Central Council of Anarchy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='27 October 2009 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1256696690' post='1992503']
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. [/quote]


I'm not going to engage this one any further. I'm done. You continually refuse to say how any individual can transform "authority" into "the right to initiate violence against non-violent people." You continually refuse to answer whether a husband can beat his wife to obtain compliance with his authority. You continually refuse to articulate how a group of individuals can bestow rights that they themselves do not have on a third party. Authority does not equal the right to do violence to enforce compliance with one's commands, let alone initiate violence.

As King's Rook's Pawn rightly pointed out, the initiation of violence is [i]anti[/i]-social. There is nothing "social" about initiating violence.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 29, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

State authority is different than a husband's authority or the Church's spiritual authority. This has always been recognized by the Church. Authority doesn't authorize what you term 'violence'; duty does. The state must 'initiate violence' through threatening punishment for crimes because its duties demand it to. It has the right to use violence because violence is necessary to its duties; and it has the duty to enforce obedience to it. All have the duty to obey it; failure to obey it constitutes a crime against society which harms the general welfare.

The reason all this is necessary is that all people in any given society must be all subject to one authority, not multiple authorities. If I am wronged by someone, I have the right to bring that someone before an authority who has authority over both of us; authority to impose punishments, violent if necessary (the Church even says the death penalty can be justified as a final recourse). This is why it must be a monopolized violence; because I have the right to be under the same authority as everyone in my region so that my rights are protected against their possible aggressions against my rights. If an employer treats me unfairly, I need to have recourse to an authority who is an authority over and above the employer regardless of whether the employer likes it or not. You want to give 'freedom' to the employer so that he could refuse to subject himself to that authority. Obviously he's going to take that 'freedom', because he wants to exploit me for his benefit and it's easier to do so if he can't be punished for it.

The reason we're getting nowhere is that we're both set in our ways and convinced our systems are better than the others. I apologize if I haven't addressed all your points adequately enough; the reason is, quite frankly, that I think your points are based upon entirely false premises... like the premise that initiated threats of violence are never justified. or the premise that we must voluntarily join a society; when, in fact, we are by nature already members of the human society--we are already, by nature, members of one single society with everyone else in our region.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='29 October 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1256851574' post='1993517']State authority is different than a husband's authority or the Church's spiritual authority. This has always been recognized by the Church.[/quote]

Isn't it amazing that these states possess all this authority over life and death even the Church doesn't claim: the authority to be brutal, the authority to push people around like cattle, the authority to lock in cages for non-violent actions, the authority to conquer other peoples' lands, the authority to be vicious and bloodthirsty and cruel. Such a noble authority this is. Who wouldn't want to give under someone who claims the right to kill you if you resist arrest for not failing to pay a parking ticket? Why do we need the Church when we have these men to rule us, these beacons of justice and virtue and light? Without another man, a man with "authority," to hold a gun to my head, I truly would be as a beast in the mud.

[quote]Authority doesn't authorize what you term 'violence'; duty does. The state must 'initiate violence' through threatening punishment for crimes because its duties demand it to. It has the right to use violence because violence is necessary to its duties; and it has the duty to enforce obedience to it. All have the duty to obey it; failure to obey it constitutes a crime against society which harms the general welfare.[/quote]

So now it's "duty." [i][b][u]DUTY[/u][/b][/i]. I now declare myself king of the world, and I further declare that it is my duty to take some of your money to give to a sick child in Africa. It's my" duty" as king, in the name of the "general welfare" and the "common good" and the "public interest" and "society." Or does "legitimate authority" require "general consent" of the "Will of the People" whatever [i]that[/i] means. I also find it interesting that [i]authority[/i] doesn't [i]authorize[/i] anything; that's unusual. I'm surprised you haven't told me about the "social contract." As you and other statists use these terms, they are all meaningless, empty, airy, barren, vapid, incoherent, incomprehensible unintelligible abstractions designed to mask the very concrete reality of one human being threatening violence against another [i]non[/i]-violent human being, which is an activity that would never be tolerated in any situation except when you cover it up with these words. It's absolutely [i]no[/i] different that Cain and Abel, except at some point Cain acquired a shiny metal bauble to wear on his chest.

[quote]If I am wronged by someone, I have the right to bring that someone before an authority who has authority over both of us; authority to impose punishments, violent if necessary[/quote]

I fail to see why violence is ever necessary as a [i]punishment[/i], though force can be used to [i]subdue[/i] an aggressor. In any case, at least here you give some kind of [i]reason[/i]. I agree that if you had both chosen to contract with the same dispute resolution provider, you would have the dispute arbitrated by that provider. But why on Earth would you think that:

[quote]This is why it must be a monopolized violence; because I have the right to be under the same authority as everyone in my region so that my rights are protected against their possible aggressions against my rights.[/quote]

Why would you have the right to compel all your neighbors to join your dispute resolution provider (i.e. government)? Thank goodness you don't live near a national border. Two people under two extraterritorial governments can still have their dispute adjudicated; their governments or some other representatives would simply have to agree on a third party to arbitrate. And you can resolve disputes with a person under no government in the same way. You'd settle on a third party arbitrator. The important thing in settling disputes is always having a third party arbitrator. And one of the injustices inherent in traditional states is that they grant themselves the power to arbitrate their own disputes.

If an employer treats me unfairly, I need to have recourse to an authority who is an authority over and above the employer regardless of whether the employer likes it or not. You want to give 'freedom' to the employer so that he could refuse to subject himself to that authority. Obviously he's going to take that 'freedom', because he wants to exploit me for his benefit and it's easier to do so if he can't be punished for it.

[quote]the premise that we must voluntarily join a society; when, in fact, we are by nature already members of the human society--we are already, by nature, members of one single society with everyone else in our region.
[/quote]

Obviously, you don't have to join anything. That's why it's voluntary. All you have to do is respect the legitimate borders of other people. I don't know why that's so hard.

Edited October 30, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Aloysius]

your argumentum ad absurdum is an epic fail. try again please.

you've declared yourself king of the world... okay, let's see how far that goes. when it becomes an easily observable fact that you're king of the whole world, I'll recognize that you have an authority to do only those things which lower governments than you are incapable of doing. which is simply keeping those governments from going to war with each other... I think that's the only thing I recognize a global authority to do.

what happens when the employer doesn't want to be arbitrated by this arbitrator?? he's fine just exploiting me and is perfectly content NOT to bother with arbitration, he doesn't see anything wrong with this situation because he's benefiting from it. what then? we are both members of the same society and therefore ought to be equally subject to the same authority, even if one of us wishes not to, because that's the just thing to do.

anyway, you think that in order to be a part of a society, you'd have to voluntarily join that society. I disagree: every human individual in any given location is already a part of that society whether they like it or not. that's what the Church teaches at least, and says that being part of that society implies certain duties. there is always an authority in every location, and who that is is an observable fact... either through democratic election or tradition-passed monarchy, it's there. and their legitimacy is based upon whether they excercise authority over things they have competence to or not.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='30 October 2009 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1256875921' post='1993744']your argumentum ad absurdum is an epic fail.[/quote]

My only epic fail is my epic failure to see any qualitative difference between me declaring myself king of the world and Barack Obama declaring himself President of me.

[quote]when it becomes an easily observable fact that you're king of the whole world...[/quote]

In other words, only those already in power can have legitimate authority. But how has any state ever gained power except through conquest?

[quote]...I'll recognize that you have an authority to do only those things which lower governments than you are incapable of doing.[/quote]

I contend that there's nothing a violently-enforced territorial monopoly is capable of doing that individuals acting voluntarily are [i]not[/i] of doing. Ergo, violently-enforced territorial monopolies violate your stated principle of subsidiary.

[quote]which is simply keeping those governments from going to war with each other...I think that's the only thing I recognize a global authority to do.[/quote]

I'm totally confident that a global authority would voluntarily restrict itself to those limitations. Just like every other GUNvernment has restricted itself to its stated limits.

[quote]what happens when the employer doesn't want to be arbitrated by this arbitrator??[/quote]

Ah, now you're getting into the trickier questions. In fact, I'm not 100% certain. Yes, it's true. I [i]am[/i] confident that voluntarily interacting individuals [i]will[/i] find a way to solve [i]all[/i] societal problem better, more justly, and more efficiently than violently-enforced territorial monopolies do, but I can't describe in detail all the ways they might come up with because that would be up to those individuals in the voluntary society. Human beings have a natural tendency towards societal harmony, and it's truly amazing the ways they can come up with to peacefully solve problems, if so allowed. I have trust that people can indeed find a non-violent solution to [i]any[/i] problem.

Furthermore, the fact that there are tricky questions regarding how these institutions would work doesn't justify aggression and certainly doesn't justify the violently-enforced territorial monopoly system, which has catastrophically, monumentally failed and is responsible for most of the suffering over the past 5000 years and are orders of magnitude for horrible that an "exploitative employer." Certainly you have poor means of obtaining justice from an abusive employer in the current monopoly, unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of time to spend in the courts.

In any case, my personal opinion is that most people would voluntarily contract with such arbitrators, which we can call governments if you like. For most people would prefer to find nonviolent solutions to disputes and having methods laid out beforehand would be very important. In such a society, you would almost certainly never have contracted with an employer without settling on a means of dispute resolution first. So let's say there are competing governments and both you and your employer are contracted with the same government (if you like, you can call the contract an "oath of allegiance") and your oath compels you to have your disputes arbitrated in that government. So you accuse your employer of "exploitation." Well, what if your employer refuses? In that case, you're government would indeed have the authority to use force to compel him into arbitration. Possibly, though, they would seek to avoid that as much as humanly possible because it's costly and because, if they were to use force on the wrong person, it would be a great scandal and they'd lose all their clients (or if you prefer, "citizens") to competing governments. Probably they'd find other nonviolent means about penalizing contract-breakers to prevent clients from engaging in such activity. Probably such means would focus on social and economic ostracization. For example, they could simply publicize that fact that this person refused arbitration. Who would ever contract with him again? In addition, they could kick him out (banishment) or raise his premiums (taxes), as with insurance companies.

If your in different governments, the governments would use diplomacy to seek a peaceful means of resolution for the same reasons. Also, potentially, some governments might forbid their citizens from entering employment contracts with individuals of other governments or no government.

[quote]you think that in order to be a part of a society, you'd have to voluntarily join that society. I disagree: every human individual in any given location is already a part of that society whether they like it or not.[/quote]

Proximity doesn't justify aggression.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The State does not exist. You fellows are debating pagan theology as far as I'm concerned.

Peace and long life.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='31 October 2009 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1256983243' post='1994343']
The State does not exist. You fellows are debating pagan theology as far as I'm concerned.

Peace and long life.
[/quote]

Insofar as the schizophrenic physically manifests his mental illness, the effects of his mental illness exist. Whether or not the people in his head really do exist, the mental illness exists.

Similarly, the State is a mental illness. Its distinguishing symptom is the idea that some people have a right to initiate violence on non-aggresors. Insofar as people think some people have the right to initiate violence, and that mental pathology manifests itself in the symptoms of violence against innocents, the State exists.

Now, if by "the State" you mean "a group of people who actually [i]have[/i] the right to initiate violence against non-aggressors," then of course, you are right. No individual or group of individuals have any such right. But, of course, the people and the violent actions flowing from their mental illness do exist.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

KRP, it is not MY stated principal of subsidiarity, but OUR stated principal of subsidiarity. If you are a Catholic, you believe in subsidiarity. And it does indeed seem that you do... you are at the extreme end of it which brings everything down to the absolute lowest level... in terms of Catholic Social Justice, you emphasize subsidiarity possibly to the detriment of solidarity (though I'm sure you can find ways to build up solidarity through your ideas of voluntary societies)

I find it untenable to reject all governmental 'coercive' authorities on the basis of Catholic doctrine, but do think it possible to hold that perhaps governments have forfeited their previously held authority in the modern age... the same way the Anglicans forfeited their holy orders... they simply stopped understanding what this authority really was and have totally perverted it. But to paint all authority throughout history as this force that causes all the problems of humanity without which we'd have peace and harmony is to ignore fallen human nature and concupiscence.

A voluntary society based upon individuals having the authority to simply disregard the orders of the leaders of that society is no society at all. One must be able to establish someone who can give orders and expect them to be obeyed, because obedience is a necessary part of human interaction. You want a utopia that takes out threat of punishment from the reason one must obey? fine... maybe, so long as force is available to stop someone who is disobeying from harming the society.

all in all, your ideas of anarchy are thought provoking at least. Dorothy Day was a distributist and an anarchist and a Catholic... anyway, 'panarchy' is a logical extension of subsidiarity which is a Catholic principal... there's some points to be made. I still hold that there must be SOME authority which ought to be obeyed for a society to truly exist.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='01 November 2009 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1257110794' post='1994887']it is not MY stated principal of subsidiarity, but OUR stated principal of subsidiarity.[/quote]

OK, our principle of subsidiarity.

[quote]I'm sure you can find ways to build up solidarity through your ideas of voluntary societies[/quote]

I could indeed.

[quote]...to paint all authority throughout history as this force that causes all the problems of humanity without which we'd have peace and harmony is to ignore fallen human nature and concupiscence.[/quote]

Again, I don't think authority has to be coercive to be "authority." Indeed, I think the two concepts--coercion and legitimate authority--are incompatible. But I'm not saying that we'd all have an earthly utopia without a coercive state. But it would be a big improvement.

[quote]You want a utopia that takes out threat of punishment from the reason one must obey? fine... maybe, so long as force is available to stop someone who is disobeying from harming the society.[/quote]

I do think that there should be institutions of arbitration and law enforcement to allow victims to use retaliatory force against aggressors to obtain just compensation.

[quote]I still hold that there must be SOME authority which ought to be obeyed for a society to truly exist.[/quote]

But, again, is not the pope such an authority? Or what about property owners? Are they not authorities over their own properties, such that every upon that property must obey the owner?

Well, I'm tired of this debate, so I'm going to wrap it up. I'm glad my point of view at least gave you something to think about.

Edited November 2, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Winchester]

Chaotic Good is a good alignment, but it's no way to run a country.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='02 November 2009 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1257219637' post='1995540']
Chaotic Good is a good alignment, but it's no way to run a country.
[/quote]

To paraphrase a wise man, (two, actually) "An aetherial 'social contract' signed with magical invisible ink and handin' out swords is no basis for a system of government."


~Sternhauser

Edited November 3, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

Stern, what would be the anarchist position on international politics, especially national security?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 November 2009 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1257222799' post='1995564']
Stern, what would be the anarchist position on international politics, especially national security?
[/quote]

There are many anarchist positions. Mine? Do not initiate aggression, and the people should be armed to the teeth. Foreign boots will eventually have to occupy soil in order for the land to be secured, no matter what technological superiority the aggressor may have. It would be optimal if those boots never stepped on peaceful soil. The next best scenario is to ensure that those boots are joined by a bayoneted rifle driven into the ground, its buttstock capped with a punctured helmet.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 3, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='02 November 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1257222584' post='1995559']
To paraphrase a wise man, (two, actually) "An aetherial 'social contract' signed with magical invisible ink and handin' out swords is no basis for a system of government."


~Sternhauser
[/quote]
It certainly is. Moistened binks lobbing scimitars is also acceptable.

[JimR-OCDS]

Sternhauser


[quote]There are many anarchist positions. Mine? Do not initiate aggression, and the people should be armed to the teeth. Foreign boots will eventually have to occupy soil in order for the land to be secured, no matter what technological superiority the aggressor may have. It would be optimal if those boots never stepped on peaceful soil. The next best scenario is to ensure that those boots are joined by a bayoneted rifle driven into the ground, its buttstock capped with a punctured helmet.
[/quote]


Sounds like Afganistan.

Jim