Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Religion and anarchism.

rated by 0 users
This post has 83 Replies | 17 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555
Evilsceptic Posted: Wed, Feb 2 2011 5:07 PM

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

  • | Post Points: 170
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

Oh and sorry about any spelling mistakes there are am about to go to bed :)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I think Gary North has.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 167
Points 2,395
Lyle replied on Wed, Feb 2 2011 5:12 PM

IMO, Christians believe that because God permitted man to create government that this necessarily means that God condoned man's creation of government. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 99
Points 1,465

Lyle,

As is the case with most generalizations, all "Christians" do not believe any one thing, except those things that are required for them to meet the definition for group membership.

God quite clearly states that it is his perfect will for the Israelites not to have a king, but he lets them sign away their own lives to tyranny. Contrary to common misconception, this cannot be logically construed as condonement, nor can it be argued that because the Israelites once submitted to a king, we must all likewise submit.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Wed, Feb 2 2011 5:34 PM

Evilsceptic:

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

Thats as close as you get!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

Thanks, this is more than I was looking for lol!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 286
Points 5,555

I ment to quote filc there.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 39
Points 475

You can check out

Jacques Ellul:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul

also this blog has some useful references:

http://christianandstate.wordpress.com/

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 9:29 AM

Evilsceptic:

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

The bible is not a clear text, like a science book. It's a religious book. This means that the believer will see in it what he wants to see in it (i.e. the way he was raised). If someone is a neo-con hawk then they will believe the bible supports that.

My advice would be: don't try to change one religious belief (statism) through another religious belief (god-ism). Instead, try to get him to drop his religious beliefs and see reality.

It seems very manipulative to me to say: "Believe in liberty because the Tooth Fairy says so!!" Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 12:03 PM

Nielsio:

The bible is not a clear text, like a science book. It's a religious book. This means that the believer will see in it what he wants to see in it (i.e. the way he was raised). If someone is a neo-con hawk then they will believe the bible supports that.

My advice would be: don't try to change one religious belief (statism) through another religious belief (god-ism). Instead, try to get him to drop his religious beliefs and see reality.

It seems very manipulative to me to say: "Believe in liberty because the Tooth Fairy says so!!" Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.

Or stop trying to get theists to stop being theists, and just have them read Gary North. :)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 12:14 PM

filc:

Nielsio:

Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.

Or stop trying to get theists to stop being theists, and just have them read Gary North. :)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 12:37 PM

For the record, Gary North is not an an-cap.

He belongs to the Christian Reconstructionists who want to exchange the US state for a completely Christian theocratic state.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 99
Points 1,465

God is right, and His essence (the logical framework of His mind, which is reflected in humans -- though imperfectly because of humans' lack of information/non-omniscience -- as logic/reason) is the perfect realization of logic. God's commands are a relay of information about the nature of His essence. They would be right independent of His choice to relay the message, but they are not independent of Him (as nothing is independent of Him, seeing as he is omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent). What is right or wrong is not arbitrary, as this constitutes merely statement about the nature of that framework. God is perfect, and so the framework must be perfect, and therefore the framework is also not arbitrary.

Euthyphro's Dilemma misses the point if it is used in the intent to disprove God. It merely exposes a fatal flaw in the logic of many Christians, who divorce logic from the nature of God.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 12:53 PM

I think what Matticus is saying, in too many words, is that you should just use regular arguments anyone else would use.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 12:54 PM

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

I find that consistent, devout Catholics are among the most receptive when it comes to hearing ideas regarding ancap.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 99
Points 1,465

John Ess:

I think what Matticus is saying, in too many words, is that you should just use regular arguments anyone else would use.

 

 

Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.

My discussion of Euthyphro's Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 1:50 PM

Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma.

That's my view by now.

P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975

 

"Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.

My discussion of Euthyphro's Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it."

Understood.

On the second point:

ED is not trying to disprove God.  But saying that morality doesn't depend on God's commandments.

And for that matter, I don't see economics being any different.  Though, if one believes Christianity, obviously, one would appeal to what is easiest:  to what the other person is biased towards.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 99
Points 1,465

MaikU:

Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma.

That's my view by now.

P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.

 

Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975

 

"it is the rejection of illegitimate authority."

But what person says they support illegitimate authority, though?

Not trying to be difficult.  But this seems a problematic definition.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 2:42 PM

I'm reminded of a relevant quote regarding God's right to torture you forever:

 

"So ownership is a bad thing?"

 

"....Of people, yes."

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

MaikU:

If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. .... That's my view by now. .... 

My thoughts exactly. The more ancap I became the less religious I became, in fact I am starting to see better many religion's views on god as god having sort of a totalitarian rule and everyone is fine with it. This is completely contradictory to the idea of anarchy. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Thu, Feb 3 2011 3:53 PM

@freeradicals, I was the other way around first.  I used to be conservative and religious, but then became atheist and saw no use for social conservatism.  A few more years of study and I found anarcho-capitalism, and figured antitheism and an-cap fit like two peas in a pod.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 917
Points 17,505

Although I suspect he was an atheist, Robert LeFevre has used the words in Samuel II to demonstrate the nature of government. Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist.

I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 8:13 AM

Matticus Rex:

MaikU:

Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma.

That's my view by now.

P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.

 

Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.

 

Yes, I should have clarified it and said "illegitimate". That is correct. So if one believes God has legitimate authority, then I can't argue with that. It is easier though (in my opinion) to show the illegitimacy of the state's authority, because it is visible and is bound to the laws of nature, while theists can always say, that God is not bound by logic and physical laws.

 

Ok, I will retract my point about what is easier or not easier, because if I wanted to prove it I would contradict my previous post. I need more thinking. Statism is a last and strongest religion that has more followers than any modern traditional religion and that is a problem for anarchist when they try to convince statists.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

Matticus Rex:

Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.

Isn't the idea of a first owner, or the first ones owning the children and so fourth down the line a concept derived from tribalism? I believe Autolykos told me that.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 99
Points 1,465

The question of hereditary ownership of person is irrelevant, as God (in granting free will) renounced His ownership over us in order to develop relationship (the entire point of creation, from His perspective). As God is omnipresent, however, He not only brought about creation (by spoken word, big bang, whatever), but He has quite literally mixed with every atom that exists even before sentient life existed. There can be no quarrel about His rightful ownership over everything He claims.

 

 

Note: I'm just arguing this from a Biblical perspective. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe it, just showing how it is an internally consistent philosophy.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 152
Points 2,560
John Q replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 12:06 PM

Evilsceptic:

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

 

God did.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 12:33 PM

freeradicals:
Isn't the idea of a first owner, or the first ones owning the children and so fourth down the line a concept derived from tribalism? I believe Autolykos told me that.

While the Bible probably doesn't put it that way (I haven't read all of it), I'd say some kind of eternal ownership over one's descendants is indeed an outgrowth of tribalism. If one presumes this concept, and one believes that the universe was created by some deity, then it follows that one is ultimately a descendant of that deity and therefore that deity ultimately owns him.

However, I don't think these ideas were common to all tribal societies throughout history. Some tribes may well have followed more libertarian ethea.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 12:49 PM

Matticus Rex:
The question of hereditary ownership of person is irrelevant, as God (in granting free will) renounced His ownership over us in order to develop relationship (the entire point of creation, from His perspective). As God is omnipresent, however, He not only brought about creation (by spoken word, big bang, whatever), but He has quite literally mixed with every atom that exists even before sentient life existed. There can be no quarrel about His rightful ownership over everything He claims.

  1. It does not necessarily follow that granting free will means renouncing ownership. After all, animals have free will, but people typically consider them ownable.

  2. If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 198
Points 3,100
jay replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 1:37 PM

"If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent."

This is panantheism (I think), which is not completely adopted by most major religions. Under Christianity, I would venture to say God is present in creation in that He upholds its existence, as in, without Him it would "disintegrate" (or not be in existant imprimus).

Or it could be that He granted humanity temporary stewardship/deputyship of the material universe, so in that way he is omnipresent by proxy.

Or it could be that He could be omnipresent but simply choses not to be in some cases.

There's many way this could go. I'm not a theologian so I'm not that reliable.

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 16,185

Robert Murphy has a good lecture on this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTLsOgSyno

Tom Woods too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-emqvbAqnr0

My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/

Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 3:31 PM

I'm in agreement with Autolykos.  It's a tribalistic mentality.  We need some authoritarian to "own" us.  It all goes back to human ownership (i.e., slavery).  Parents don't "own" children because they had a large part in creating them, they are custodians of children.  I was under impression that the rules for ownership of conscious creatures was different than that of inanimate objects.  Apparently not.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975

"Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist."

He is not a libertarian.  He is a Christian reconstructionist who wants Christians to seize the state and subjugate or deport other religions or belief systems.  It is basically the furthest position from libertarianism you can be as a Christian.  And probably the furthest period.

 

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
 
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.

"The stranger in ancient Israel did not serve as a judge, although he received all the benefits of living in the land. The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God's people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

jay:

Or it could be that He could be omnipresent but simply choses not to be in some cases.

Christians do claim that god is omnipresent, just not all-knowing.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030


I think that God is supposed to be both according to Chrisitians?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 198
Points 3,100
jay replied on Sun, Feb 6 2011 4:47 PM

"just not all-knowing."

I've never heard this.

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

The Christian (Evangelical belief, at least) is that God cannot foresee the future. This is what I leaned when I used to do bible studies with the church. Hence he is omnipresent but not all knowing.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 430
Points 8,145

No, that's open-theism, which is a view that's in the extreme minority.

“Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 3 (84 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS