Central Council of Anarchy

[Laudate_Dominum]

Looks like Al is splitting the thread. Thanks bro...
I've g2g, super tired ( ), and just as I was being tempted to make serious posts for the first time in years.

I challenge you all to a duel!

Not really, I'm too pacifistic and space hippieistic for all that.

[Winchester]

I've done better work. I really don't know how to deal with anarchists. It's not like they can take over--they're anarchists! They can't have meetings, can't have uniforms...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1255319536' post='1983664']
Not to slight the profession itself, but more the milieu: I've known a lot of firefighters. Their egos were, on average, pretty large. A lot of that would go away when they stopped thinking of themselves as the only ones, thanks to a State-granted monopoly, who could come and save the day.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Man, I missed this the first go round. [s]Eh, slights really don't mean much to me[/s](apparently they mean enough for a hundred or so words, a return swipe and an edit). The only reason you can type this stuff is because there are men with guns standing between you and chaos and there are guys willing to put themselves in harm's way to help you in a disaster. See, people pay a price so armchair QBs can live their lifestyle. The people who beesh about cops don't think about all the times they've walked somewhere not gotten robbed. It's easy to be a critic from a position of comfort--and I include myself in that spot. The reality is, if you were committed to your purpose, you wouldn't be typing on the internet right now.

You're right. But the biggest egos tend to be the least accomplished. Not always true. There are some insufferable bastages who are great firemen. But you're outside the group and your assessment is probably based in some part on jealousy, as mine is on pride (as well as more pure emotions).

They used to have firehouses that competed for territory. It didn't work. It turns out anarchy doesn't work on the fireground, either. It takes a well organized heirarchy to successfully deal with emergencies with any consistency.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Winchester

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1255320017' post='1983679']
Stern, the state threatens force against the innocent in order to maintain their innocence; for in every just action of the state (and I admit, there are very few just actions of the modern states, but in any action that the state could do which was just,) the state is threatening force against the people in order to force them to do what they morally must do; what, if they were to not do, would make them guilty and no longer innocent. thus, the force is threatened against innocent people to force them to do something; if they do not do that thing, then they are guilty of an omission which is a threat to the welfare of everyone and force may be exerted against them.

thus, it is important to distinguish "violence" into two types: onetype which is the use of force and one which is the threat of force;force may be threatened prior to an act being committed as aconsequence... ie, pointing a gun at a threatening person and saying"don't attack or else..."... one is only justified in shooting if theperson attacks, but one may threaten to shoot before the personattacks. likewise, the state is only justified in using force againstthose who threaten, but must threaten force against the wholepopulation of innocent people.[/quote]

Wow. You actually said "coercion of the will is moral."

From [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i]: "Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, [b]attempts to coerce the will itself;[/b] . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator."

Your concept of "those who refuse to pay are threatening society" has a few problems.

First, there is more than one way to provide truly necessary services. A non-violent way is preferable.

Second, just because a service is needful does not mean that it is justifiable to use violence against innocents to provide it. And just because I provide a service, it does not mean that I may expect remuneration, unless I have your explicit [i]individual[/i] consent. There is no "social contract." I didn't sign it, and neither did you. We were simply born into a land that happened to be claimed by a violent monopoly. That does not consent nor a signature make.

Third, someone's refusal to pay for services that are forced upon him does not pose a direct or immediate threat of life or limb to anyone, and as such, it does not merit the threat of violence. I can't steal a car from someone because "if I don't have a car, I might not be able to get away from some robbers that may one day attack me."

Fourth and foremost, you cannot use [i]force[/i] as a means of [i]making[/i] someone [i]good[/i]!

There's a whole lot of Rousseau in your ideas, Aloysius. A whole lot. Don't go down that deadly road.



[quote]now, the 'state' ought not to be centralized distant power, it ought to be built upon the lower local structures which take care of those things which local structures are capable of taking care of... the first government, the government that ought to be the most powerful, is the nuclear family; and the family must be ruled by the father (insofar as he rules through the consent, advice, and power of the mother, the father and mother form two complementary parts of the full government of the family)... the next and second most powerful government is the extended family, a hierarchy of governance which ought to be able to keep all the nuclear families within it bonded and in peace so that if two brothers' families are feuding over something, those brothers' parents or other siblings would deal with that. the third most powerful government must then extend into the brotherhood and family of all men who choose to live in the same location, be it a city or some rural county; it is that which the formed family of people who choose to live in that location agree to live by; this government may have power precisely on the basis that those who do not wish to live under its rules indeed may move elsewhere. sadly, centralized governments have ruined that quality of local governments by making everywhere so uniformly under the thumb of one giant power; for it is the family of the brotherhood of these local governments that should form the LEAST powerful government, the larger wider government which keeps peace between these local governments.[/quote]

The State, insofar as it its existence is dependent upon the initiation of violence against innocents, ought not be. States are not known to be peacemakers.

[quote]the point is that all government is a family, or at least it should be.[/quote]

I am an emancipated adult. The State is not my daddy, and it sure ain't my momma. I owed my parents obedience because they had a natural authority over me. If I were married, I would have a consensual authority over my wife. That does not mean I can slap her into compliance with my will. If I submit myself to the authority of an employer, it does not mean he can punch me into doing his will. He may cease to employ me, if he wishes. Unless it is given voluntarily, no man besides a clergyman has any special authority over me. And the clergyman's authority does not give him any right to use violence to back up his moral authority. No man has any more right to use violence against me than I have over him. And that violence is [i]always[/i] limited to defense against a [i]real, imminent, [/i]and[i] direct [/i]threat against a[i] physical good.[/i]

[quote]I like your anarchism for precisely one reason: I agree even though I disagree. You want to demolish the modern state? Could you hand me a sledgehammer? We must, however, replace it with a form of government... but that form of government must have power which is DISTRIBUTED so that each individual human being is a powerful member of that government. government must be like family; which is one benefit to the idea of monarchy which centralizes one family and has it act as a patriarchal family over all the other families... in a good monarchy, the judgment of the king would be like the patriarch of family making two brothers end their two families' feud.[/quote]

Replace the State? Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up: read "The Reluctant Anarchist" by Joe Sobran.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

Stern, what is your opinion on the idea of the social contract?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1255320195' post='1983683']
Wrong, commie.[/quote]

It's [i]Austin[/i]?

[quote]I'm the kind of guy who will now continue to hijack your thread. And people will come see because I'm better looking than you and cna throw a football over those mountains.
[/quote]

But, you [i]can't[/i] hijack the thread. The uber-effective TSA searched you, found your rhetorical devices and disarmed you. Then they searched you until they found the last bit of human dignity you had and took that, too.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

Sternhauser,

I'm curious, how do you see your political philosophy reconciling with Our Lord's command to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?

[Aloysius]

I [b]did not[/b] say "coerce the will". at all.

is pointing a gun at an attacker and saying "don't attack or I'll shoot" coercing the will?

the point is that violence and the threat of violence are two different things, no matter how much you want to consolidate them to fit your agenda, in Catholic terms, the state is permitted to threaten violence as a consequence for doing wrong. doing wrong includes refusing to take up your INDIVIDUAL responsibility to your neighbors in the area in which you live.

the threat of force is different than the use of force. one may threaten force in situations that one may not yet use force; as a threat that IF the person breaches

private responses to emergencies are irrelevant; if people wish to employ private responders to emergencies, they should be allowed to. however, the family of people who live in an area has every moral right to threaten force against all who live in that area against anyone who would not pay to aid those who the community wishes to hire to address these emergencies. it is not coercion of the will; it is, "as my neighbor you have this responsibility; our community under our just leaders determined this is your responsibility as my neighbor; therefore, so long as you live here as my neighbor you exist either as an aid to the general peace of this area or as a threat to it." it is a demand for something that you owe me as my neighbor. it is the collection of a debt; and the threat of force may be used to collect a debt. again, I'm talking about this wide definition of force you have, obviously not deadly force, it is threat of the force of imprisonment or exile... it would make sense for a local community to exile anyone who would not aid to pay emergency workers.

I'm sorry, my analogy was not clear; I specifically was referring to adult brothers who each had families who would still be subject the the authority of the governing of their extended families, be that through some patriarch or just the general consensus and customs of the family. the temporal authority actually is, in some way, "your daddy". here your response shows forth your deeper prideful motivations for anarchy. it's the same thing that rejects parental authority and priestly authority. you want to be able to be your own authority unto yourself. it's a temper tantrum; you are a member of the brotherhood of humanity and as such you have the responsibilities of a member of a family... and it is a family you cannot be emancipated from. well, I suppose there are those who have emancipated themselves from the family of humanity... they reside in hell.

I'm with winchester: I don't have the internet, I can't read your articals. haha, in case you didn't get his point: document-dumping is not an acceptable means of debate is what he's saying. he'll argue with you, but he didn't get in the thread to argue with your documents.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1255321460' post='1983724']
Man, I missed this the first go round. [s]Eh, slights really don't mean much to me[/s](apparently they mean enough for a hundred or so words, a return swipe and an edit). The only reason you can type this stuff is because there are men with guns standing between you and chaos.[/quote]

Yes. I am that man. And there are tens of thousands of men like me in my geographical area.

[quote]and there are guys willing to put themselves in harm's way to help you in a disaster.[/quote]

Ditto. And not necessarily State employees.

[quote]The people who beesh about cops don't think about all the times they've walked somewhere not gotten robbed. It's easy to be a critic from a position of comfort--and I include myself in that spot.[/quote]

A cop saved you from getting robbed? Really? The average national response time is about 7 minutes. I find it phenomenal that you have actually been protected by a cop. I am, unfortunately, entirely incapable of believing that every time, or even every hundredth time that I see a cop who has pulled someone over, that he has taken a rapist, robber, or murderer off the streets. I am even more incapable of believing that those needles in a haystack that they do catch will not be out on the streets in a very short time. I must admit, I do not breathe a sigh of relief when I see a policeman who has pulled someone over. I am of the belief that everyone has the same right to use violence. Therefore, if someone is doing something really dangerous and is putting people in danger of death, anyone has the right to stop him with any relatively safe (to non-aggressors) means possible.

[quote]The reality is, if you were committed to your purpose, you wouldn't be typing on the internet right now.[/quote]

Why would I not be typing on the internet? Ideas must always come before purposeful action. Bad ideas lead to violence and death. I'm trying to instill good ideas.

[quote]You're right. But the biggest egos tend to be the least accomplished. Not always true. There are some insufferable bastages who are great firemen. But you're outside the group and your assessment is probably based in some part on jealousy, as mine is on pride (as well as more pure emotions).[/quote]
No, I don't like egotistical, puffed up street hoods, either. I have no desire to be like them. It's based on "I don't care who you are. Be friendly. Be humble."

[quote]It turns out anarchy doesn't work on the fireground, either. It takes a well organized heirarchy to successfully deal with emergencies with any consistency.
[/quote]
Anarchy does not mean "no hierarchy." It does not mean "no voluntary leaders." It does not mean "no authority."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 October 2009 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1255322622' post='1983758']
Stern, what is your opinion on the idea of the social contract?
[/quote]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 October 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1255322622' post='1983758']
Stern, what is your opinion on the idea of the social contract?
[/quote]

I'm agin' it.

I summed it up above in a very short format.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1255323064' post='1983773']
Sternhauser,

I'm curious, how do you see your political philosophy reconciling with Our Lord's command to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
[/quote]

Well, everything belongs to God. What did Jesus say belonged to Caesar? His image and likeness.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

Anarchy is outside of the boundaries of Catholic Teaching, and I would say, even contrary to them.

[quote]CCC 1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1918 "There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1).

1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop.

1920 "The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore . . . belong to an order established by God" (GS 74 § 3). [but doesn't Gaudium et Spes teach that violence to coerce free will is wrong? GS clearly does not view the state's existence as violence to coerce free will in the same way Stern sees it]
[/quote]

The CCC cites Leo XIII's [i]Immortale Dei[/i], which is a good read for the truly Catholic position on the authority of states. I don't mean to "document dump" here, but in this case it is not merely an opinion artical, the Catholic Church's clear teaching on authority is compiled in CCC paragraphs 1897-1927. These are not confined to the Catechism, they are the clear ordinary universal teaching, the ordinary universal teaching from the origins of the Church (Pope Clement of Rome is even cited) that all in authority have that authority from God Himself. The citations in these paragraphs do not even begin to scratch the surface of the universal agreement of the Sacred Magisterium of God's Holy Church in its teaching that states have the moral right to exist and to promote the common welfare.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a2.htm

The universal ordinary magisterium is infallible, btw. I'd like to see any evidence from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that it is permissible to believe in anarchism.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1255323353' post='1983780']
I [b]did not[/b] say "coerce the will". at all.

is pointing a gun at an attacker and saying "don't attack or I'll shoot" coercing the will?[/quote]

No. You're not forcing him to do anything. On the other hand, saying, "If you don't give me your money so I can protect you from robbers, I'll shoot you," which is what you spoke in favor of, [i]is[/i] an attempt to coerce the will.

[quote]the point is that violence and the threat of violence are two different things, no matter how much you want to consolidate them to fit your agenda, in Catholic terms, the state is permitted to threaten violence as a consequence for doing wrong. doing wrong includes refusing to take up your INDIVIDUAL responsibility to your neighbors in the area in which you live.[/quote]

[quote]
the threat of force is different than the use of force. one may threaten force in situations that one may not yet use force; as a threat that IF the person breaches [/quote]

There is a difference between threatening to use force and using threats to coerce the will. The threat to use force in itself can be said, "If you attack me, I will shoot you." Coercion of the will involves saying, "If you don't do this, I will shoot you."

[quote]private responses to emergencies are irrelevant; if people wish to employ private responders to emergencies, they should be allowed to. however, the family of people who live in an area has every moral right to threaten force against all who live in that area against anyone who would not pay to aid those who the community wishes to hire to address these emergencies.[/quote]

A community has no more rights than the individuals who comprise it. If you have a community in which 100% of the individuals actually want a service, you will have no need to use violence.

[quote] it is not coercion of the will; it is, "as my neighbor you have this responsibility; our community under our just leaders determined this is your responsibility as my neighbor; therefore, so long as you live here as my neighbor you exist either as an aid to the general peace of this area or as a threat to it." it is a demand for something that you owe me as my neighbor. it is the collection of a debt; and the threat of force may be used to collect a debt.[/quote]

You're getting into better logical territory here. Good. Now as for this "debt." How did I accrue it? By living on a plot of land? I do not owe my neighbor any particular service. I owe him his due, which is to treat him justly in all my actions. Refusing to paying for services he wants but I do not is not unjust. Not in the slightest. As my neighbor, this "community leader" is wrong. He has no jurisdiction over my peacable actions, or refusal to play in the neighborhood baseball game, or cook for the neighborhood block party, no matter how much I "owe" it to them for the honor of being neighbors with such violent men.

[quote]again, I'm talking about this wide definition of force you have,obviously not deadly force, it is threat of the force of imprisonmentor exile... it would make sense for a local community to exile anyonewho would not aid to pay emergency workers.[/quote]

It is using the threat of force to in order to make someone do something. That is coercion of the will.

[quote]
here your response shows forth your deeper prideful motivations for anarchy. it's the same thing that rejects parental authority and priestly authority. you want to be able to be your own authority unto yourself. it's a temper tantrum; you are a member of the brotherhood of humanity and as such you have the responsibilities of a member of a family... and it is a family you cannot be emancipated from. well, I suppose there are those who have emancipated themselves from the family of humanity... they reside in hell.[/quote]

You're welcome to judge my intentions.

I respect authority. I will do what is just if someone asks me. If you think that politicians are authoritative when it comes to moral matters, feel free to follow them. I will not.

I harbor no illusions that being artificially put in a position of physical power is "authority," nor that some men have more right to use violence than other men.

I absolutely have a responsibility to my fellow man. I treat others with justice. I treat others with charity. I treat others with gentleness. But I will not be told that throwing someone who smokes marijuana (which I have never done, nor will I ever) into prison is a just act, but that it is completely fine for someone to get hammered out of his gourd on alcohol. I will not be told that it is just for a man who peaceably carries a firearm to be thrown into prison for violating a statute. I will not be told by my "betters" that waterboarding is not torture, and that abortion is not murder. I will oppose the people who think that spiritual infractions of God's law have any place being punished by men. I will shout them down with logic until the day I die.

You imagine I have a "duty" to pay for my own abuse and eventual shackles. That is not reality.

[quote]I'm with winchester: I don't have the internet, I can't read your articals. haha, in case you didn't get his point: document-dumping is not an acceptable means of debate is what he's saying. he'll argue with you, but he didn't get in the thread to argue with your documents.
[/quote]

I offered them to him to become acquainted with the principles of which he was inquiring. He declined.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1255325841' post='1983821']I do not owe my neighbor any particular service. I owe him his due, which is to treat him justly in all my actions. Refusing to paying for services he wants but I do not is not unjust. Not in the slightest. As my neighbor, this "community leader" is wrong. He has no jurisdiction over my peacable actions, or refusal to play in the neighborhood baseball game, or cook for the neighborhood block party, no matter how much I "owe" it to them for the honor of being neighbors with such violent men.[/quote]
But even if you want to completely reject the services provided by the state, you would still be using those services. When you turn on your faucet, you are using the public water service. When you drive a car, you are using public roads. When you use a telephone, you are utilizing public telephone wires. You may be willing to be exiled from a community, but no matter where you go, you're going to have to use public services. Hence, it seems to me that something like mandatory taxes are inevitably necessary in a large society.