Central Council of Anarchy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1255325702' post='1983820']
Anarchy is outside of the boundaries of Catholic Teaching, and I would say, even contrary to them.

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.
[/quote]

The universal ordinary magisterium is infallible on matters of faith and morals, not practical questions.

The Church will never declare that it is necessary to salvation to believe in the morality of the State, that the State must exist, or that the State should exist.


[b]1 Samuel 8[/b]

[sup]1[/sup]And it came to pass when Samuel was old, that he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel. [sup]2[/sup]Now the name of his firstborn son was Joel: and the name of the second was Abia, judges in Bersabee.

[sup]3[/sup]And his sons walked not in his ways: but they turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

[sup]4[/sup]Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled, came to Samuel to Ramatha.

[sup]5[/sup]And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have.

[sup]6[/sup][b]Andthe word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say:Give us a king, to judge us.[/b] And Samuel prayed to the Lord.

[sup]7[/sup]Andthe Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. [b]For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.[/b]

[sup]8[/sup]Accordingto all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee.

[sup]9[/sup]Nowtherefore hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right [manner] of the king, that shall reign over them.

[sup]10[/sup]Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him,

[sup]11[/sup]Andsaid: This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots,

[sup]12[/sup]Andhe will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.

[sup]13[/sup]Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers.

[sup]14[/sup]And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best olive yards, and give them to his servants.

[sup]15[/sup]Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants.

[sup]16[/sup]Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work.

[sup]17[/sup]Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants.

[sup]18[/sup]Andyou shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves. and the Lord will not hear you in that day,because you desired unto yourselves a king.

[sup]19[/sup]But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay: but there shall be a king over us.

[sup]20[/sup]And we also will be like all nations: and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and tight our battles for us.

[sup]21[/sup]And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.

[sup]22[/sup]Andthe Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to their voice, and make them a king.And Samuel said to the men of Israel: Let every man go to his city.


Does this not sound like the manner of [i]every[/i] earthly "king" that has ever reigned? Why was God displeased that his people asked for a terrestrial king? Surely, they needed [i]someone[/i] to make sure everything was ordered correctly? Surely they needed [i]someone[/i] to "fight their battles for them?" Why did God pronounce an unpleasant litany of the evils that would result from their decision? Why was God displeased?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1255326270' post='1983823']
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.
[/quote]

If someone forced you to drink a glass of Coke, would you be morally obliged to pay him for it?

[quote]Hence, it seems to me that something like mandatory taxes are inevitably necessary in a large society.[/quote]

Do not argue from pragmatism.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

I do not argue in favor of modern states; I argue in favor of the theory of governments. It is antithetical to Catholic Teaching to say that there ought not to be governments.

When a state acts outside of its legitimate authority, I am not compelled to obey it morally. That includes things like drug laws and the like; in fact, I would hold most things that modern states do to be outside of their legitimate authority. the federal government's only authority is to keep peace between the states and act in international matters... inter-state and inter-nation are the only authority I recognize in the Federal Government. individual states only have authority insofar as they keep things between the small local governments below them; local governments only have authority insofar as they extend the brotherhood of all men to everyone under them, but do not have a higher authority than the family, which is the higher government.

the Catholic principal is subsidiarity, small local authority/hierarchy is first, but in things that it cannot accomplish, the larger bodies have authority to do; I argue in favor of Catholic governments. the modern states can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, I only owe them obedience insofar as they exercise their authority within the limits of what the Catholic social doctrines say they're there for, what they can and cannot do. They have no authority to regulate my eating and drinking habits; but they have the authority to regulate against my habit of drinking all of my neighbor's beer in his fridge while he's away.

back to forcing people to pay for emergency services, the debt exists because you live near me and I don't kill you for it; because you create a boundary to the otherwise limitless empire that is my yard and I agree not to annex you and you agree not to annex me because we'd like to live next to each other and watch out for each other, and when the whole community decides (mind you, it doesn't have to) that every neighbor must pitch in for the emergency services, then so long as you hold my expanding empire at bay you have to pay as do I; the government forces us both with divine authority.

Here's what Leo XIII would say of anarchy:
[quote]To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that, rushes willfully to destruction. "He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."(4) To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God.[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1255326655' post='1983825']
If someone forced you to drink a glass of Coke, would you be morally obliged to pay him for it?[/quote]
The state doesn't force you to use its telephone wires or water utilities.

[quote]Do not argue from pragmatism.[/quote]
Pragmatic concerns are essential to political philosophy, in my opinion. The Kingdom of God is absolutely NOT about pragmatic concerns. The Kingdom of God is the opposite of the kingdom of men. The kingdom of men is temporal, and has temporal/pragmatic concerns. The Kingdom of God is eschatological, and has eternal concerns. You cannot confuse the two kingdoms.

[Aloysius]

Sternhouser, it is indeed taught as a matter of faith with scripture as its basis that everyone who sits in authority holds their authority from God Almighty and that, insofar as the execute that authority justly, we must obey and respect that authority. What the Church will never say is which particular model of government is best, the CCC specifies this, but it does say (and look at the quotes from the CCC, they're clearing speaking to faith and morals, not practical questions, they leave practical questions to the diverse applications of mankind but do indeed spell out the moral principals and the aspects of faith regarding divine authority resting in the hands of those who hold authority)

the problem with their seeking of a terrestrial king is the same problem every government has had: a refusal to acknowledge the Divine Kingship. The Social teachings of the Popes have spoken of the need to recognize the Reign of Christ the King; and yet, we continue to demand the secular state that does not subject its authority to God's authority. the point is that authority is abused; and the point of this passage of scripture is not to say that it is wrong to have earthly authority, but that it is wrong to reject Divine authority. the Israelites wanted a king whom they could sway to do what they wanted, because under the rule of God Himself they could not take the power. In effect, they wanted to become anarchists by being under a king they could bribe; they wanted to subvert the laws by having more influence in creating them.

the Church teaches that the state must only exercise its authority insofar as it has that authority from God and must submit itself to Christ the King.

I must say, you read that passage like a protestant.

[Aloysius]

A large part of the infallible teachings on faith are the proper interpretation of St Paul's words in Romans; your attempt to subvert the proper Church taught interpretation which says that all authority is from God, and that those who sit in authority have their authority from God.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1255326899' post='1983826']
I do not argue in favor of modern states; I argue in favor of the theory of governments. It is antithetical to Catholic Teaching to say that there ought not to be governments.[/quote]

Correct. The Vatican is a government. It is not a State, as it does not take money by force or threat of force, nor does it conscript anyone, nor does it use violence to enforce its will. There ought be governments of all types. There ought not be States.

[quote]They have no authority to regulate my eating and drinking habits; but they have the authority to regulate against my habit of drinking all of my neighbor's beer in his fridge while he's away.[/quote]

And so do I. If I see you going in to my neighbor's house, I will stop you, and my neighbor will thank me for it. There's no special authority there. Nothing that can't be done without a shiny piece of metal on my chest.

[quote]back to forcing people to pay for emergency services, the debt exists because you live near me and I don't kill you for it; because you create a boundary to the otherwise limitless empire that is my yard and I agree not to annex you and you agree not to annex me because we'd like to live next to each other and watch out for each other, and when the whole community decides (mind you, it doesn't have to) that every neighbor must pitch in for the emergency services, then so long as you hold my expanding empire at bay you have to pay as do I; the government forces us both with divine authority.[/quote]

With all due respect, is that a serious argument? I look out for my neighbors, and they I, but we do so because we like and respect each other, not because we refrain from killing each other! Anybody could use force to prevent us from killing each other with divine authority. All authority comes from God. Politicians and police do not have more authority than you and I, they have more [i]power[/i]. There's a substantial difference between the two.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1255327026' post='1983828']
The state doesn't force you to use its telephone wires or water utilities.[/quote]

Yes, it does, insofar as it deprives me of alternatives by unjustly subsidizing certain companies with my money and that of other people.


[quote]Pragmatic concerns are essential to political philosophy, in my opinion.
The Kingdom of God is absolutely NOT about pragmatic concerns. The Kingdom of God is the opposite of the kingdom of men. The kingdom of men is temporal, and has temporal/pragmatic concerns. The Kingdom of God is eschatological, and has eternal concerns. You cannot confuse the two kingdoms.
[/quote]

Absolutely. We may not judge the morality of a thing by its practicality, however. That is what one does when one says "these services can't be provided any other way, so they must be just."

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1255327363' post='1983831']
Sternhouser, it is indeed taught as a matter of faith with scripture as its basis that everyone who sits in authority holds their authority from God Almighty and that, insofar as the execute that authority justly, we must obey and respect that authority. What the Church will never say is which particular model of government is best, the CCC specifies this, but it does say (and look at the quotes from the CCC, they're clearing speaking to faith and morals, not practical questions, they leave practical questions to the diverse applications of mankind but do indeed spell out the moral principals and the aspects of faith regarding divine authority resting in the hands of those who hold authority)[/quote]

Authority and power are not the same. All authority is ultimately [i]given[/i] by God. God [i]allows[/i] people to have power. To quote a friend, authority is the moral power to command, not necessarily to coerce. If you have authority over someone, it does not mean that he also has the right to use force against you to make you submit to his authority. It is my contention that no one has any more authority than any other person until it is ceded by the individual. The individual being the operative word, here. Collectives do not have rights. Individuals have rights.

[quote]In effect, they wanted to become anarchists by being under a king they could bribe; they wanted to subvert the laws by having more influence in creating them.[/quote]

Anarchists don't seek political power.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

Anarchist, or anti-statist?

You would smash the state, but would you smash the city-state?

I agree with many of your arguments against modern states.

I believe we may agree on more than we know.

anyway, yes, I am serious, or semi-serious, that I am offended by the way in which you impede my expanding empire by having your own. That was a playful way to begin to get at the fact that the Social Doctrines of the Church begin with when making the case for authority--that humans must live socially, and that living socially requires hierarchy and power and order.

You would have a lot more success with me (and likely with many others) in specifying that you're against taxes, not governments; for that matter, that you're against states, not governments. I've gone both ways in the past in terms of whether I've thought any taxes at all were moral... I am certainly morally opposed to property taxes; and only have some vague theoretical idea that one is obliged to pay taxes only in terms of how he interacts in the public sphere; which has put me straddling the fence on whether income tax or sales tax is morally justifiable at all (I can make a pro or con argument on that issue)

I don't think, however, that you're really an anarchist if you are in favor of governments which hold authority.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1255327531' post='1983832']
A large part of the infallible teachings on faith are the proper interpretation of St Paul's words in Romans; your attempt to subvert the proper Church taught interpretation which says that all authority is from God, and that those who sit in authority have their authority from God.
[/quote]

How many times did St. Paul run away from the agents of the State? Everyone has the same authority until it is given directly by God (clergy) or ceded by the individual (marriage, employer/employee.) But some people are allowed to have more power than other people. That does not mean their disproportionate capacity for violence is a physical manifestation of a higher authority than is possessed by others.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1255327799' post='1983835']Absolutely. We may not judge the morality of a thing by its practicality, however. That is what one does when one says "these services can't be provided any other way, so they must be just."[/quote]
I think I can agree with this. But I would also argue that you cannot say that something is unjust, or that it should not be accepted, solely because it is not ideal. There are many things in society that I disagree with, but I have to live with ideals in an imperfect world. There will be some things that you cannot compromise with, but other things you will have to live with and work through.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1255328350' post='1983837']
Anarchist, or anti-statist?

You would smash the state, but would you smash the city-state?

I agree with many of your arguments against modern states.

I believe we may agree on more than we know.

anyway, yes, I am serious, or semi-serious, that I am offended by the way in which you impede my expanding empire by having your own. That was a playful way to begin to get at the fact that the Social Doctrines of the Church begin with when making the case for authority--that humans must live socially, and that living socially requires hierarchy and power and order.

You would have a lot more success with me (and likely with many others) in specifying that you're against taxes, not governments; for that matter, that you're against states, not governments. I've gone both ways in the past in terms of whether I've thought any taxes at all were moral... I am certainly morally opposed to property taxes; and only have some vague theoretical idea that one is obliged to pay taxes only in terms of how he interacts in the public sphere; which has put me straddling the fence on whether income tax or sales tax is morally justifiable at all (I can make a pro or con argument on that issue)

I don't think, however, that you're really an anarchist if you are in favor of governments which hold authority.
[/quote]

I have never said I am against government. I have always used the word "State." I am against all initiation of violence, whether it be the violence of taxation, the slavery of conscription, or using violence against a just man because he violated an arbitrary dictate of someone in power.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1255328437' post='1983839']
I think I can agree with this. But I would also argue that you cannot say that something is unjust, or that it should not be accepted, solely because it is not ideal. There are many things in society that I disagree with, but I have to live with ideals in an imperfect world. There will be some things that you cannot compromise with, but other things you will have to live with and work through.
[/quote]

There is a difference between "ideal" and "immoral." I am saying that taxation is violence against people who do not pose a direct threat, and hence immoral.

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

The Church teaches that some people are given authority by God over other people. It teaches that based on St. Paul's texts to the Romans. It also teaches that that power has limits, and that when they are exceeded and authority is thusly abused, it is then when you defy it, or flee it, or fight it. That's why St. Paul broke out of prisons and defied unjust laws, not because he did not recognize the government's authority, but because he recognized the government's limited authority. The source of the power is also its limitation--it is a power that comes from God... there is no authority except from God (it is not an authority from man on the basis that he has ceded authority, it is authority from God). So because the power comes from God, it is limited to do only the things that God permits it to do; one of which, according to Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John Paul II, and, well, pretty much all of them, is to promote the general welfare. God permits the exercise of authority to promote the general welfare.