essential part of human nature!"

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Aloysius:

See, I don't know if you understand what I'm saying. All I'm talking about is voluntary, consensual interaction versus the initiation of violence. The [i]illegitimacy[/i] of the latter should be [i]logically self-evident[/i]. If the Catechism were to favor that, the Catechism would be wrong. However, I still do not seen where it says that. This statement:

[quote]CCC 2266 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]

in no way contradicts this statement:

[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]

I'm talking about [i]initiatory[/i] force. I am not referring to [i]retaliatory[/i] force. I'm not a pacifist. It's perfectly legitimate to retaliate against an act of violence (a crime). Perhaps that's where you misunderstand me. I am not saying you're not allowed to retaliate if someone infringes on your rights. But [i]initiating[/i] violence is, in itself, a violation rights. The Catechism says that the state is supposed to "watch over the common good" which "corresponds" to "containing the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights." Well, how can the state prevent such behaviors by committing them itself? It makes no sense. Rights apply equally to every individual and are rooted in the individual's own authority over his own mind, his own body, and his own property. If the state violates these things, it violates its own mission according the Catechism.

And you yourself say, "...if/when governments infringe upon people's rights then that is illegitimate authority..." Fine. Then we agree. That is simply another way of stating that governments can not [i]initiate[/i] force because that inherently infringes upon peoples' rights. If not, it wouldn't be the initiation of force under my definition. For example, if you throw a trespasser off of your property that is [i]not[/i] the initiation of force because you have the right to control your own property. The [i]trespasser[/i] initiated force when he committed the act of trespass, since that was a violation of your rights. I am also using the terms "violence," "aggression," and "coercion" to refer to the "initiation of force," but they are all different ways of referring to the infringement of someone's rights. Also, I consider acts of fraud to be acts of aggression since they violate the victim's rights. The victim has the right to use force to [i]retaliate[/i] against these violations of his rights. He also has the right to contract with others--enforcement agencies, courts, etc--to retaliate and compel the aggressor to pay full compensation to the victim. This is what I would consider to be "inflicting penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." But if you committed no crime--initiated no force--then nobody, including the government, has the right to inflict anything on you, for that would itself be the initiation of force and therefore would itself be a crime.

[quote]I object to this or that government, I must propose a different one[/quote]

Fine, and I propose a fully voluntary government. This is not a facetious statement. Why can't you have a government that [i]all[/i] the subjects (rather than just a bare majority as in "democracy") have voluntarily elected to join. As I said, is this not similar to the way the Church functions already? The Church gives orders, the Church has laws, the we have a moral obligation to obey the Church. The only difference is that the Church doesn't use guns and cages to compel the unwilling.

Unlike Sternhauser, I don't usually use the word "anarchist" to refer to myself, though I have no problem with it. He's not using the word "anarchism" to refer to people who want to overthrow all authority or all law or anything like that, but only to refer to abolition of state-based [i]aggression[/i]--violations of rights. But maybe it's that word that's throwing you. I usually the term "voluntarist" or "voluntaryist" because my focus is squarely on aggression vs. voluntary interaction, including in government.

I also lean towards the woefully neglected strategy of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism"]panarchism[/url]. Panarchism doesn't focus on abolishing the states but only on [i]voluntarizing[/i] the state. Specifically, individuals would have the freedom to choose their own governments. I could elect to be under the Swiss government, for example, or the Japanese government. And, yes, I could also elect to be under no government at all. You might not like that, which would be fine; you just couldn't use a gun to force me into a government is all. This would not eliminate governments altogether; it would only eliminate the territorial basis of governments, by which are governments are imposed on us by virtue of our geographic location, and we have to emigrate to switch them. Isn't that an arbitrary and ridiculous way of organizing authority? What's authoritative about that?

Aloysius, wouldn't you prefer the freedom to remove yourself from under the "authority" of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi [i]right now[/i], without having to leave your home and emigrate far away and place yourself under, say, the Republic of Malta? Or better yet, you could help construct a new worldwide Catholic empire! Perhaps you could get Otto von Habsburg to be the emperor. You could have Pat Buchanan as President of the Catholic Republic of Columbia under the Holy Catholic Empire. Heck, I might even come along, though I'd prefer a President Ron Paul (I suppose he'd probably have to convert first). But no big deal; we just couldn't force anyone to join who didn't want to. We'd have to let other people could join the communist government, the social democratic government, the Islamic government, or no government at all. We could try to [i]persuade[/i] them to convert and join us--and in an atmosphere of open competition between governments we could more easily see which governments bore the best fruits. We just could [i]not[/i] put a gun to someone's head if he refused. No could we force someone to stay if he wanted to leave. And why would we want to do that anyway? Why would we want to have unwilling people as thralls to our government? That would not only be unjust towards them; it would also be destructive to the virtue and harmony of our empire. Thus, people could enter and leave as the chose, just as it is with, you know, [i]churches[/i], including the Catholic Church herself.

Don't you see how much better, more just, and more free that would be than the current state of affairs, in which the whole world is carved up into territorial monopolies that put guns to their subjects' heads and throw them into cages for practically any reason they choose, and you pounding the Catechism, telling us it has to be this way? But there [i]are[/i] other ways to structure society that don't require violence. But in order to move towards a society, we first have to reject [i]all[/i] aggression--[i]all[/i] violations of the sacred, natural rights of each and every individual--even if it is perpetrated by someone calling himself the [i]legitimate authority[/i].

Edited October 28, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 October 2009 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1256699255' post='1992516']
Don't you see how much better, more just, and more free that would be than the current state of affairs, in which the whole world is carved up into territorial monopolies that put guns to their subjects' heads and throw them into cages for practically any reason they choose, and you pounding the Catechism, telling us it has to be this way?
[/quote]

Aloysius:

I apologize for accusing you of "pounding the Catechism and telling us it has to be that way." I know you're only stating what you think to be the case, but I do not think you've considered how inherent illegitimacy in the [i]initiation[/i] of force.

[Aloysius]

I have always been highly sympathetic to the idea of 'panarchy' but remain vehemently opposed to 'anarchy' and do indeed continue to maintain the right of a state to use force to enforce its legitimate orders on its subjects. but panarchy is a logical extension of my views of subsidiarity... in short, the authority of governments ought to be as distributed as possible so that authority is exercised at the lowest possible level; first at the level of families, then at the level of guilds, then at the level of local governments. I'm in favor of city-state systems.

while on the whole your idea is compelling, I think it is tainted by an individualism which is foreign to the Christian ethos. however, as I've said many times; go ahead and reject the yoke of the modern states, and I'll be right behind you in doing that, but replace it with something. voluntary societies are great... but we all have a duty to belong to society and obey the rulers of those societies... you can't just pick and choose which parts of some authority you want to obey; an individual can't just suddenly decide that since he doesn't like the rulership of the society to which he belongs, then he suddenly doesn't have to obey any orders from the leader of that society. individuals can't just pick and choose their societies and their rulers that way. anything less than that gives way to prideful individualism.

all human beings have the duty to be part of a social community under an authority. therefore, in your panarchist paradise, it would be immoral for any individual to refuse to join one or the other of these authorities.

the point I'm trying to make is that rulers are a necessary component of human nature, and rulers have the right to expect obedience to their legitimate orders. in terms of "violence", they definitely have the right to punish and enforce things in the name of justice. and that violence should be threatened on the basis that if one acts unjustly in the society, the rulers of the society will punish them. one cannot escape these things into individualism; for individualism is a false philosophy based upon a false understanding of human nature--which is essentially a social nature.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Aloysius:

After this post I'm [i]probably[/i] going to drop this debate because I don't think we're getting anywhere and, quite frankly, I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='28 October 2009 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1256721771' post='1992630']
I have always been highly sympathetic to the idea of 'panarchy' but remain vehemently opposed to 'anarchy' and do indeed continue to maintain the right of a state to use force to enforce its legitimate orders on its subjects. but panarchy is a logical extension of my views of subsidiarity... in short, the authority of governments ought to be as distributed as possible so that authority is exercised at the lowest possible level; first at the level of families, then at the level of guilds, then at the level of local governments. I'm in favor of city-state systems.[/quote]

Of course, I used the word "panarchism" to mean competing, extraterritorial governments, not just decentralized, territorial governments. I realize that you don't like states as they exist today and would prefer more decentralized states. However, I do not think mere decentralization [i]goes far enough[/i].

Let me try to put my position this way: I would define the term "legitimate government" as "an institution that protects the rights of individuals." I am perfectly agreeable to such an institution, as such. However, today, all institutions that call themselves governments exist as [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i]. In other words, they monopolize control of a given geographic area (a "territory") with armed enforcers, who threaten deadly force against the resistant. They also monopolize the function of dispute resolution within said territory, declaring themselves the final arbitrator of all disputes [i]including disputes with themselves[/i]. They enforce this territorial monopoly of dispute resolution with said armed enforcers, who threaten deadly force against those who would resist said territorial monopoly. It is important to note that they are NOT legitimate property owners of said territory, as they have NOT legitimately occupied said territory under first-use principles.

I believe that [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i] inherently violate individual rights by virtue of the fact that they are [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i]. Since such [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i] inherently violate individual rights, by virtue of their very existence as [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i] they cannot by legitimate governments so long as they exist as [i]violently-enforced territorial monopolies[/i]. In short, my definition of "legitimate government" ("an institution that protects the rights of individuals") is inherently incompatible with a so-called government that exists as a [i]violently-enforced territorial monopoly[/i].

My questions:
1) Do you believe that a "legitimate government" (defined as "an institution that protects the rights of individuals") can exist as a violently-enforced territorial monopoly?
2) Do you believe that a "legitimate government" [i]must[/i] exist as a violently-enforced territorial monopoly?
3) Do you believe that Church doctrine teaches that entire landmass of the world must be divided between violently-enforced territorial monopolies?

[quote]you can't just pick and choose which parts of some authority you want to obey; an individual can't just suddenly decide that since he doesn't like the rulership of the society to which he belongs, then he suddenly doesn't have to obey any orders from the leader of that society. individuals can't just pick and choose their societies and their rulers that way. anything less than that gives way to prideful individualism.[/quote]

How can a society that forces people to belong to it even [i]be[/i] a "society" in any meaningful sense of the term "society"? A society must be voluntary to be any society worthy of the name. Otherwise, it's just an slave state whitewashing that reality with smiley-face rhetoric. Why would a decent society even want to force unwilling people to participate at the point of a gun? Should we drag hermits out the woods kicking and screaming and force them to join? Should we through people in shackles if they try to run away? The idea of a compulsory society is a perverse concept.

I have referred, a number of times, to the Catholic Church, which is the greatest society on the face of the Earth, with a ruler, the pope, and great authority, more than any secular government. Yet this society, the Church, is also [i]fully voluntary society[/i]! You are free to "pick and choose" between it and other religions or no religion at all, without the Church threatening to send armed men to break down your doors, put a gun to your head, and lock you in a cage.

What [i]if[/i] the pope did that to someone, a Jew or a Muslim? What is the pope sent armed men to force them to convert, be baptized and attend Mass, all at the point of a gun? Would you agree with the pope's actions and accuse detractors of "antisocial individualism"? Or would you think that the pope was committing a grave injustice and a grave scandal, destructive to the Church and in violation of basic Christian precepts? So why is it so crazy to think that Mayor So-and-So should respect the same sacred, sovereign boundaries of individual rights that the God's Church herself respects?

[quote]
...in your panarchist paradise, it would be immoral for any individual to refuse to join one or the other of these authorities.[/quote]

I think it would be perfectly moral for a person to exist as his own secular authority (after all, aren't kings and presidents already their own secular authorities) provided he doesn't commit acts of injustice against others. But even if you're correct, "immoral" doesn't mean "illegal." To compare this, once again, to religious authority: it is [i]immoral[/i] to be an atheist. It is, however, not [i]illegal[/i]. I can't break down an atheist's door, put a gun to his temple, and force him to join a church. So I also can't break down an anarchist's door, put a gun to his temple, and force him to join a state.

[quote]the point I'm trying to make is that rulers are a necessary component of human nature, and rulers have the right to expect obedience to their legitimate orders.[/quote]

Again, you use the term "legitimate." I've argued that violently-enforced territorial monopoly is inherently illegitimate rulers. This doesn't mean that there are not legitimate rulers. The pope's a legitimate ruler. A business owner is, in a sense, the legitimate "ruler" of his employees while they are on his property and under his contracts. A king is a legitimate ruler property each of his subjects consented to be ruled by him. But legitimacy of rulership is destroyed by the attempt to violently impose that rulership upon the unwilling.

[quote]for individualism is a false philosophy based upon a false understanding of human nature--which is essentially a social nature.
[/quote]

As I told Jim, I've never denied or denounced the concept of society; this is a straw man. But society is made up of the voluntary interactions of individuals. Whatever is anti-individual is also anti-society. Aggression is antisocial. Aggression destroys society. To force people to join a society or the forcibly prevent them from leaving turns the society into a prison camp with guards and prisoners. And that is no society. It's disingenuous to try to link the society with violence; they are antithetical.

Edited October 28, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[JimR-OCDS]

Point of correction. Obama doesn't have the authority to tax, only Congress does.

JIm