Central Council of Anarchy

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1255323561' post='1983788']

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]
Were there no law, there would be more thugs and more violations. That's the point. Rejecting that is asinine. So yes, you have been saved by the mere existence of cops.

[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]
No, you're espousing an idea you don't understand the ramification of.

[quote]Anarchy does not mean "no hierarchy." It does not mean "no voluntary leaders." It does not mean "no authority."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Then define it. Provide a definition in your words and we can proceed from there. The word does mean that. Someone decided to redefine "anarchy" but didn't have the imagination to come up with a better word. "Without" "Ruler". Unwilling to simply admit it's an bad idea, a group of people have decided to keep an unfit word and pretend that many small groups is anarchy, when it's really just a bunch of small governments. Apparently, anarchy means "Tiny Tyranny".

It's poor word choice. A real anarchist would strike out on his own and use the right word.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Winchester

[Laudate_Dominum]

I changed my "political views" on facebook from anarcho-distributism to utopianism a long time ago. My dream society is not possible without a significant evolution in human culture so I figure it isn't worth trying to defend in the context of the real world of today. What I do defend is the ability to influence the course of our own development. Homo sapiens are the one species on this planet capable of true self-definition (albeit limited self-definition). To say that a future utopia is impossible because society will always have x-y-z, or because human nature is x-y-z, doesn't do it for me. I believe that thousands of years from now we could have a society in which average joe has the natural moral character of Gandhi; conversely, we could have a society in which cannibalism, orgies and radical egoism are indicative of social prestige (we seem to be heading in that direction atm). One thing in general that I vehemently reject is status quo thinking. My utopianism may strike some as excessively humanistic, but this is because my beliefs regarding nature and grace are not based upon a dichotomy.

Space hippies ftw.

[Winchester]

I think perhaps the problem isn't in the definition of violence, but in the definition of innocent. I am innocent, for instance, of assault. However, I am not innocent of being in a society. If I go to a restaurant and eat, I may be, more or less, morally innocent, but I am not innocent of having eaten a meal and owing money. A man who lives in a house and receives protection from police, a road in front of his home and the myriad services is innocent morally (as far as a man may be innocent) but he is not innocent of receiving these benefits and cannot truly extricate himself from them.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1255360520' post='1983941']
I think perhaps the problem isn't in the definition of violence, but in the definition of innocent. I am innocent, for instance, of assault. However, I am not innocent of being in a society. If I go to a restaurant and eat, I may be, more or less, morally innocent, but I am not innocent of having eaten a meal and owing money. A man who lives in a house and receives protection from police, a road in front of his home and the myriad services is innocent morally (as far as a man may be innocent) but he is not innocent of receiving these benefits and cannot truly extricate himself from them.
[/quote]
I don't understand the point you're making. How can one be innocent or guilty of being in a society? You seem to be saying that we are born into some form of bondage to the state. Are you a fascist or one who believes that America stands for freedom, liberty and all that? What kind of "guilt" or "debt" are you even talking about? Unquestioned obedience? Income tax? I'm confused.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 02:22 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.

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.
[/quote]
Very good responses throughout this thread. This thread has been very educational - I've never seen a Catholic Anarchist. Maybe because as Al's shown, its not exactly inline with Church teaching.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' date='12 October 2009 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1255361331' post='1983949']
Very good responses throughout this thread. This thread has been very educational - I've never seen a Catholic Anarchist. Maybe because as Al's shown, its not exactly inline with Church teaching.
[/quote]
It depends on what you mean by anarchism. There have been plenty of people who could be described as Catholic anarchists in history, from the early Church to this very day. The problem is that historical anarchism (i.e., Proudhon, Bakunin and beyond) tends to be anti-authoritarian in such a way that it opposes organized religion or even theism in general, and there are so-called anarchists who believe in destruction and violence (although they are a fringe minority and bogus imo). Berdyaev is great to read if you're curious as to how the "modern" (well, classical) anarchist tradition can be appropriated into Christianity. Berdyaev was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, but he's fun to read - I read the "No Gods No Masters" anthology last summer which would be great to read along with Berdyaev and Tolstoy imo. My own anarchism (insofar as this term is applicable) has been inspired more by personalism and Catholic philosophy than anything else.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1255358051' post='1983935']
Were there no law, there would be more thugs and more violations.


[/quote]
Is there more Order in China because they are a police state?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 October 2009 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1255360888' post='1983944']
I don't understand the point you're making. How can one be innocent or guilty of being in a society? You seem to be saying that we are born into some form of bondage to the state. Are you a fascist or one who believes that America stands for freedom, liberty and all that? What kind of "guilt" or "debt" are you even talking about? Unquestioned obedience? Income tax? I'm confused.
[/quote]
Nothing of the sort. Yes, in a sense, we are guilty of being in society. We are not innocent of roads or flushing toilets or of a social contract. Some things are beyond our control and life is not fair. One may choose to withdraw from society. It's difficult, but it can be done. The anarchy argument seems to be couched in a sense of entitlement--since I wish to be left alone, it is owed to me that I be left alone. However, I shall reap the benefits of centuries of organization and authority. It strikes me as rather juvenile.

The first flaw lies in the illusion of freedom. Anarchy exists only when there is no ruler. I am a monarchist. I can go and pretend that monarchy means a bunch of people go and vote, but that means I've merely pretended that democracy is monarchy. Anarchy is no rule. That's what it means. It's a state of chaos. If a group of people sign a contract they are free to leave at any time, then the contract is the ruler. If they rotate leadership, then it's simply a rotating ruler. If they vote, it's democracy. Anarchy is no ruler. No ruler. It means there are no laws of any sort. Writing papers to the contrary merely reveals a desire to hang onto a word. The "free-market" is ruled by the people who make enough money to control things. It's a relative term, at best, that describes a lack of "false" controls over the market.

A real anarchy would lack even familial structure. A parent keeping his child from doing what he wants is violence, under the definition provided. The anarchical argument provided is infantile: denying me my wants is violence. I want to run that stop sign, but the man is holding me down! I want to spend my money on jigsaw puzzles and beer, but these lame sewer bills are sucking up my cash!

[Winchester]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='12 October 2009 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1255362230' post='1983953']
Is there more Order in China because they are a police state?
[/quote]
Does unjust rule negate just rule?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1255363971' post='1983957']
Nothing of the sort. Yes, in a sense, we are guilty of being in society. We are not innocent of roads or flushing toilets or of a social contract. Some things are beyond our control and life is not fair. One may choose to withdraw from society. It's difficult, but it can be done. The anarchy argument seems to be couched in a sense of entitlement--since I wish to be left alone, it is owed to me that I be left alone. However, I shall reap the benefits of centuries of organization and authority. It strikes me as rather juvenile.

The first flaw lies in the illusion of freedom. Anarchy exists only when there is no ruler. I am a monarchist. I can go and pretend that monarchy means a bunch of people go and vote, but that means I've merely pretended that democracy is monarchy. Anarchy is no rule. That's what it means. It's a state of chaos. If a group of people sign a contract they are free to leave at any time, then the contract is the ruler. If they rotate leadership, then it's simply a rotating ruler. If they vote, it's democracy. Anarchy is no ruler. No ruler. It means there are no laws of any sort. Writing papers to the contrary merely reveals a desire to hang onto a word. The "free-market" is ruled by the people who make enough money to control things. It's a relative term, at best, that describes a lack of "false" controls over the market.

A real anarchy would lack even familial structure. A parent keeping his child from doing what he wants is violence, under the definition provided. The anarchical argument provided is infantile: denying me my wants is violence. I want to run that stop sign, but the man is holding me down! I want to spend my money on jigsaw puzzles and beer, but these lame sewer bills are sucking up my cash!
[/quote]
I doubt many anarchists would accept your definitions. Mainstream anarchist theorists these days tend to define it in terms of the rejection of unjustifiable authoritarian structures. Most would reject coercive forms of government and the state as unnecessary domination that could (and ought to) be replaced by more cooperative structures of organization. Your objection above would fall flat for most as I imagine many contemporary anarchists would argue that the hierarchical and authoritarian relationship of parents to children is justifiable (at least to an extent), but of course if this legitimate authority were to take on a violent and oppressive nature even it would be condemned (I believe we call it abuse).
Anyway, I believe that anarchism is much more varied, nuanced and sophisticated a tradition than you seem to grant.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1255363971' post='1983957']
The "free-market" is ruled by the people who make enough money to control things. It's a relative term, at best, that describes a lack of "false" controls over the market.
[/quote]
That's between you and Stern as my utopian vision is post-capitalist. I reject free market capitalism insofar as it enables social inequity, domineering power relations, wage labor, social alienation, exploitation, etc. and I reject the views of property rights upon which capitalism depends (basically I reject it, lulz). I also find the fundamental motives/incentives of free market capitalism to be largely at enmity with personalistic values. The reality of the free market is profit over people and I've yet to be convinced that allowing such structures to exist will foster anything different, and I certainly don't see it as a necessity for a world of true peace and freedom. The ultimate society would be better than that.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 October 2009 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1255364277' post='1983958']
Does unjust rule negate just rule?
[/quote]
You say that without police everybody would be thugs

So the more police you have, the fewer thugs you have

I gave China as an example where this is clearly not the case

Their liberal use of brutality, torture and the death penalty doesn't stop thugs from stabbing people with syringes, or starting riots and whatnot.

You can dance around my question if you want and take meaningless (to me) stabs with your rapier, but I'm asking honest questions.

[Varg]

Anarchy would work in an ideal word. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, so Minarchy must reign supreme

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 October 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1255373581' post='1984033']
Anarchy would work in an ideal word. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, so Minarchy must reign supreme
[/quote]
In practice I suppose I agree. While I do believe that human society has the potential to utterly transcend the categories of today, in the real world I support political initiatives that promote limited government, civil liberties, subsidiarity, etc.

[Aloysius]

Anyone who can show me a form of "anarchy" which is in line with all the principals of Rerum Novarum, Quadressimo Anno, and Immortale Dei would have my respect. I suspect, however, that insodoing they would lose the meaning of 'anarchy', because the Church's social teachings insist upon 'rulers'. the idea that the Church's teachings do not permit 'rulers' based on 'coercion', and 'violence against the innocent', simply does not take into account the very fact that the Church has consistently since the time of Constantine, neigh, since the time of Clement I of Rome, implicitly and explicitly endorsed things which Stern would call 'violence against the innocent'.

The Church's remedies to our problems are clear, and they're in encyclicals such as these. A slightly altered (what I would view as compromised) approach then comes from encyclicals such as Mater et Magister or the more recent Caritas in Veritate. It is the principals of these social teachings and not all of their specific suggestions that I would demand to know an anarchist's opinion on.

L_D, or as I shall call you here, Thursday, your utopia is possible: but only when society recognizes the reign of Christ the King. The Church has provided the remedy to the human condition that holds back your utopia; that remedy is the social justice teaching of the Church. now, there will indeed always be conspicuousness... if you imagine a sin free society, you simply must have an eschatological age in mind; but a Star Trek society (which I know is what you really have in mind, lol) is possible; not every aspect of Star Trek is desireable, however; one must hope for a Star Trek society which went the way of Catholic Humanism rather than Secular Humanism... a society which had the principal of subsidiarity in addition to its amazingly broad inter-galactic solidarity. and of course, even the Federation had since its inception (so DS9 re-writes it...) Section 13... I must indeed fall into the formula you do not buy in saying there will indeed always be some human imperfections in our system; we must always work against them, but as we defeat them new ones will always arise, until the end of the world.