Central Council of Anarchy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 October 2009 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1256150093' post='1989093']
With Anarchy, the strong end up eating the weak.

If you want to see how well anarchy ends up, read the book Andersonville. The confederate commander of the prison camp, a German officer, created an anarchist society. The strong ended up eating the weak.
Jim
[/quote]


John, I don't think you understand what anarchy is. It is not a "system" that is imposed from the top down, like communism or fascism. It is organic. It is not created: it develops and unfolds. You see anarchy whenever you see a voluntary transaction. You see anarchy whenever you drive your car down the street with thousands of other people of goodwill, whose goal is to get home safely, with no accidents, and let other people do the same. People are not mostly good because the State has a gun to their heads. They are mostly good because they want to exist peacefully with their fellow men.

The strong eating the weak? What do we have right now, Jim? Politicians deciding what small, underdeveloped, poor countries need to be invaded so contractors can get subsidized with money collected at gunpoint, some of which they, in turn, pass on to their politician buddies. Or how about the recent Gardasil HPV vaccine episode? The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, strove to make it mandatory for schoolgirls, while it turns out he has some mighty close ties to Merck, the manufacturer.

If you want "the strong eating the weak," look for it figuratively every day where men have a statutorily-declared monopoly on violence. Huge, wasteful car companies getting subsidies. Giant financial tycoons getting funded, with no accountability for where that money went. Want to know if there are any links between those with a monopoly on violence and the financial elites? Tough. "The strong" tell you to get lost.

If you want to see an anarchic society, read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." Even in a Soviet gulag, men had a relatively peaceful society. There were a few rats in every society. But in that gulag, a microcosmic society in which the men did not have statutorially-approved use or monopoly on violence, men worked together and helped each other out. It was hardly a work of fiction. It was the reality of Soviet gulags, and Solzhenitsyn lived it. There was nothing anarchic about Andersonville. It was chaos artificially created by the State. If you want to see men eating each other, don't look at anarchism, look at Lincoln and the State.

Here's a reality check on Andersonville, from an article by Gail Jarvis.
[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]"The trial of Major Wirz was pure theater and has been admirably dissected by attorney and former Army Captain Glen W. LaForce in his article; [i]The Trial of Major Henry Wirz: A National Disgrace. [/i]LaForce makes it clear that, from the beginning, Wirz’s conviction was a foregone conclusion and the sham trial that ensued was only for show. Regarding former prisoners called as witnesses, LaForce says: "Out of the 160 witnesses called, 145 testified that they had no knowledge of Wirz ever killing anyone or treating a prisoner badly." Much of the evidence favorable to Wirz was rejected, but "The commission did, however, allow the defense to prove that the Confederate guards at Andersonville received the same quality and quantity of rations as the prisoners, and that the death rate of the guards was approximately the same as the prisoners."[/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]A Catholic priest, Reverend Peter Whelan, testified that he visited the prison daily for several months and found Major Wirz to be sincerely concerned about the welfare of prisoners. Father Whelan also testified that, although he talked with a multitude of prisoners every day, he never heard a single complaint of a prisoner being mistreated by Major Wirz..
[/size][/font][/left]

[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]After Major Wirz was convicted and sentenced to death, he was visited in his cell by three men who presented themselves as agents of an influential member of Congress. They informed Wirz that he would be pardoned and set free if he would testify that orders from Jefferson Davis were responsible for the deaths of the prisoners at Andersonville. Wirz adamantly refused. Next the men repeated the offer to Wirz’s attorney, Lewis Schade, and his attending priest, Reverend F. E. Boyle.[i] [/i]The offer was again refused and Wirz was hanged. In a letter to Jefferson Davis, Father Boyle wrote: "I attended the Major to the scaffold, and he died in the peace of God and praying for his enemies. I know that he was indeed innocent of all the cruel charges on which his life was sworn away, and I was edified by the Christian spirit in which he submitted to his persecutors." . . .[/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]In the larger Civil War prisons, both North and South, there were outbreaks of scurvy, dropsy, dysentery and diarrhea and photographs show some of the prisoners in emaciated, almost skeletal conditions. Although disease and death at all Civil War prisons were tragic, they were not deliberate. And statistics indicate that both sides suffered substantial prison deaths – 26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons. Considering the fact that the South held approximately fifty thousand more prisoners, the death rate in Northern prisons was about twelve percent whereas the death rate in Southern prisons was roughly eight percent. If this statistic were reversed, showing a higher percentage of deaths in Southern prisons, Ken Burns would kenitize it by inferring that it indicates the brutal neglect of Southern prison commanders."[/size][/font][/left]
[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis46.html
[/size][/font][/left]

~Sternhauser

Edited October 21, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 October 2009 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1256150300' post='1989098']
Gross. You'd think that they would have more food than that.
[/quote]

Lincoln made sure that the prisoners in Andersonville starved. The Confederacy, with hardly enough capacity to feed its own men, asked for food specifically for the prisoners. He denied it, as well as prisoner exchanges. His scorched-earth policy of having generals destroy all the food crops they possibly could did not help much, either.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 21, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 October 2009 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1256162087' post='1989216']
Lincoln made sure that the prisoners in Andersonville starved. The Confederacy, with hardly enough capacity to feed its own men, asked for food specifically for the prisoners. He denied it, as well as prisoner exchanges. His scorched-earth policy of having generals destroy all the food crops they possibly could did not help much, either.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Ew. My joke suddenly became more morbid.

[dentarthurdent95]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 October 2009 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1255314398' post='1983565']
But I do not include in that the rightful exercise of authority.

Anarchy is unnattainable. Someone will be in power, even if it is very small groups.
[/quote]

Not if zombies come about, our governments crumbles at the hands of the living dead, and humanity succumbs to the jaws that will inevitably destroy the human race. Except for those of us who are prepared enough and know what to do when the nightmare that is a zombie walks the earth.







And no I am not a shut in or in an insane asylum. I am just having a little fun. Zombies are my hobby.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dentarthurdent95' date='21 October 2009 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1256172207' post='1989306']
Not if zombies come about, our governments crumbles at the hands of the living dead, and humanity succumbs to the jaws that will inevitably destroy the human race. Except for those of us who are prepared enough and know what to do when the nightmare that is a zombie walks the earth.

And no I am not a shut in or in an insane asylum. I am just having a little fun. Zombies are my hobby.
[/quote]

There's a free-market solution to the shambling hordes of the undead, too.

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5vTti-xpB5c/R73RP28UFbI/AAAAAAAAALQ/UKmaFxcz5LI/s320/ZS_logo.jpg[/img]

-Sternhauser

Edited October 22, 2009 by Sternhauser

[King's Rook's Pawn]

As a Catholic and a person who believes in a fully voluntary society, which necessary means a stateless society ("state" being defined as an aggressively enforced monopoly of rulership over some territory), it distresses me that so many Catholics not only disagree with this byt think that the Catholic faith [i]requires[/i] one to approve of aggression, so long as it comes from a state. This is parallel to the disproportionate number of atheists and even antitheists amongst voluntaryists/"anarchists." It's very lonely being a Catholic voluntaryist.

Yet I don't see where Christ or the Church require one to support the use of aggression in any circumstances. Christ seemed to teach the opposite; if he had any political philosophy at all, anarcho-pacifism seems to come closest to it. If the pope were to infallibly proclaim that aggression is just, I would then become a sedevancantist, for I am convinced that no such teaching could derive from a just God.

Many here seem to conflate "authority" with "the right to commit acts of aggression/coercion against others." They, thus, claim that to oppose all aggression/coercion is to oppose legitimate authority. But I don't believe that any [i]legitimate[/i] authority, however high and majestic, confers such a right of aggression. Rather, in contrast, aggression is itself a violation of legitimate authority. Aggression is an infringement on another person's natural rights, and natural rights are themselves defined by the legitimate authority of the individual. For example, saying that each individual has the right over their own property is to say that each individual has the [i]legitimate authority[/i] over their own property. Only the property owner has the right to control (authority) his own property. He is sovereign over his own land. Therefore, any other individual, whether or not he calls himself King, who attempts to control that property is [i]violating[/i] that sovereign authority of the legitimate owner. Thus, it is not the anarchist who opposes legitimate authority but the aggressionist.

Thus, states are illegitimate authorities insofar as the violate the legitimate authority of others. I believe each and every soul has absolute sovereign God-given authority (vis a vis all other human beings; God, being the granter of that authority, has an even higher authority) over his own mind, his own body, and his own legitimately obtained property. Insofar as a state or any institution attempts to seize or control any of those things without the individual's consent, it is infringing on his legitimate authority.

Edited October 26, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='26 October 2009 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1256533504' post='1991358']
As a Catholic and a person who believes in a fully voluntary society, which necessary means a stateless society ("state" being defined as an aggressively enforced monopoly of rulership over some territory), it distresses me that so many Catholics not only disagree with this byt think that the Catholic faith [i]requires[/i] one to approve of aggression, so long as it comes from a state. This is parallel to the disproportionate number of atheists and even antitheists amongst voluntaryists/"anarchists." It's very lonely being a Catholic voluntaryist.

Yet I don't see where Christ or the Church require one to support the use of aggression in any circumstances. Christ seemed to teach the opposite; if he had any political philosophy at all, anarcho-pacifism seems to come closest to it. If the pope were to infallibly proclaim that aggression is just, I would then become a sedevancantist, for I am convinced that no such teaching could derive from a just God.

Many here seem to conflate "authority" with "the right to commit acts of aggression/coercion against others." They, thus, claim that to oppose all aggression/coercion is to oppose legitimate authority. But I don't believe that any [i]legitimate[/i] authority, however high and majestic, confers such a right of aggression. Rather, in contrast, aggression is itself a violation of legitimate authority. Aggression is an infringement on another person's natural rights, and natural rights are themselves defined by the legitimate authority of the individual. For example, saying that each individual has the right over their own property is to say that each individual has the [i]legitimate authority[/i] over their own property. Only the property owner has the right to control (authority) his own property. He is sovereign over his own land. Therefore, any other individual, whether or not he calls himself King, who attempts to control that property is [i]violating[/i] that sovereign authority of the legitimate owner. Thus, it is not the anarchist who opposes legitimate authority but the aggressionist.

Thus, states are illegitimate authorities insofar as the violate the legitimate authority of others. I believe each and every soul has absolute sovereign God-given authority (vis a vis all other human beings; God, being the granter of that authority, has an even higher authority) over his own mind, his own body, and his own legitimately obtained property. Insofar as a state or any institution attempts to seize or control any of those things without the individual's consent, it is infringing on his legitimate authority.
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying and will accept many of your points, but I think you go too far when you say "I don't believe that any [i]legitimate[/i] authority, however high and majestic, confers such a right of aggression". By the definition of violence I've seen Sternhauser to hold, and I'm going to assume you hold, God Himself uses such and unquestionably has that authority. Maybe I'm quibbling, but I think it's an important concession to make.

[Aloysius]

The Church also clearly teaches that legitimate governments have the authority to do things that anarchists define as "violence" or "coercion" but which the Church defines as order and civility, but to date I've seen no evidence of those on the side of anarchy having picked up any copies of the Popes' social encyclicals or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and seriously considered their positions except to dismiss them out of hand.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 October 2009 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1256534636' post='1991366']
I understand what you're saying and will accept many of your points, but I think you go too far when you say "I don't believe that any [i]legitimate[/i] authority, however high and majestic, confers such a right of aggression". By the definition of violence I've seen Sternhauser to hold, and I'm going to assume you hold, God Himself uses such and unquestionably has that authority. Maybe I'm quibbling, but I think it's an important concession to make.
[/quote]

As I said, I think God's rights transcend that of human beings: "I believe each and every soul has absolute sovereign God-given authority (vis a vis all other human beings; God, being the granter of that authority, has an even higher authority) over his own mind, his own body, and his own legitimately obtained property." However, no [i]human[/i] has the right to initiate violence against another human being. This is spelled out in Scripture itself: "You shall not kill," "You shall not steal." I would also suggest "love your neighbors as you love yourself" implies this. How can you express such love for your neighbors by infringing on their rights? And is not committing an act of aggression against someone--forcing them to do something they don't want to do--the precise definition of [i]not[/i] doing unto others as you would have done unto you?

Edit: I also don't think that God, whether He has the authority or not, would actually behave in an unjust fashion, violating the rights of humans beings, because that of course would violate His goodness. Arguably, God is responsible for all deaths, yet He is not a murderer. It is in His authority to ascribe the time of death for all humans. But I do not believe any [i]human[/i] has that authority. Indeed, one could argue that it is a usurpation of divine authority.

Edited October 26, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='26 October 2009 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1256535683' post='1991376']
The Church also clearly teaches that legitimate governments have the authority to do things that anarchists define as "violence" or "coercion" but which the Church defines as order and civility, but to date I've seen no evidence of those on the side of anarchy having picked up any copies of the Popes' social encyclicals or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and seriously considered their positions except to dismiss them out of hand.
[/quote]

As I stated, the very definition of aggression is an act that infringes against the legitimate authority of another. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone, "government" or no, to commit a legitimate act of aggression. It is impossible to have the legitimate authority to transgress someone else's legitimate authority. It's a contradiction in terms. Even an encyclical can't make a contradiction in terms true. Clearly, you're either misunderstanding those teachings or the teachings are incomplete or erroneous.

What makes a government "legitimate" anyway? I hope you do not think that a government possesses legitimate authority simply because it has power? I also reject that ideas that it has authority simply because the majority of the people agreed to it. I would say a government is only legitimate if every individual under its power has consented to be under its power. In [i]that[/i] case, it is the legitimate authority of those consented to that authority. But when a government uses the threat of violence to gain consent, that is illegitimate, because it trespasses the natural rights of those it is threatening.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='26 October 2009 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1256541591' post='1991399']

What makes a government "legitimate" anyway? I hope you do not think that a government possesses legitimate authority simply because it has power? I also reject that ideas that it has authority simply because the majority of the people agreed to it. I would say a government is only legitimate if every individual under its power has consented to be under its power. In [i]that[/i] case, it is the legitimate authority of those consented to that authority. But when a government uses the threat of violence to gain consent, that is illegitimate, because it trespasses the natural rights of those it is threatening.
[/quote]

I've asked this question several times, with different wording. It doesn't get answered.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 26, 2009 by Sternhauser

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 October 2009 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1256162087' post='1989216']
Lincoln made sure that the prisoners in Andersonville starved. The Confederacy, with hardly enough capacity to feed its own men, asked for food specifically for the prisoners. He denied it, as well as prisoner exchanges. His scorched-earth policy of having generals destroy all the food crops they possibly could did not help much, either.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The starving prisoners at Andersonville, initially, was more the result of the gang leaders who controlled the camp, who took the food that was provided away from the other prisoners, and horded it for themselves. When the confederate soldiers brought the wagons of food inside the compound, the two leading armed gangs of the camp would race forward and seize the food by force. The other prisoners were left to starve. Some, managed to pay high prices through batter for food. The gang leaders controlled the camp and anything that came into the camp. The camp had no laws other than those that the strongest of the prisoners established.

It was class anarchy.

Lincoln being responsible for the starvation at Andersonville because he refused to provide food to the enemy is about the most far fetched argument to justify the atrocities against human beings in a time of war, that I've ever seen.

By this logic, FDR would also be responsible for starving POWS in WWII, because he didn't provide the Germans and Japanese with food for the POWS they held.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 October 2009 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1256566142' post='1991476']
I've asked this question several times, with different wording. It doesn't get answered.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I've fully admitted that I can't answer. I've also been forced to concede to Aloysius, who holds what I assume is a conflicting political view.
I'm just not bright enough politically.

[JimR-OCDS]

Sternhauser'

[quote] I don't think you understand what anarchy is. It is not a "system" that is imposed from the top down, like communism or fascism. It is organic. It is not created: it develops and unfolds. [/quote]

It develops and unfolds as the society deems necessary, but also whether the society can prevent the deviant from taking control over it.

[quote]You see anarchy whenever you see a voluntary transaction. You see anarchy whenever you drive your car down the street with thousands of other people of goodwill, whose goal is to get home safely, with no accidents, and let other people do the same. [/quote]

But they're able to do this because they're following a set of rules. Heck, when there were only 4 automobiles in New York City, they had an accident, because there were no rules to follow. All had the intention of driving so as not to cause an accident, but it happened because of confusion.

[quote]People are not mostly good because the State has a gun to their heads. They are mostly good because they want to exist peacefully with their fellow men. [/quote]

But there are always those few, who have evil desires and when they are stronger than the rest, can and have raised havoc.

[quote]The strong eating the weak? What do we have right now, Jim? Politicians deciding what small, underdeveloped, poor countries need to be invaded so contractors can get subsidized with money collected at gunpoint, some of which they, in turn, pass on to their politician buddies. Or how about the recent Gardasil HPV vaccine episode? The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, strove to make it mandatory for schoolgirls, while it turns out he has some mighty close ties to Merck, the manufacturer.[/quote]

We have this in our society despite having laws to prohibit such behavior. We can only imagine what these people would do in a society with anarchy.

[quote]If you want "the strong eating the weak," look for it figuratively every day where men have a statutorily-declared monopoly on violence. Huge, wasteful car companies getting subsidies. Giant financial tycoons getting funded, with no accountability for where that money went. Want to know if there are any links between those with a monopoly on violence and the financial elites? Tough. "The strong" tell you to get lost. [/quote]

This argument doesn't support anarchy, but shows why it would be a disaster.

[quote]If you want to see an anarchic society, read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." Even in a Soviet gulag, men had a relatively peaceful society. There were a few rats in every society. But in that gulag, a microcosmic society in which the men did not have statutorially-approved use or monopoly on violence, men worked together and helped each other out. It was hardly a work of fiction. It was the reality of Soviet gulags, and Solzhenitsyn lived it. There was nothing anarchic about Andersonville. It was chaos artificially created by the State. If you want to see men eating each other, don't look at anarchism, look at Lincoln and the State. [/quote]

I haven't read that book, but I have read many others about the Soviet Gulag system. There were elements of anarchy where criminal prisoners over powered political prisoners. However, in the Gulag, many were political prisoners because the Soviet Union, usually executed hardened criminals.

[quote]Here's a reality check on Andersonville, from an article by Gail Jarvis.
[left][font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][size="3"]"The trial of Major Wirz was pure theater and has been admirably dissected by attorney and former Army Captain Glen W. LaForce in his article; [i]The Trial of Major Henry Wirz: A National Disgrace. [/i]LaForce makes it clear that, from the beginning, Wirz’s conviction was a foregone conclusion and the sham trial that ensued was only for show. Regarding former prisoners called as witnesses, LaForce says: "Out of the 160 witnesses called, 145 testified that they had no knowledge of Wirz ever killing anyone or treating a prisoner badly." Much of the evidence favorable to Wirz was rejected, but "The commission did, however, allow the defense to prove that the Confederate guards at Andersonville received the same quality and quantity of rations as the prisoners, and that the death rate of the guards was approximately the same as the prisoners."[/quote][/size][/font][/left][left][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][/size][/font] [/left][left][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]You apparently have never read the book. The atrocities of Andersonville for the most part, were not caused by the Confederate commander or guards, but by the prisoners themselves. The crime of Wirz was that he did not prevent the anarchy that took place, by keeping US officer POW's in charge of the other prisoners. [/size][/font][/left][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][left]
Instead, all prisoners were treated as equal to each other, and he let the prisoners establish their own rules for survival, i.e. the strong ate the weak.[/size][/font][/left][left] [/left][left]
Jim
[/left]

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 October 2009 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1256566142' post='1991476']
I've asked this question several times, with different wording. It doesn't get answered.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


What makes a government legitimate is that its controlled by the people, for the good of the people, and those who administer it, are able to do so, only because the people have elected them to do so.

Jim