Central Council of Anarchy

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1255382720' post='1984101']
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.
[/quote]


You are not Herbert (and that is the biggest compliment I can pay to another man).

I reach brother, I really do.

[Innocent]

I remember reading an article about Anarchism on the Distributist Review some months back:

[url="http://distributism.blogspot.com/2009/04/distributism-and-state.html"]The Distributist Review, Tuesday, April 21, 2009: Distributism, the State, and a long awaited for announcement![/url]

If I understand the article and the interaction in the combox right, the author is saying that a Catholic (specifically, a Catholic Distributist) cannot be absolutely anti-statist in principle, but can be against the state as it is implemented today in most cases.

[Aloysius]

precisely, and that's where I am: against the state as it is currently implemented. I respect the authority that they have insofar as the execute it justly, but "A bad law is no law" as Fr Vincent McNabb said

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='13 October 2009 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1255406445' post='1984299']
precisely, and that's where I am: against the state as it is currently implemented. I respect the authority that they have insofar as the execute it justly, but "A bad law is no law" as Fr Vincent McNabb said
[/quote]

Whence do they get their authority? Is it superior to the authority of the individual? Many Catholic theologians, such as Robert Bellarmine, believe authority comes from God to the individual, then is bestowed by "the people" on a ruler. How many people does it take, however? A simple majority? How can an individual, or a group of individuals, bestow authority on a third party that they themselves do not possess?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 13, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Innocent]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1255329292' post='1983849']

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 October 2009 - 12:57 PM' 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
[/quote]

I was reminded of this exchange today when I happened to read a paper by C.S. Lewis, [url="http://www.eng.uc.edu/~dwschae/temporum.html"]"De Descriptione Temporum"[/url] where he notes the change in the political scene where "leaders" replace "rulers." I think we can take it that Lewis does not consider this change as a wholly good thing. I presume you disagree with Lewis, Sternhauser?

[quote]... I have come to regard as the greatest of all divisions in the history of the West that which divides the present from, say, the age of Jane Austen and Scott. The dating of such things must of course be rather hazy and indefinite. No one could point to a year or a decade in which the change indisputably began, and it has probably not yet reached its peak. But somewhere between us and the Waverley Novels, somewhere between us and Persuasion, the chasm runs. Of course, I had no sooner reached this result than I asked myself whether it might not be an illusion of perspective. The distance between the telegraph post I am touching and the next telegraph post looks longer than the sum of the distances between all the other posts. Could this be an illusion of the same sort? We cannot pace the periods as we could pace the posts. I can only set out the grounds on which, after frequent reconsideration, I have found myself forced to reaffirm my conclusion.

1. I begin with what I regard as the weakest; the change, between Scott's age and ours, in political order. On this count my proposed frontier would have serious rivals. The change is perhaps less than that between Antiquity and the Dark Ages. Yet it is very great; and I think it extends to all nations, those we call democracies as well as dictatorships. If I wished to satirise the present political order I should borrow for it the name which Punch invented during the first German War: Govertisetnent. This is a portmanteau word and means "government by advertisement". But my intention is not satiric; I am trying to be objective. The change is this. In all previous ages that I can think of the principal aim of rulers, except at rare and short intervals, was to keep their subjects quiet, to forestall or extinguish widespread excitement and persuade people to attend quietly to their several occupations. And on the whole their subjects agreed with them. They even prayed (in words that sound curiously old-fashioned) to be able to live "a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" and "pass their time in rest and quietness". But now the organisation of mass excitement seems to be almost the normal organ of political power. We live in an age of "appeal if drives", and "campaigns". Our rulers have become like schoolmasters and are always demanding "keenness". And you notice that [b]I am guilty of a slight archaism in calling them "rulers". "Leaders" is the modem word. I have suggested elsewhere that this is a deeply significant change of vocabulary. Our demand upon them has changed no less than theirs on us. For of a ruler one asks justice, incorruption, diligence, perhaps clemency; of a leader, dash, initiative, and (I suppose) what people call "magnetism" or "personality".[/b] [/quote]<emphasis added>

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Innocent' date='15 October 2009 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1255579498' post='1985712']
I was reminded of this exchange today when I happened to read a paper by C.S. Lewis, [url="http://www.eng.uc.edu/%7Edwschae/temporum.html"]"De Descriptione Temporum"[/url] where he notes the change in the political scene where "leaders" replace "rulers." I think we can take it that Lewis does not consider this change as a wholly good thing. I presume you disagree with Lewis, Sternhauser?
[/quote]


I don't disagree with C.S. Lewis, Innocent. Voluntary rulers are not contrary to my brand of anarchism. Lewis said that one ought to call a spade a spade. The man was against all manner of euphemisms. I am not going to call an abortionist an "abortion provider," and I am not going to call a whore a "sex worker." Someone standing behind you with a gun and making you do things is certainly not a "leader."

Conversely, Mother Teresa, St. Francis, Don Bosco and Miguel Pro, who certainly had magnetism, personality, dash, and initiative, [i]were[/i] leaders. They inspired others to do things, they did not coerce. They did enforce their respective rules upon those who willingly decided to become a part of their respective organizations, but they never dreamed they had the right to impose their special rule upon anyone who did not explicitly seek them out and give individual consent for them to do so.

But as for the men Lewis was talking about, he was correct. Such men are rulers. I would merely add that insofar as their actions are funded through the violence of taxation, and/or insofar as they impose arbitrary dictates on other men, that such men are unjust rulers. Tyrants, to be precise.

~Sternhauser



Here is a quote from Lewis's fellow Inkling, J.R.R. Tolkien. It is from a 1943 letter to his son, Christopher.

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! [[i]Editor's note: He is joking about this.[/i]] If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang,' it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know [i]who[/i] their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking [i]nolo episcopari[/i] ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop . . .

Well, cheers and all that to you dearest son. We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not [i]know[/i], or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water. Also we have still small swords to use. 'I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.' Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenaeddran (war-adders), biting darts - but make sure of the mark, before shooting."

Edited October 15, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

So, why is it immoral for me to take money at gunpoint or the threat of gunpoint, from innocent people, and use it for something that "benefits everyone?" (While, of course, keeping a little for myself, to remunerate me for my noble efforts?) Let's say 51% of the population agrees with my using violence against innocents. Am I in the clear now?

If using violence against innocents "benefits everyone," how can it be wrong?

If you do not have the right to use violence against innocents for any reason, how can you bestow that right upon a third party, namely, a State actor?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 18, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

You cannot do it because you do not have the authority to do it. Those who do have the authority to do it ought to do it.

[quote]5. They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State.[/quote]

the difference is still authority, and the Church remains on the side of those in authority saying that they have the right and duty to promote the common welfare and to enforce justice.

Really, before giving over to anarchism, a Catholic ought to at least read the corpus of social doctrines of the Church and really give them serious consideration. Don't just dismiss Leo XIII, Pius XI, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et cetera. They have things to say about authority, states, governments, and taxation that is worth our attention as Catholics.

The Compendium is a good place to start: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20foundation%20of%20political%20authority

You may not be the type of atheistic anarchist who rejects authority in religion, but for all practical purposes you pit yourself against those who have authority over your soul--the popes.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 October 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1255888759' post='1987330']
You cannot do it because you do not have the authority to do it. Those who do have the authority to do it ought to do it.

the difference is still authority, and the Church remains on the side of those in authority saying that they have the right and duty to promote the common welfare and to enforce justice. . . .

You may not be the type of atheistic anarchist who rejects authority in religion, but for all practical purposes you pit yourself against those who have authority over your soul--the popes.
[/quote]

Are you saying I am a heretic because I do not believe that authority, of its very nature, gives someone the right to initiate violence against others? It sounds like it. If you think I am a heretic, say it.

Who are these people in authority, and from whence does it come? Does God bestow it directly upon them? If so, how do we know who has authority? If not, how is authority bestowed?

Does having authority mean you have the right to do violence to ensure compliance with your authority? Can a husband morally slap his wife into complying with his authority over her? Can a father threaten to shoot his son for refusing to do his share of the chores?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 18, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Innocent]

I have a doubt regarding the question in the poll. The question is: "Do you have the right to use violence against innocent people?"

Now, what standard would you (i.e., Sternhauser or any other anarchist with whose philosophical position you are in agreement) recommend be used to determine who is an innocent person and who is not?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Innocent' date='19 October 2009 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1256013565' post='1988213']
I have a doubt regarding the question in the poll. The question is: "Do you have the right to use violence against innocent people?"

Now, what standard would you (i.e., Sternhauser or any other anarchist with whose philosophical position you are in agreement) recommend be used to determine who is an innocent person and who is not?
[/quote]
Also who may determine who is and is not innocent, and how that is done.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Innocent' date='20 October 2009 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1256013565' post='1988213']
I have a doubt regarding the question in the poll. The question is: "Do you have the right to use violence against innocent people?"

Now, what standard would you (i.e., Sternhauser or any other anarchist with whose philosophical position you are in agreement) recommend be used to determine who is an innocent person and who is not?
[/quote]

I look at it this way: is someone committing a spiritual sin against God, a spiritual sin against God and another man, or is the sin actually resulting in direct physical harm against a non-aggressor? The only legitimate use of physical force is to stop a physical threat, because intangibles cannot actually be defended with physical force. You cannot defend your honor with your fists. You cannot justly attempt to make someone moral or good by means of coercion of the will. Any attempt to coerce the free will is a contradiction of human nature.

You cannot protect your belief in God with violence. You cannot protect any idea with violence. You can protect physical things with physical violence. Unless someone is actually initiating or threatening to initiate direct, immediate physical harm, one may not use physical violence against him.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

Is it morally permissible under your system of anarchy, to incarcerate somebody who committed a crime that didn't physically harm anybody? Insider trading, for instance, or stealing from large corporations?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 October 2009 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1256014801' post='1988240']
Is it morally permissible under your system of anarchy, to incarcerate somebody who committed a crime that didn't physically harm anybody? Insider trading, for instance, or stealing from large corporations?
[/quote]

The only purpose for which one may intend to incarcerate (or execute) someone is to protect other individuals from someone who poses a grave physical threat to other people. If someone can only be stopped from stealing property necessary to survival by incarcerating him, it is legitimate to do so.

Protection from physical harm and remuneration. That is the scope of justice among humans.

The problem is, no "justice" system can ever make perfect sense, because injustice [i]itself[/i] does not make sense. It is a mystery, and it is confusing. The question of how to deal with it will always confuse mankind.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 October 2009 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1256015081' post='1988247']
The only purpose for which one may intend to incarcerate (or execute) someone is to protect other individuals from someone who poses a grave physical threat to other people. If someone can only be stopped from stealing property necessary to survival by incarcerating him, it is legitimate to do so.

Protection from physical harm and remuneration. That is the scope of justice among humans.

The problem is, no "justice" system can ever make perfect sense, because injustice [i]itself[/i] does not make sense. It is a mystery, and it is confusing. The question of how to deal with it will always confuse mankind.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So what about in the case of stealing from giant corporations who really won't miss the money? Say a guy embezzles a million dollars from a fifty billion dollar company. Could he be incarcerated? More basically, did this man do wrong? Since that money wasn't necessary for anybody's survival?