Central Council of Anarchy

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1255328616' post='1983841']
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. [/quote]
Okay, so if someone chooses not to be part of the tax-paying community, what do you suggest should be done with them? Another nation is not going to allow them into their borders, so exile is not a realistic possibility.

[Aloysius]

if you believe in governments as leaders, then it is imprecise to label yourself an "anarchist" ie. a "leaderless-ist"

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1255328657' post='1983842']
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.
[/quote]

[sup]Romans 13:3-4

[/sup]"For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?
Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same."

Was St. Paul speaking universally? He sometimes spoke concerning local situations.

Was St. Paul saying that Rosa Parks did wrong? Or that Harriet Tubman was an evildoer?

Didn't St. Paul do good? He didn't get much praise from "the Power." So what was he saying?

"For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."

Certainly, like the locusts were.


"[i]5[/i] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.[i]

6[/i] For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.[i]

7[/i] Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.[i] 8[/i] Owe no man any thing, but to love one another."

There are many, many ways this passage can be legitimately read.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1255328835' post='1983846']
if you believe in governments as leaders, then it is imprecise to label yourself an "anarchist" ie. a "leaderless-ist"
[/quote]

[i]Archon[/i] means "ruler." Not "leader." You can change someone into a leader for yourself, if you choose. You can become a Catholic, for example. Whereas before he did not lead you, you allow yourself to be led. A voluntary leader is not contrary to anarchy.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1255328742' post='1983844']
Okay, so if someone chooses not to be part of the tax-paying community, what do you suggest should be done with them? Another nation is not going to allow them into their borders, so exile is not a realistic possibility.
[/quote]

Leave them alone. The more people who get left alone, the more people will have money to provide services for themselves. Voluntarily.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1255329369' post='1983850']
Leave them alone. The more people who get left alone, the more people will have money to provide services for themselves. Voluntarily.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You cannot leave them alone, because they will be using public services without paying taxes. In other words, they will be spending other people's money without contributing their own money. If they do not want to be part of the society where they live, which includes the public services that require taxes, then they can go to another society. But that other society too will require them to use public services. They could try to make their own society, but they would have to found their own country, and that's not going to happen. So what do you believe should be done about them? Should they just be allowed to use public services without contributing to taxes?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1255329613' post='1983851']
You cannot leave them alone, because they will be using public services without paying taxes. In other words, they will be spending other people's money without contributing their own money. If they do not want to be part of the society where they live, which includes the public services that require taxes, then they can go to another society. But that other society too will require them to use public services. They could try to make their own society, but they would have to found their own country, and that's not going to happen. So what do you believe should be done about them? Should they just be allowed to use public services without contributing to taxes?
[/quote]

They've had enough violence done against them in their lifetime. Do not unnecessarily escalate the conflict. Leave them alone.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1255329818' post='1983852']
They've had enough violence done against them in their lifetime. Do not unnecessarily escalate the conflict. Leave them alone.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
How is leaving them alone fair to everyone else in society? Everyone else pays for public services, but these people are going to be allowed to use public services without contributing to paying for those services?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='12 October 2009 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1255329916' post='1983854']
How is leaving them alone fair to everyone else in society? Everyone else pays for public services, but these people are going to be allowed to use public services without contributing to paying for those services?
[/quote]

Era, if someone came into your house, took a tissue and left, would you chase after him, tackle him, and force him to buy you another tissue? That's what we're dealing with here. Tissues.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

How would anarchists respond to anti monopoly laws and other kinds of financial laws like the ones against insider trading and price fixing?

Edited October 12, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Aloysius]

all of your interpretations are protestant, not Catholic. how do you account for the fact that the entire history of the Church disagrees with your interpretations, and instead sees these scriptures as saying that power comes from God, rests in the hands of those who have authority and rule, and that one receives praise from God (the source of power) for obeying such authority? It's certainly a matter of faith and morals, and you have no one on your side in the entire 2000 year history of the Church; whereas I have popes from Clement of Rome to John Paul II backing up my interpretation. Universal. Ordinary. Magisterium. there's no escaping the clear doctrines of the Church, one cannot eschew the responsibility one has to be a member of a human society with rulers.

and again, the Church's teachings clearly provide that there is just exercise of authority and unjust exercise of authority, and that the unjust exercise of authority does not morally obligate... your rosa parks/st. paul examples are therefore moot points.

what happens when three more people come into my house and take tissues? what happens when three hundred more come in and take my tissues. eventually, there are no tissues left for me, even though I paid for them.

basically, this anarchism is a form of individualism, which the Church very much condemns because it has a false understanding of humanity, which must be lived in community, in society; with hierarchy, authority/power, rules, governments; and they insist that authority may be exercised in order to promote the general welfare. you're opting out of the human family and rebelling against just authority if you refuse to submit to be ruled. it's one thing to be in favor of toppling existing powers; it's quite another to philosophically insist that all powers must be toppled. the former can be done by Catholics, the latter cannot.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1255330330' post='1983858']
Era, if someone came into your house, took a tissue and left, would you chase after him, tackle him, and force him to buy you another tissue? That's what we're dealing with here. Tissues.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Even if Era did chase after that man and force him to buy him another tissue, in the interests of exactness, he wouldn't be wrong, would he? I could imagine someone like [url="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20058"]Adam Wayne[/url] or [url="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/103"]Phileas Fogg[/url] doing that.

And what if that one man comes back with another friend the next day and takes two tissues? And what if both of them each bring another friend the next day and between them they go off with four tissues? And so on and so forth..

At the very least, it would be an irritation for Era. And that's a form of violence against an innocent person too, albeit small. Everyone has felt the irritation of having room-mates taking small things and then forgetting to give them back. It isn't the size of the thing that is the main cause of the irritation.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Innocent

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just scanned the latest posts and I must point out that there are many schools of anarchist thought and many would not appreciate an anarcho-capitalist as their representative. You have the individualist, so-called free-market anarchists (this is where Stern seems to be situated), and you have collectivists, syndicalists, mutualists, socialists, etc...
Quite frankly you can find many different definitions and opinions of the term anarchism itself and they're not always particularly compatible to say the least. I've read authors who believe that anarchy must remain undefined (in a systematic sense) because it will only be realized through the spontaneous organization of peoples in a truly free society and cannot be "defined" and imposed. Many anarchists would consider anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron (take that Stern! and yes, I mean that word in the Buckleyan sense! ).

In my experience you can be having a fine conversation one moment, but if you introduce the 'A' word suddenly you're looked upon as some dark and sinister character and constructive conversation stops (it is as though peoples' imaginations start running wild, attributing all manner of radical absurdity to you in secret). If it is helpful at all you might think of Stern simply as an uber-libertarian and forget the 'A' word, if he doesn't mind.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1255332121' post='1983866']
all of your interpretations are protestant, not Catholic. how do you account for the fact that the entire history of the Church disagrees with your interpretations, and instead sees these scriptures as saying that power comes from God, rests in the hands of those who have authority and rule, and that one receives praise from God (the source of power) for obeying such authority? It's certainly a matter of faith and morals, and you have no one on your side in the entire 2000 year history of the Church; whereas I have popes from Clement of Rome to John Paul II backing up my interpretation. Universal. Ordinary. Magisterium. there's no escaping the clear doctrines of the Church, one cannot eschew the responsibility one has to be a member of a human society with rulers.[/quote]

My interpretations are Protestant? I am not the one saying that God taps people on the shoulder and says, "You have more authority than these other people. Now start threatening and using violence as a means of raising money to prosecute your righteous cause, and do things it would be immoral for other people to do. " Authority flows from God to the people, and the people can do with it what they like, including submit their own authority to another. However, if an individual does not have the right to take money from innocent people at gunpoint, how can he possibly bestow that right on a third party?

[quote]and again, the Church's teachings clearly provide that there is just exercise of authority and unjust exercise of authority, and that the unjust exercise of authority does not morally obligate... your rosa parks/st. paul examples are therefore moot points.[/quote]

I agree. We simply disagree on the difference between "authority" and "power."

[quote]what happens when three more people come into my house and take tissues? what happens when three hundred more come in and take my tissues. eventually, there are no tissues left for me, even though I paid for them.[/quote]



[quote]basically, this anarchism is a form of individualism, which the Church very much condemns because it has a false understanding of humanity, which must be lived in community, in society; with hierarchy, authority/power, rules, governments; and they insist that authority may be exercised in order to promote the general welfare. you're opting out of the human family and rebelling against just authority if you refuse to submit to be ruled. it's one thing to be in favor of toppling existing powers; it's quite another to philosophically insist that all powers must be toppled. the former can be done by Catholics, the latter cannot.
[/quote]

I never said humanity should not be lived in community, in society, without hierarchy, power, rules or government. I said these things cannot be in provided through the State. The general welfare is contradicted by doing injustice to any individual in a society.

Human behavior does not include taking property from innocents by force or the threat of force. Order does not require a State. Authority and enforcement of the rights of man can and should exist without the State. Nothing I have said is contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 October 2009 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1255356534' post='1983928']
Just scanned the latest posts and I must point out that there are many schools of anarchist thought and many would not appreciate an anarcho-capitalist as their representative. You have the individualist, so-called free-market anarchists (this is where Stern seems to be situated), and you have collectivists, syndicalists, mutualists, socialists, etc...
Quite frankly you can find many different definitions and opinions of the term anarchism itself and they're not always particularly compatible to say the least. I've read authors who believe that anarchy must remain undefined (in a systematic sense) because it will only be realized through the spontaneous organization of peoples in a truly free society and cannot be "defined" and imposed. Many anarchists would consider anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron (take that Stern! and yes, I mean that word in the Buckleyan sense! ).

In my experience you can be having a fine conversation one moment, but if you introduce the 'A' word suddenly you're looked upon as some dark and sinister character and constructive conversation stops (it is as though peoples' imaginations start running wild, attributing all manner of radical absurdity to you in secret). If it is helpful at all you might think of Stern simply as an uber-libertarian and forget the 'A' word, if he doesn't mind.
[/quote]

Yes, J.R.R. Tolkien, who said his "political ideas lean more and more toward anarchy" realized that the perception of anarchy is "whiskered men with bombs." I stopped calling myself a libertarian because the libertarians didn't really believe in the principle of non-aggression. They believed in small, controllable states. And square circles. And avalanches that only destroy [i]bad[/i] people.

Libertarians are also judged. You say you're a libertarian, and people say, "Oh. You just want to smoke weed." No, no I don't want to smoke weed. I just don't want people who do smoke weed thrown in rape rooms.

Syndicalists, collectivists, mutualists, and socialists all want to initiate force against other people.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sternhauser