I have to tell you guys, that I believe in less government, and that government shouldn't be the provider of everybody's needs in other words, a replacement of God. But God represents order, so I have the belief that anything that is represented in heaven is also represented here on Earth. Now anarchy is a sort of rebellion against the established order, or at least a form of utopia where government is absent. And I find it funny that in the same century that Austrian thought came out, was the same century when Aleister Crowley with his pagan thoughts came to embrace anarchy, echoed in his famous line "Do what thou wilt, shall be the rule of the law" and there are interpretations of it like self-awareness or whatever, but I do not want to approve of a guy that is rebelling against God. Also strangely, the site's shield symbol has a six sided star hexagram, which I thought initially was some bad to borrow from the occult. But anyway, don't want this to get out of hand here, but what do you guys think?
Anarchy is a rebellion against 'order' provided by a monopolistic entity; not against order itself.
Billy Lee: and that government shouldn't be the provider of everybody's needs in other words, a replacement of God.
Well I think you are starting off with a false statement. God isn't a provider of everyone's needs. If he was, why is there poverty/squalor/malnutrition etc. Perhaps you meant to say that God is a psychological appeaser, to which I would say that is a fair assessment.
Billy Lee:But God represents order, so I have the belief that anything that is represented in heaven is also represented here on Earth.
Why is this so? Why is God order yet as a creator of everything such as natural disasters? We must assume that either God has dualistic tendencies or there is another who rivals him in strength and power who is able to enact these creations and unleash them upon the world.
Billy Lee:Now anarchy is a sort of rebellion against the established order, or at least a form of utopia where government is absent.
There have been societies in the past that are anarchistic so I wouldn't call it utopian. And anarchy isn't necessarily a rebellion against order [ unless you are those pop culture smash/grab 'anarchists' ] it is a rebellion against involuntarily servitude to a ruler or rulers.
Billy Lee:And I find it funny that in the same century that Austrian thought came out, was the same century when Aleister Crowley with his pagan thoughts came to embrace anarchy, echoed in his famous line "Do what thou wilt, shall be the rule of the law" and there are interpretations of it like self-awareness or whatever, but I do not want to approve of a guy that is rebelling against God.
Actually Austrianism got its start in 1871 with Karl Menger's Principles of Economics
Billy Lee:Also strangely, the site's shield symbol has a six sided star hexagram, which I thought initially was some bad to borrow from the occult.
The shield you see is apart of the Ludwig Von Mises crest. Here is the full picture of it. Rather beautiful in my mind.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well, let me try a quick answer. Given you mean with biblical being is what the bible says to be the way to go.
First, Abraham was sure an anarchist, from what we are told about him. He told the "establishment" he was going to decide what he was going to do. Even worse, he did not only claim his own body for himself, he had an own god who had conversations with him without using the "established" links via the priests etc.
Second, Israel was an anarchy before it became a kingdom. Do you remember how ferocious Samuel tried to prevent that from happening? If not, read it again. God did not want to have a king for Israel. They wanted to be like all the others. Samuel told them what a king would mean, taxation, conscription and the lost of freedom.
Third, Jesus said, "Render onto ceasar what is ceasars and onto god what is gods". This doesn't sound to me much like "Well, ya know, those hierarchies are set by god so you have to go through ceasar to communicate to god and therefor ceasar is your master".
Bottomline, the biblical view of men is the view of an anarchist. God, not the state, made man in his image. Man is only responsible to god. The god we are talking about is not democracy, the government or society, but the god of that bad rebell Abraham and of his offspring. And even the 10 commandments show that "anarchist" idea. Allmost all commandments are negative ones, thou shalt not ... . Nowhere will you find something like "and god ordered the people to pay taxes, obey their rulers (wasn't that the golden calf thing?).
So my answer would be, a christian that is not an anarchist is only not an anarchist yet :-).
Regarding Aleister Crowley and the stuff, first, a century is a long time and lots of things happen :-). Second and more serious, the hexagram in the coat of arms of Ludwig von Mises, is not a pagan symbol but the "Magen David" or David's star. It is there to show that the von Mises are jewish. Actually Mises grandfather was the famous Rabbi of Lemberg. So no devils work involved in Austrian economics as far as I can see.
Have fun learning
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I recently had the opportunity to write on this subject. I do not claim to be the most profound exponent of either Christianity or anarchy (and honestly I am not yet 100% sold on anarchy), but I have been giving it some thought.
The short version is, yes the teachings of the bible and anarchy are compatible, though I have only just scratched the surface of a very deep question. Feel free to read what I posted on my blog, and comment here or there.
Greg
The Holy Cause
Billy Lee: Now anarchy is a sort of rebellion against the established order, or at least a form of utopia where government is absent.
Now anarchy is a sort of rebellion against the established order, or at least a form of utopia where government is absent.
Anarchy respects an individual's free-will. Anarchy therefore has natural law for to coerce an individual's free-will is to go against human nature.
The definition of the term nature is arrived at conjointly. Nature is the conjoint act of intellect and everything else. This is the well-established definition that goes back to Aristotle and before him most undoubtedly [but of course historical records before him are rare and usually praise earthly god-kings like the pharaoh of Egypt written in hieroglyphs, etc..., but it's possible to find it in mythologies {check Joseph Campbell's writings)]. Nature was understood this way, as mentioned, written by Aristotle, Aquinas, and in everyday common language. It's definition is found in numerous resources. It's definition was with effort under-cut by Thomas Hobbes and Spinoza, to name two most influential, in the 17th Century. I'm not very sure about the reasoning behind Spinoza's effort, but Hobbes effort was to affirm the large government, namely the title of his one book readily presents his argument: Leviathan. Though I'm not an expert on this historical connection, but this replacement of nature meaning intellect and what the intellect can apprehend in this universe (everything else, including of the person and external to the person) to Hobbes and Spinoza's was propaganda/faulty argumentation that only government is what brings people out of the beastly realm of nature (notice this is how they defined the term). This establishment of the government as some utopia [now this is the correct way to use the term for statists whole-heartedly believe they can make heaven on earth via man's arbitrary vision alone - not God's nor nature's (using the original precise definition of nature here)] - so - this effort to change the definition of nature is Platonic, Hegelian, and Marxist, etc.... The state/government being some kind of idealized idea that simply needed to be established by man's will alone. It was already here idealistically, but this dream of a person alone (detached from any truth and nature in it's true defining) was to rid all the so called horrors of life with making the world in man's image which is what arbitrary forces of government tries to do.
Nature, in it's original well thought out definition was still used even with the efforts of Hobbes and Spinoza. It's become more common among "pop culture" critics to use Hobbes or Spinoza's redefining of the word I would say mainly due to the public school system, statist propaganda, positivist and thus utilitarianism (this latter began with Auguste Comte whom is the founder of sociology). And so in the social sciences concepts such as nature have been pushed aside by the governmental and ill-reasoning educators to be something subdued by arbitrary forces of human reasoning without effort to discover what is logically understood that makes the human species. A species that is not only culturally, but biologically defined differently than chimpanzees or horses. The science of justice or natural law is such that - a science. (and God is a perfectly fine 'entity' to believe in and does not necessarily usurp natural law as long as such a God is of peace). It's not a wonder that the Welfare State has evolved from such thinkers as Comte and other utilitarianism. It's not a wonder that the Warfare State evolves with such ideas of a Hobbes or Machiavellian.
So to go against an individual's free-will is in the absolute sense of the words "go against" to make an individual an inanimate object, in other words, dead.
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.(Judges 21:25)
If you read the Book of Judges, I seem to recall that it points out, time and time again, that there was no king in Israel. As time goes on, the people begin to demand a king, and God becomes angry that the people demanded a king. Samuel also felt rejected by the people, but God says to him this:
1 Sam 8:7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."
Does that sound to you like God supports a state? It would appear from God's view that the state is an attempt to replace Him. Later phrases such as, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" seem, to me, to also be anti-state. For what, really, does Caesar actually own? I don't think he owns anything.
And lets not forget your God in human form was in fact tortured and killed by the state apparatus for speaking his mind and spreading his message.
Anarchy is not in any way opposed to moral order. It is only opposed to coercive, state-mandated order.
Anarchy can work because it relies on the individual's sense of freely-chosen morality, which Christianity can help provide. In many ways, I would almost say that Christianity is inherently anarchist, in the fact that we believe in a God-given free will to make our own choices. Nothing (that I'm aware of) in the bible advocated creating a morality-mandating state with the purpose of forcing its citizens to be Christ-like. It instead advocates evangelism and spreading of the Word by teaching and example, rather than force.
You are absolutely right about Jesus' words not being an endorsement of the state - but I would think he meant a state in opposition to God and his will not any state (or should I say government?) per-se. And it is true that God is supreme and owns all not the state even if that state employes the principles of God - so no state should enforce things like taxation or slavery. Jesus ids primarily teaching obey God not man. His answer was a wise one in light of the trap the Jewish leaders were trying set for Him. They were trying to get him to speak against the state so as to have him arrested. He did not fall for it.
I wish more christians would stop useing this as a justification for theft by the state. Good points.
I find it incredible that one can be sold on the Bible, but still quibble over market anarchy.
There have been a number of great responses to the original poster's questions, especially the quotes from the Bible. Beat me to the punch! I will add my two cents though. As a Christian libertarian I believe that the main tenets of Christianity are completely anti-state. The commandments "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" themselves go against the State entirely because the State is essentially an extortion racket. Jesus taught to do unto others as you would want done to yourself, to love thy neighbor, and to be charitable (not steal from A to give to B). I really don't see how anybody could honestly understand Christianity and claim that its teachings are concomitant with the existence of the State. God bless.
In liberty,
Chris
Caley McKibbin: I find it incredible that one can be sold on the Bible, but still quibble over market anarchy.
You can use "The Bible" to justify any behavior.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Telpeurion: Caley McKibbin: I find it incredible that one can be sold on the Bible, but still quibble over market anarchy. You can use "The Bible" to justify any behavior.
I guess you've never read it.
Chris:I guess you've never read it.
Actually he is not far off. The bible is full of contradictory behavior. Asking to make peace yet saying God gives us the strength to make war. Slavery, female subservience yet claiming that we are all God's children.