so i have heard some atheists say that theists are irrational and believe in the self contradictory and that the existence of god is self contradicting. if some in a society get their ethics and moral code from a god, while other say they get their ethics and moral code from a secular methodology of rational and empirical thought, how compatible are the two? can people really be free if they are theists? are claims that libertarianism should not associate with theists as the two are incompatible right?
It happens to be that most people that consider themselves religious believe it is wrong to lie, steal, murder, etc. which happen to line up quite nicely with libertarian morals, IMO. In fact, most religious people also claim to believe in a Golden Rule, with is nearly the same as the NAP. It sounds to me like you are a little biased against theists, as they don't use "rational and empirical thought."
Yes, theists can really be free. If you disagree, explain why they cannot.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
While egoistic materialism is true -"atheism" is just an over romantic intellectual term for people with nothing to do, and a search for "Truth" which does not exist.
To quote Max Stirner: "Our atheists are pious people". The mere fact that "atheism" is an intellectual position is probably self refuting, and asocial. It's the "easy ticket" to appear tobe intellectual. This is probably why it pays so low, and no one really cares.
Besides that it's probably impolite. It's probably just best tobe a polite liberal and be semi "passive aggressive" and secular towards these things. With the market process, obviousness and manipulability manifest themselves much easier, and obfuscating languages trying to back door their way into saying something meaningful becomes rapidily obsolete. This is the nature of socialbility. Buying, selling, producing, consuming, cell phones, computers, video games, etc is the "answer" not Platonic intellectual arguments.
As nuts as it is, it's fine to think of some super strong Hobesian material"thing" out there, If you wish to call that or whatever else is stronger than you "god" so be it, though I would be empircally skeptical of the thing in existence. Likewise if you find something interesting and you call that "god" and choose to focus soley on that be it: triangles, working out, making the love, etc whatever floats your boat I guess.
And if it's fashionable to "meditate" and that makes you happy,whatever. If it is fashionable to do so you may as well because that will help increase social status. If your boss says "take yoga", you may as well take yoga. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Finally we could just reduce things like Bramhin, pantheism, or whatever to the "laws of logic".
And when some dude says "the trees have spirits", or what ever ask him what the hell that means. If the answer is something along the lines like "see the wind blow through the leaves"...I guess one could just be satisfied that wind blowing through the leaves is "tree with spirit",making the love, or lighting a candle is "God", etc - whatever that means.
Whatever they call god, just affirm it, move on about your business, and nod your head and smile at such things, if it's useless obfuscating asocial thinking (and I think it is), it will be bred out by more useful and pleasurable things unless someone backdoors a subsidy on your ass, which is likely with reactionaries and intellectuals (i.e. priests). In fact one could even say we are "spiritual but not religious" as a subversive way to get rid of intellectual subsidies and universities. That would be far more useful than arguing or caring about such things.
Both atheists and theists are incompatible with the "market process"; because it's way too "intellectual" , antisocial, impolite, Platonic, and/or intentionally obfuscating for the sake of subsidy. If it wasn't for the market process we would not be able to think about things like materialism, darwinism, etc - all of which are necessary things to think clearly and support the obvious picture of reality we see and share everyday.
The answer to theists, atheists, ethics, or whatever: cell phones, video games, working at your job, etc.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Whatever works works, everyone has a worldview, and I can't act like I never seen this thread pop up a dozen times. Here's a photo of a painting of Jesus in my girlfriend's living room I added captions too:
im mainly just looking at some of the material from athist ancap writers so some of this comes from their conclusions.
it could just be certain religions here
in christianity, it looks like commandments 6-10 are compatable with virtues in nap, but commandments 1-5 are not.
people are taught that salvation comes through god, and what they do in this life will affect what happens after they die. donating to a church can be a obligation, or a choice that helps a person gain in the afterlife. many theists are taught that they will face negative consequences in the afterlife if they do not beleive and have faith in a certain god.
thiests can beleive that a persons consentual choices can be corrupt, sinful, land them in hell in the afterlife. teaching that a nonbeleivers will go to hell seems like a trap, who would want to go to the place discribed as hell?
one way to go about this could be
if people are taught that to lie is not a virtue, then after receiving rational evidence that their god does not exist, to continue to beleive in their god would be a lie, thus breaking the virtue of not lieing. not all religions can be correct, so at least all but one are a lie, if not all.
here could be another example
saying homosexuality is a sin, but i don't know how homosexuality would violate NAP, is saying that some actions and choices are sinful and immoral even if they are consentual free choices between adults.
some of the morals and ethics seem compatible libertarianism, but others seem to call it a sin to engage in free will consentualy and not violate nap.
The first 5 commandments are not incompatible with the NAP, though, are they? Following these laws does does aggress against another or against his property.
The thing is, you won't have "rational" evidence that God does not exist. "Rationality" is especially subjective here. How would you think you would prove that God doesn't exist? I promise it's no more "rational" than their evidence that He does exist.
Also, I see no reason why all but one religion must be false. That idea can only exist to one that believes in religion. Otherwise, again, the "rationale" behind this is subjective (not that it isn't for religious people either, though).
The point is you seem to be the one suggesting a violation of the NAP. You think that if you "prove" (to yourself) that a religion is false that the followers should abandon their faith. Unless you plan on forcing them too (this is the violation of the NAP), then it does not matter what they believe so long as they are not violating the NAP either.
If you wish to be free to not believe in any sort of religion so long as you do not violate the NAP, then there is NO REASON why you should be opposedto others believing in a religion so long as they are not violating the NAP.
I does not matter why someone considers some act to be unethical or sinful. So long as they do not take justice into their own hands (unless I suppose they live in a minarchy that adopts a charter with the commandments as law, maybe) and aggress against who they believe are sinners, who cares?
Many of the greatest thinkers were Chrisitan. I think they could hang with the atheist crowd. Many of the most vile States of the 20th century were supposedly atheistic. China is atheistic. USSR was atheistic. America, as bad as it's getting, was brought about by many a christian or theistic men and it was a radical experiment in freedom at the time. The US abolition movement was heavily quaker (christians).
However, I do believe that with freedom of association that theyd likely break off into factions.
I believe that if it werent for this lack of freedom, especially via public schools (and employers/businesses), America would be a lot less atheistic today. The US was much more religious in the past, and if schools had been privatized, most of those religious parents would not have put their kids in schools where atheism strongly exists. If they had been put in these more pious schools, Im pretty sure that those kids would be less atheistic than public school kids today. Atheism used to be taboo and I seriously doubt that the more religious parents of the past would have wanted to expose their kids to such ideas.
Also, atheists would have tended to be ostracized and people holding such views would tend to modify them or keep them to themselves due to this peer pressure. People are heavily influenced by their environment. Look at how before all of the technology dialects or accents were much heavier. People tend to mimmic that which is around them, subconciously and conciously. In this regard, I believe that as America has moved further from the constitution and closer to totalitarianism, atheism has become more prevalent.
Yes there are counter arguments to my comments and I'm sure there are millions of atheists that could make a better case for the opposite view, but based on your premise, I thought the christian or theistic perspective needed some representation, however weak my comments may be.
And I've heard the argument that you shouldn't attach ahteism to political views such as statism. I dont see why not. Youve attached it to a more rational, libertarian view and whenever 'christians' do something like abort babies or go on murder sprees their 'christianity' is strongly pointed out.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
I've never read a good or admirable critique on religion from any libertarian associated author. Mises and Rothbard were atheists, and I'm a bit glad someone like Mises didn't further expand on it or he'd come off sounding like Rand (the few quotes/paragraphs I can remember from Mises were rather off putting on the subject).
I'm "religious", and I don't believe in God, sin, or any of that other Abrahamic related mysticism. One may be surprised that one can be involved in a religion and not believe in gods. Here I am standing in the middle ground
Someone like vive la has pointed out the trendiness of intellectualism, and atheism is just another form of that just like leftism. You may see a rise in atheism just as much as leftism and neither has to be together, it's simply fashionable (at the same time I could say it's fashionable in my circle of associates to be "anti-atheist" or something to that extent).
I believe it's the opposite, what we see is the burgeoning of "rational thought," but without all the mumbo-jumbo you have kids that begin to question and counter tradition on their own lines. I see this as a natural progression in thinking. Are you saying more freedom = more religious? Also, I must assume you mean Christianity, but if we have more freedom wouldn't people begin to question and counter said tradition?
Im saying america has become 'less christian and theistic' in part because christian and theistic families have put their kids into an environment that they otherwise wouldnt have if all education were private. In a free-market, Christian families are very likely to put their kids into schools that have prayer, bible study and encourage a belief in god. Their kids being in such an environment would tend to influence them to retain those beliefs. Our State has crowded out much of the competition in education and it does not allow a pro-christian agenda.
In a freer society parents would tend to influence their children more than in a state because the parents would have more choices and those choices would influence their kids.
From my understanding and experience in public school is that it is pro-Christian and pro-State, and any opposing views are not met well.
Also, being met with irony, I've known non-religious types to go to private Christian schools or send their children to one simply because of the education, not because of the religious aspect.
But maybe you're barking up the wrong tree here, I'm a Heathen who views deities as unconcsious and pscyhological projections
if there is any advocacy of christianity in public schools, its certainly not in an official sense and any such biases have been severely diminished over the last several decades. And I dont think that this diminution of christianity could have occured as rapidly as it has without the power of the state. People were certainly 'more christian' in the past and in a freer society the children of christian parents are much more likely to remain christian because the parents would have a greater choice over the institutions that would influence their lives.
how about the land ownership side of things?
i know some religion claim land because god gave them the land. some religions even claim god gave another religion the land. that people own land because god gave it to them and because they were born a certain race. one example would be Jews , the state of Israel, and the Christians that push that Jewish people have the god given right to the land based on genetics ( although they still let people go even if they turned Jewish, but more orthodox require genetics to be jewish). is owning land through god's authority libertarian?
some of these religions require a state, and that people with certain genetics live there because god said so, for the religions end time prophecy to come true.
No, religious beliefs do not entitle anyone to any land by any libertarian principle.
Now, if, for example, no one claimed that Israel/Palestine did not belong rightfully to those of the Jewish faith, then there would be no conflict. That is obviously not the case, however. Jews don't have any right to force Palestinians out of the holy land and neither do Palestinians have any right to forces the Jews out. But should those people decide to war with each other, that's their business. Christians that, for example, live in America have no right to tell the Palestinians they must leave. The society here has no right to force the population to fund a military to help force any people from any foreign land. That is, it would be anti-libertarian to do so. But I would also say, if we are a free society, any American that wanted to go to the holy land and fight alongside the Jews could if he so chose. He would have to find himself, and arm himself. It would still be anti-libertarian to aggress against a Palestinian who did not violate his rights, but we should not stop the man from being anti-libertarian, should we?
The average man is not, will not be, and does not need to be a philosopher. Not everyone is capable of understanding or handling the reality of life, hence the utility of certain fictions. We ask "is this belief true?" when we should be asking "is this belief useful?" Certain religious beliefs have been very useful, and could yet be useful, as seen from a libertarian perspective, and should therefore be respected. The same applies to tradition.
The war against all religion and all tradition is a dangerous one, and one which is fundamentally alien to the liberal cause, having its origins in the Left, in their desire to create a homo sovieticus; hence we should have nothing to do with it. It's makes me cringe when self-ascribed libertarians like Molyneux attempt to incorporate antipathy to the family or to religion into the libertarian vision of the world.
ok ill ask if the beleif is useful
is it useful to say a person owns land because god says so?
my understanding is this would not be in line from a libertarian perspective, so the beleif that people own land because god said so is not useful for libertarianism and should not be respected?
is it useful to fight a war because god says so?
god can say to fight a war whether or not libertarian principles have been violated, therefor fighting a war because god said so is not libertarian and should not be respected? respect for a war would have to come from more than just god said so. it would also have to be in line with libertarian principles to be a just war.
is it useful to accept beleifs that reject libertarian axiums if people that have such beleifs donate money in the name of the libertarian cause?
It need not be respected that X owns some land because X says God says so. There is no need to not respect his beliefs, however. Kind of like opinions. It's fine if someone opines that the sky is red, but that doesn't mean you have to rename blue to red or refer to the coloring of the sky as red.
And again, if X attacks you and says God told him to, that does not mean you must qualify his aggression as just. However, if X says, "God is telling me to attack you," this does not really constitute a threat or an attack. He is entitled to his beliefs, even if he believes that God has commanded him to aggress against someone, however, if he actually threatens you, like if he says, "I will now kill you because God told me to," or actually attacks you, that is not justified, and you may defend yourself.
Beliefs and opinions are not aggressions.
if a person beleifs god told them to attack, but does not attack, the person is disobeying the order from the persons god.
so that makes it required to either disobay or edit orders from god to be a libertarian.
if some in a society get their ethics and moral code from a god, while other say they get their ethics and moral code from a secular methodology of rational and empirical thought, how compatible are the two?
They are perfectly compatible so long as neither group aggresses upon the other. If that holds true, they will interact to the extent that it benefits them, and disassociate to the extent they find desirable.
an people really be free if they are theists?
I see no reason why not. Others may think they are not free, other may not want to live their lives according to the rules theists do, but then so long as the theists aren't forcing others to live a certain way, why would that be an issue? It would be like saying someone isn't free because they eat oranges all the time, and since you like apples and hate oranges, they must be simply yearning to break free from the grove to the orchard. And that would be ridiculous. As long as the individual makes the choices that govern his actions, he is free. Whether anyone agrees with those choices or not is only relevant if they're claiming those choices materially impacted them and their freedom to choose.
The entire edifice of a liberal civilization rests on the underlying culture.
People are not biologically determined to respect property, but there is an evolutionary pressure for some degree of respect for property. Property must be respected to some extent, because in the complete absence of such respect, the society in question would collapse: and be driven into extinction by competing societies. However, as history tells, it is possible for societies to sustain themselves all along the spectrum of respect for property.
What determines the degree to which a society will respect property is the culture.
What is culture? Culture is the set of all valuations and beliefs existing in society. I would divide these into two categories: ends and means. Fortunately, the vast majority of human beings have basically the same ends: peace and prosperity. A tiny minority loves violence for its own sake. People do not need to be taught these ends, and they are fairly constant over time. What is in flux are the means: i.e. the ideas about how we can best achieve our ends. AIn other words, ethics. What rules of behavior should be adopted to yield the desired results? Some small fraction of the population is capable and of and interested in reasoning out this question. Supposing their ends are peace and prosperity, they will inevitably become libertarians. But the vast majority of the population is either incapable of or uninterested in reasoning out the question of means. So they resort to magical thinking. They listen to priests who convince them on an irrational level that certain spells and rituals (e.g. communion, inflation, prayer, war) will yield them the results they desire.
There's no possibility of making a rational libertarian out of everyone. The majority will employ magical thinking in the pursuit of their ends. What we need to do is provide them with magical thinking which brings them (unwittingly) into support of libertarian ethics.
There's a thread about the possibility of creating a purpose-built libertarian religion ( http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/29076/468447.aspx#468447). But until such time as that can be accomplished, we need to embrace aspects of existing religions which are useful for our purposes. The same for culture in general. I think a libertarian should, in his public role and whatever his personal beliefs, be a cultural conservative. The new culture being imposed now by the Left is far more hostile to liberalism than the traditional culture, and so the latter should be defended in order to halt the advance of the former - again, until such time as an originally libertarian culture can make headway.
so that makes it required to either disobay or edit orders from god to be a libertarian
No. Not every religion person believes that God has told them to attack someone, to aggress against their property, or to restrict their liberty. They're are plenty of people who are religious that don't do these things and simultaneously don't believe God has commanded them to do these things, maybe even the majority of religious people.
You seem to further indicate a bias against religion by trying to find that religious people cannot, in some way or another, be libertarians, and that's just not true.
so create a libertarian god is useful
to do this we must, cherry pick from existing gods, edit existing gods, or create manmade gods .
we can create a "make your own god" website.
we have self proclaimed fundamentalists that say those that don't accept that god has ordered violations of libertarian values have cherry picked, or edited god.
cab21: disobay or edit orders from god to be a libertarian.
cab21: we must, cherry pick from existing gods, edit existing gods, or create manmade gods .
While creating a libertarian religion *might* be useful, it really is not necessary, especially in a stateless society. Religion is just a system of beliefs and ethics. Just because someone says they are, for example, Christian, does not mean that they do not break one of the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule. So in a similar manner, just because someone says they believe in, for example, your created libertarian god, does not mean that they won't violate the NAP.
Really, the bigger issue, I think, is collectivism. There are religious people that act very collectivist-minded. Perhaps this is how the Crusades began. One guy says "We should go kill those other guys that believe in that other religion that are in the holy land because God told me to!" and then others were like "Well, shoot, I believe in the same religion as that guy, so I'm with him!"
Its just like political collectivism. Some poor person says "We should raise taxes on the 1% because we are entitled to take their money if we pass those laws!" and then others say, "Well, shoot, I'm not part of the 99% so therefore, I'm with that guy!"
Collectivism is individuals choosing to act as a group instead of thinking for themselves and deciding what the best course of action for them, individually, is. This is the probably one of the biggest causes of violations of rights and the by far, the biggest causes of war, in history. Blaming religion for war is similar, in my opinion, to blaming guns for murder. It is individuals that do these things, and in the case of war, it's individuals giving into collectivism.
I don't think religious and non-religious people can live together peacefully unless the religious people are not prostletizing.
Really, the bigger issue, I think, is collectivism. Collectivism is individuals choosing to act as a group instead of thinking for themselves and deciding what the best course of action for them, individually, is.
Really, the bigger issue, I think, is collectivism.
Collectivism is individuals choosing to act as a group instead of thinking for themselves and deciding what the best course of action for them, individually, is.
Agreed, but I have little faith that the majority of human beings can think for themselves.
...call me a misanthrope.
Man is a herd animal. Trying to change man's nature is utopian. Better that we recognize the reality of the situation and use it to our advantage; if men won't think for themselves, then at least make sure that the icons they venerate mindlessly are liberal icons.
That entirely depends on whether the proselityzing is peaceful persuation or forcible conversation.
collectivism is part of religion, or i'm not sure of many that reject collectivism.
the commandment to honer thy father seems to be that a person should be honered not by virture or choice, but by genetics.
perhaps it can work to focus on "don't throw the first stone and let god sort things out when we die".
another element that could work is "god gave me this land, but i have to trade or obtain it from you peacefully, if you choose not to trade with me peacefully, i will let you go and optain land elsewhere, but god will judge you when you die"
right now i do have the feeling that people use "god told me to do X, god will punish me if i don't do X, god tells me you are on land you don't own and god will punish me if i do not fight for the land that god has given me, therefore i must defend the land from your occupation in order to obey god".
someone homesteads some land, then another comes along and says the land belongs to them by order of god and that it's a sin to not defend the land from the homesteaders agression against gods judgement.
I don't think collectivism is essential to religion, especially not all religions. Christ taught that you don't need churh to have a relationship to God. And he basically gave as his only command, the Golden Rule.
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
A great paper on how to interpret Christ as coming to call men to liberty, and to embrace voluntarism and anarcho-capitalism and reject the state. Please give it a shot.
Now, I will grant that some people will remain aggressive, but that cannot be changed by force, and to do so would be anti-libertarian anyway. I think a key to getting people to reject collectivism and statism is spreading the ideas of liberty and free markets. It might not work for all peoples, but it surely couldn't hurt. (;
ok the paper says the vast majority of people calling themselves Christians are actually being manipulated and falling into satins trap and are not true Christians. alright
people are encouraged to share that not believing in god will send them to hell, that only by volunteering to love god, can we be saved through gods grace through our voluntary faith.
one cannot be mandated to pay for a church, one can only voluntarily pay for a church, if one does not voluntarily pay for a church, one will go to hell? thus to go to heaven it's mandatory to pay for a church? perhaps I'm missing this and it's only saying it's mandatory to pay god love to go to heaven and that no material good need to be transferred on earth?
so all we have to do to be with god, is to voluntarily give our love, but we go to hell should we choose to voluntarily not give god our love? is that a real choice, or are we essentially mandated to voluntarily give god love as the alternative is a absurd choice?
seems to be saying that choosing to reject god is choosing to aggress against god and violate libertarian principles, therefor hell is gods defensive response to people that aggress against god. hell is also the place where deceived people go and people are punished for their own deception or ignorance dispute the fact they would have chosen god and to love god voluntarily if they knew the truth.
seems the victim gets the same punishment as the victimizer, they both go to hell
I'm not sure how big the "Christ is against the state of Israel and does not recognize it's sovereignty" movement is, but it seems ok if it grows
Robert p murphy is a christian i think? Im a christian too, though it is hard sometimes. Its not what you DO, persay, its also about faith/belief, and because of your faithit is given that you will do good works. Good works dont come first, its the belief/faith in jesus, and because you love jesus you do good works.
It makes sense right? If you have faith it is a given that you do good works. Which is why faith without works is dead.
I dont see how christianity is against NAP, it follows it. While christians are called to spread the word of God, it is not geniuine if we FORCE people to believe, (for what is belief if it is forced?).
Alot of heat comes from the homosexuality issue; i dont know why many people diss christians for hating homosexuals, but from what ive seen alot of people at my church think homosexuality is wrong, but dont hate on gay people.
heterosexuality can be just as wrong as Homosexuality- both of them can bring about lust and corruption too.
As for the issue of collectivism, yes i see your point, but it gets weird if christianity is split into so many different branches- catholic, orthodox, protestant, then under protestant you have, evnagelica, baptist, lutheran, etc etc etc)
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
something about christianity is it seems each denomination says all the other ones are false and doing the work of satan and will go to hell.
the newist one is the one i see today saying jesus is a anarch capitalist. it says any support of a state is satans work and people will go to hell if they support a a state on earth. what about isreal and the kings isreal had and the governments in jewish history? these were all satanic? moses government was satanic? king david was satanic?
in the ot it seems like families were killed for rejecting god and a state on earth with moses. in the new testament that people go to hell for not voluntarily loving and having faith in jesus.
--------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTLsOgSyno
so i watched that video
it does not explain why there have been governments in jewish history if god is against governments, god has apointed governments in the bible. either god has appointed government on earth, or jewish history is filled with satans deception including moses.
the video also comes to different conclusions in events from the article, the article says the richest were bad because they were theives, this video talked about it being to obey god without calling the rich man a criminal who got rich by theft.
the video says men cause problems, the article says satan causes men to cause problems
the video says things would be legal, but sinful, i thought libertarianism was was all that is moral is legal and ok and only the immoral would be illegal?
saying that's bad , so i won't associete with the person, seems different from saying the person will go to hell because they did something legal but immoral. while the person is not personaly using a threat, they are saying that the threat is from god, and god will deal with the sin that was legal on this earth by punishment in the afterlife
in the video it seems he says that a anarch capitalist view of the bible is not a fundamentalist view, so what is there to say the view is not cherry picking and creating evidence to fit a conclusion?
give ceasar what is ceasars, but nothing belongs to ceasar because ceasar stole the money and the position, but what about moses or other jewish governments?
what about this 2 Chronicles 24:9
And proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in for the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.
the verse says that moses was both appointed by god to be a servant of god and collect taxes from the people in the state of isael. sounds like a government that taxed with gods authority to me. was moses appointed by god or by satan? did moses do the work of god or satan? or is moses a legend made up for a cause? jesus as a legend made up for a cause? god as a legend made up for a cause? satan as a legend made up for a cause?
if god wanted anarch capitalism, he could have done that through more works on anarch capitalism, right now i'm still wondering why god would choose a people with a certain genetic code to be his people and lead them through wars and slavery and give them promised land and then to call that ancap? it sounds more like a jewish legend to give reason for the jews to have the land through tribal conquest and non ancap methods.
would not ancap mean a rejection of the concept of a state or nation called isrial and the collective that would be ownership through genetic code by gods will? with moses, those that did not want to follow what god said to moses, were killed, they were not given freedom to leave and form their own society, they were not allowed secession, and this included the infants of parents that chose to not follow moses to kill even the bloodlines.
i will give that god and jesus was against the roman government, but i still question that god and jesus was against a isrial or jewish government, as god created isriel and jewish governments,. if god supoorts ancap, were there jewish kings such as king david? this is of course if the writings are true and not legends created by man.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/monarchy.html
"That entirely depends on whether the proselityzing is peaceful persuation or forcible conversation."
I think even so called peaceful persuation would be unacceptable a definitely considerred harassment and an attempt to con people out of money to atheists.
do we have any links from jewish religion or muslim religion about god being a ancap? i find it strange god would supposedly go 4000 years before telling people that he does not approve of any government on earth after creating governments with rules, regulations, and taxes and killing dissenters for 4000 years. we have 2000 more years of governments with rules, regulations, taxes, so it looks like christians did not get the memo if they are supposed to be ancap/
heres a site that aparently has the full content of the site owner's books available. He's a Christian anarchist.
http://www.simpleliberty.org/books/index.htm
For the record, my statement that you quoted should read *conversion* not conversation: typo. I tried to edit it, it didn't work apparently.
I think even so called peaceful persuation would be unacceptable a definitely considerred harassment
It's harassment to try to peacefully convince someone of something? Is that just for religion or does it also apply to politics, art, or any other subjects that people might disagree on? If society can only function when everyone agrees on everything, and there's no debate about anything, then society is doomed anyway.
and an attempt to con people out of money to atheists.
Why would an attempt at persuasion be viewed as an attempt to con people out of money? I don't follow. Now, if you're saying that some people might try to con others out of money in the name of religion, well that's probably true. But some people will also try to con people out of money for a variety of non-religious reasons. I don't see what's special about religious conmen, or why their presence makes it impossible for society to be harmonious.
in one of the prefaces, the guy calls himself agnostic
http://www.simpleliberty.org/giaa/a_brief_statement.htm
they guy says he is a anarchist and reads the bible through a anarchist perspective and anarchist bias.
he seems to say things don't exist simply because he says so, simple saying "there are no examples in the bible of X" does not prove there aren't.
with verses like this, it sounds hard to believe that god promoted self government, if god asks wives to submit to husbands.that requires one person be dominant and the other subdominant.
this is also a case of collective punishment, god punishes mankind for the actions of adam and eve. if not, women die today from childbirth, so what exactly was eve's punishiment that made childbirth harder for her than any other woman if it was not a collective punishment on women?
King James Version (KJV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Genesis
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
saying a husband will rule over the wife hardly sounds like self government.
if anarchy is the lack of a ruler, how can a husband rule over the wife, and how can they both be self governed?
another question i have is about the 10 commandments. there were many more than 10 laws in Jewish states. it says there were 613 in the link below
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3) (CCA47)
how is that law of circumcising male offspring self governed anarchy where the child get's the choice of being circumcised or not?
if we go do unto others, i would not want to circumcise a infant, and i would not want to be circumcised as a infant. how does the infant give consent to be circumcised?
There were no airplanes in bible times. Airplanes and computers are not mentioned in the bible.
Being a christian i guess i should burn down my computer and not fly airplanes.
Slavery was ok in bible times, and women were treated worse than men.
I guess I being the believer in the bible, should find nothing wrong with enslaving a person, and beating women whenever i want to.
In bible times, there were no guns. I guess if god didnt create guns in the bible times, that today i being a christian should not ever ever touch a gun.
In bible times, there was no constitutional government, no presidents, no congress. I guess I being a christian should think that because god didnt create constitutional government back then, that it is satanic (though I being an an-cap think that the government does great evil yes, but not because it didnt exist during bible times).
There were no cellphones back in bible times, i guess i should throw away cellphones because jews at that time didnt have them.
If there is a future medicine, lets say a cure for cancer is found, i guess since during the bible times, there was no cure for cancer that we should oppose all cure for cancer just because it didnt exist back then.
Cab21- Anarchy is the lack of government. In an anarchy you can still have leaders, so long as you join them voluntarily (as it is in a marriage, church, or any club etc)
Cab21- you cite the Women submit yourselves to your husbands, yet you do not cite the part where (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A22-33&version=NIV):
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5^^^^
While wives are called to submit to their husbands, husbands are called to love their wives to the point where you would die for your wife, and to love your wife as yourself.
Cab21- For circumcision i guess youd have to ask an ancap jew.
I'd like to put out Christian theology is not absolute (only to the Christian) and was written for and by a specific group of people. Not sure why quoting 2,000 + year old Jewish myth and folklore would be relevant to modern to North American political systems. If it's a battle of who's scripture is superior why don't we quote the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita and call it a day.