I read this article that inspired me to write this post.
In a nutshell: The less control we think we have over ourselves, the more we abritrarily cede control to authority. If we cannot do it ourselves we hope, even expect something else to do it for us. Is this why we sit in cubicles doing mindless work we hate? Or is it necessity that causes us to cede control? Does a belief in a benevolent god and strong state have the same root?
People waste their lives in cubicles because they were conditioned to accept cubicle life as part of their schooling/brainwashing.
People work in cubicles because the State restricts their employment opportunities. It's very hard to start your own business.
(Writing this post from a cubicle.)
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Agreed. Even the much maligned lazy person would be able to more easily get an easy job that would suit him which would pay more than equivalent jobs (ceterus paribus) due to free entry and the rational allocation of resources.
(Writing this from home.)
jmw:Is this why we sit in cubicles doing mindless work we hate? Or is it necessity that causes us to cede control? Does a belief in a benevolent god and strong state have the same root?
This belief may appeal to the same needs. Interestingly the growth and embracing of state power seems to be correlated with the decay of religion and growth of agonsticism/atheism. People seem to want to rely on something that is in control of the things they don't.
The state is easier to appease than consumers are. So people accept the edicts of the state, the devil they kind of know, against the unknown marketplace.
Interestingly the growth and embracing of state power seems to be correlated with the decay of religion and growth of agonsticism/atheism
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
the power of nightmares
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Juan: Interestingly the growth and embracing of state power seems to be correlated with the decay of religion and growth of agonsticism/atheism Revealed religion has been quite close or even identical to the most brutal forms of statism. Besides, agnosticism is rather different from atheism.
WARNING: peaceniks stop reading now.
I did find that I was more open to the concept of a 'benevolent deity' during my war profiteering days when my life was in constant peril and I was powerless to do anything about it. The whole 'there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole' theory I suppose.
Never really 'found god' but I have been more at peace with the world since then.
I am a lot less likely to cede control these days, I don't really hate my mindless job but I also don't jump through all the hoops they expect me to since I don't really accept that they have 'authority' over me--they simply purchase my labor and pretty much just get what they pay for.
Same with government, they leave me alone and I will follow most of their arbritrary rules but that's mostly since I generally don't act in an 'immoral' manner to begin with so they really have no cause to take issue with my behavior. There are a few exceptions, I haven't shown up for jury duty yet after two summons and haven't filed a tax return for at least six years--doesn't matter anyway since I allegedly owe them a bunch of money so they do it for me and keep my refund. Didn't get my $600 dollar inflationary check though which is somewhat disappointing.
I would doubt that the benevolent god and strong state is related because the god of the Jews 'told' them on multiple occasions of the pitfalls of a State and they did alright without one for a long while until they couldn't resist the temptation to go against the advise of their god and appoint a king. If you believe in that sort of thing that is.
My personal theory on this is that a weak state leads to a strong state because people see others gaming the system and want in on some of that action themselves. They have no problem with the coersive powers they create through this process if the coercion benefits them and when it doesn't then it isn't a problem inherent in the system they built but simply a matter of displacing the group that currently benefits with their group as soon as the first chance arises. The 'small government' Republicans displace the 'big government' Democrats after 25 years in control of both houses of congress and use the systems that the Dems built to benefit their favored groups instead of attacking the coercion and corruption at its heart which was well within their power.
Now the Dems are trying to get 'their man' in charge so they can take back the power and reap the benefits. Seeing no real connection between the abuses commited by the Republicans and the strong State they want to give the state even more power to fix this problem of corruption at the heart of the system.
Who knows, I think I strayed a bit from the original topic.
Anonymous Coward: Same with government, they leave me alone and I will follow most of their arbritrary rules but that's mostly since I generally don't act in an 'immoral' manner to begin with so they really have no cause to take issue with my behavior. There are a few exceptions, I haven't shown up for jury duty yet after two summons and haven't filed a tax return for at least six years--doesn't matter anyway since I allegedly owe them a bunch of money so they do it for me and keep my refund. Didn't get my $600 dollar inflationary check though which is somewhat disappointing.
Isn't there 5% interest a day or something like that? You have some serious balls.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Juan:Well, what about looking up the history of the catholic church for starters ?
That's a claim, not even an example let alone does this explain the point you possibly were trying to make
ChaseCola:Isn't there 5% interest a day or something like that? You have some serious balls.
Nah, the penalties and interest work out to be real close to my projected return. The way it is now I figure it will get paid off somewhere near the turn of the next century if they don't just write it off at the seven year deadline or whenever they need to refile the charges.
But that doesn't matter since they can't legally charge interest and penalties because they weren't in full compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 and one of the clauses of that act is that it can be used as a defense in the administrative or court phase. Something like that, I think that's why they leave me alone anyway.
Until they come into full compliance with that act they can't legally compel anyone to file a tax return. Well, if the judicial branch would actually look into it instead of trying to set precedent based on the theory that the IRS claims they are in compliance by printing it on their forms so therefore they are in compliance. But I really don't expect that to happen as they have a serious conflict of interest since they are paid from tax dollars and have a direct financial interest in seeing that they get collected.
That's my theory anyway, the important thing is that they leave me alone.
Torsten: Juan: Well, what about looking up the history of the catholic church for starters ? That's a claim, not even an example let alone does this explain the point you possibly were trying to make
Juan: Well, what about looking up the history of the catholic church for starters ?
Religion and government are two subsets of ideology, which is to say ideas not based on reality but upon the desire of some people to control others. The structural similarities between government and religion, the nature of their propaganda and the fact that they frequently occupied the same or overlapping positions through 99% of human history illustrates this similarity/congruity. Democratism and Statism generally is the new religion. Rockwell and Hoppe accurately describe the tension between Church and State at present as one of ideological competition, but what they fail to acknowledge is that this competition used to be the other way around. In the past religion justified privelege, violence, power and authority. Republicanism viewed a 'rational' organization of government as a way to get what they wanted. They replaced religious with 'constitutional' justifications, and ecclesiasticism and divine right bureacracies with technocratic and demagogic bureacracies.
R.J. Moore II:Religion and government are two subsets of ideology, which is to say ideas not based on reality but upon the desire of some people to control others.
Well, this is the kind of thing that makes perfect sense to a non-believer and looks like utter gibberish to a believer, right?
JAlanKatz: R.J. Moore II:Religion and government are two subsets of ideology, which is to say ideas not based on reality but upon the desire of some people to control others. Well, this is the kind of thing that makes perfect sense to a non-believer and looks like utter gibberish to a believer, right?
Yes, in the same way that a statist will think you are a maniac if you tell him a bunch of petty men made up an imaginary thing called 'government' to get him to enslave himself to them.
R.J. Moore II:Yes, in the same way that a statist will think you are a maniac if you tell him a bunch of petty men made up an imaginary thing called 'government' to get him to enslave himself to them.
Ok, but I tell you that water is imaginary and made up by Walmart, you will probably give me the same look. The point being, it isn't the look that's important, it's whether or not the thing really exists. So, to you, the idea that God is false and that government is made up to exploit people both look obvious, and those doubting either look the same - like control freaks. To me, on the other hand, while it makes perfect sense to say that government was dreampt up to exploit people, telling me that religion exists only to control people looks as crazy as my water-Walmart claim does to you. Just because some claims of that form are true, and yet not believed and considered to be crazy, doesn't prove that all such claims are true, even if they are considered to be crazy.
To me, it is absurd to suggest that the purpose of religion is control, since I believe that my religion was literally revealed by G-d on a mountaintop. Unless you mean G-d's control of humans, which I'm tempted to agree is the purpose, but isn't something I'm opposed to.
JAlanKatz:To me, it is absurd to suggest that the purpose of religion is control, since I believe that my religion was literally revealed by G-d on a mountaintop. Unless you mean G-d's control of humans, which I'm tempted to agree is the purpose, but isn't something I'm opposed to.
You seriously can't see that there is a disconnect between the original christian church (to use your example) and the system that is in place today with the Pope sitting up high with a direct line to G-d on the Red Phone sitting on his desk?
Same with the Jews, Jesus took issue with their form of coercive religion and was killed for it.
Or Mohammad sending his 'flock' out in Mercedes filled with explosives to blow up civilians in direct opposition to his rules of warfare.
Or Martin Luther?
It's a big step from a few people sitting around on rocks in the desert praying to having a class of people with a monopoly on the functioning of a religious society.
Well, since you support your argument with a story you are telling about a character who isn't consistent internally or with reality I can't really argue with you. It only looks crazy because, for some reason, you have accepted a logically impossible story as a historical narrative. What people think is of course important to them, and important in terms of how they will act, but it is not relevant to the truth of an idea. And since we do live in an objective reality where laws of logic apply, neither god nor the state can be made logical sense of. This can be said with certainty. That some people will not accept this is of psychological and historical significance, but not philosophical.
Juan: Torsten: Juan: Well, what about looking up the history of the catholic church for starters ? That's a claim, not even an example let alone does this explain the point you possibly were trying to make I didn't make a claim but a suggestion. Now this is a claim : the very close connection between church and state is a historical fact. And using fraud to control ignorant and/or naive people is perhaps the oldest form of 'government', known as theocracy.
Your suggestion did actually contain a claim or do you want to deny that? The claim implied was that the history of the catholic church would support your point. That there is a relationship between the church and state isn't in dispute. However it is also a fact that the church counterbalanced many political abuses throughout Western history, because it provided ordinary folk with an alternative authority to turn, too. That both political and religious institutions often act in hegemony can be subscribed to the fact that there was an ideological hegemony in existence.
While the occurence of religious fraud is not in dispute - You still would have to prove that this is universally the case.
An interesting article on the subject by Ralph Raico: http://mises.org/story/2404
I think Walther Block has written something interesting on this as well.
That there is a relationship between the church and state isn't in dispute. However it is also a fact that the church counterbalanced many political abuses throughout Western history, because it provided ordinary folk with an alternative authority to turn to.
Anonymous Coward: You seriously can't see that there is a disconnect between the original christian church (to use your example) and the system that is in place today with the Pope sitting up high with a direct line to G-d on the Red Phone sitting on his desk? Same with the Jews, Jesus took issue with their form of coercive religion and was killed for it.
I don't see how that's my example, my particular case in point was Judaism, which I hold was revealed on Sinai. Jesus was turned over to Roman authorities by one Jew, and according to the Talmud, there were many rabbis arguing that this was inappropriate. He did more than take issue with the religion, though, he also, for instance, declared himself King.
Juan:I read Block's article posted on LRC and I was not impressed by it at all. Arguments like "well the church was not that bad because it killed less people than the state" don't seem sound to me.
I think that's the core fallacy of your "argument" - There is no such thing as the church.
So what your argument boils down to, is the following: Because there was wrongdoing of some of the roleplayers,
All the roleplayers and by that the institution itself must be false, wrong, evil or whatever.
Block did however have a look at the bigger picture an stressed that counterbalancing role churches did play during history against the political roleplayers
There's of course more to look at, since Christianity was the set of ideas that influenced many people and hence ideas in Western Civilization.
Well that doesn't mean one has to embrace all the televangelists, crusaders, philozionists etc. that populate many churches.
Just because that favoring the idea of liberty, doesn't mean that we have to embrace every single bomb planter that opposes government, now does it?
JAlanKatz: Anonymous Coward: You seriously can't see that there is a disconnect between the original christian church (to use your example) and the system that is in place today with the Pope sitting up high with a direct line to G-d on the Red Phone sitting on his desk? Same with the Jews, Jesus took issue with their form of coercive religion and was killed for it. I don't see how that's my example, my particular case in point was Judaism, which I hold was revealed on Sinai. Jesus was turned over to Roman authorities by one Jew, and according to the Talmud, there were many rabbis arguing that this was inappropriate. He did more than take issue with the religion, though, he also, for instance, declared himself King.
Just a guess, I figured it was one of the Abrahamic religions.
I seem to remember a trial of Jesus that was instigated by the Jewish majority in that movie I saw.
Or him kicking over the moneychanger's tables that were part of a scheme by the church to skim from the tax dollars that were required to be paid by the citizens.
Jim Morrison declared himself the Lizard King, why should anyone care enough to kill that person just because they declared themselves King unless you accept the validity of their claim?
Eric Clapton's nickname is God, should we kill him too?
Weren't the guys who turned him over to the Romans a small extremist sect?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The full sentence was:
Just because that one is favoring the idea of liberty, doesn't mean that we have to embrace every single bomb planter that opposes government, now does it?
It's seems that your whole reason for not acknowledging the positive role christianity played in Western history boils down to abuses by a few as well as general human fallibility being misrepresented for the sake of creating a "christianity" straw man.
On the other hand all the moral, philosophical and yes also scientific impulses that christianity lead to are simply ignored.
Torsten: The full sentence was: Just because that one is favoring the idea of liberty, doesn't mean that we have to embrace every single bomb planter that opposes government, now does it? It's seems that your whole reason for not acknowledging the positive role christianity played in Western history boils down to abuses by a few as well as general human fallibility being misrepresented for the sake of creating a "christianity" straw man. On the other hand all the moral, philosophical and yes also scientific impulses that christianity lead to are simply ignored.
Well I reject the premise that Christianity has enhanced liberty in "the west". On the contrary, I'd argue that what has enhanced liberty in "the west" has been the revival of Greek (and particularly Aristotilean) thought, and liberty began to increase precisely when religious orthodoxy was beginning to be seriously questioned (I.E. the enlightenment). Practically all of the proto-libertarian thinkers throughout western history were not really Christians (at least by traditional standards), they were deists at best.
Of course, I also view the formal Christian religion (not so much the original Christians, which was just a particular flavor of Judaism, such as the Nazoreans) as a direct product of the Roman state to begin with, for the purposes of unifying the public so that they can more easily be controled. Furthermore, I view traditional Christian morality as the perfect ideology to enable servitude, and it really does seem to boil down to a strong emphasis on servitude and sacrifice.
Jon Irenicus: Weren't the guys who turned him over to the Romans a small extremist sect? -Jon
Technically, yes. However, that small extremist sect (the pharisees) were also in the seat of power during that time. And they didn't just turn him over, they stood in force and demanded his execution even though Pilate said he found nothing to convict him with.
Brainpolice:Well I reject the premise that Christianity has enhanced liberty in "the west".
Weren't you just condemming the historical school in another thread, or was that someone else? A Christian strickly following the New Testament (or even a Jew strickly adhering to the Old) isn't going to infringe on your rights in any way at all.
Stolz2525: Brainpolice:Well I reject the premise that Christianity has enhanced liberty in "the west". Weren't you just condemming the historical school in another thread, or was that someone else? A Christian strickly following the New Testament (or even a Jew strickly adhering to the Old) isn't going to infringe on your rights in any way at all.
That must have been someone else.
Please explain to me how a strict adherance to the bible would naturally lead to a purely voluntaristic ethic. I fail to see this. From what I can tell, at least in America, the vast majority of self-identified "Christians" use the bible to inform their politics, which leads them to advocate state policies enforcing their religious preferances onto the masses. You can of course point me to libertarians or anarchists who are Christians, but such people are an exception to the general rule and do not represent a common interpretation of the bible.
Brainpolice: I'd argue that what has enhanced liberty in "the west" has been the revival of Greek (and particularly Aristotilean) thought, and liberty began to increase precisely when religious orthodoxy was beginning to be seriously questioned (I.E. the enlightenment).
There is a theory that the followers of Mohammad, before the Turkish corruption, were the main source of Liberty flowing back into the west.
It isn't too coincidental that the Enlightment started in cities who were major international trading centers that had weak central governments and spread out from there. Or that Spain under European rule had a signifigant number of people who were formerly free embark upon the dangerous voyage to the New World to seek freedom and escape the Spanish Inquisition.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Yeh, there's a nice little number I found here: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
809,215,732 death toll from religious wars. Some of the data may be dubious though, so even if we assume that only 50% of it is correct, that would still be the equivalent of over 67 holocausts.
At which point in time, I don't really care about the goodness and spirituality that religion may bring about in people. Since I don't think there's any truth value in it anyway, then considering the death toll, the consequences of religion by far outweigh any benefits. This number also destroys the idea that religion is somehow an incentive for morality.
P.S. If someone has the time and knowledge, it would be nice if they could critically analyse that source to see how much of it is credible or not.
Careful not to lay the blame soley on religious institutions..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities. Fervently held "-isms"can lead to all sorts of bad things--regardless of intentions.
To those who doubt the value of religion consider the order Confucianism brought to the Warring states period. Consider the monoculture that Christianity created in Europe--and the great thinkers who were, incidentally, monks. Inherent truth or falsehood of belief is irrelevant in these cases.
Oh yes, what an oh so great "monoculture" of theocracy and mercantalism Europe had.
Fred Furash: Yeh, there's a nice little number I found here: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon 809,215,732 death toll from religious wars. Some of the data may be dubious though, so even if we assume that only 50% of it is correct, that would still be the equivalent of over 67 holocausts.
Well, I don't think that my religious belief implies believing that bad things aren't done in the name of religion. Aren't bad things done in the name of anarchy? But, this kind of argument only matters if you start out by believing that religion is false. If it is true, this is irrelevant. If the world weren't made better through religion, then G-d wouldn't have taught it to us.
Here's a question - if people hadn't killed each other over religion, what else might they have killed each other over? Who is to say that those deaths, and more, couldn't have come about in wars fought over other topics?
Religion helps support war.
It's one thing to tell soldiers "If you die in combat, you will rewarded with an eternity of pleasure."
It's another thing to tell soldiers "If you die in combat, that's it, it's over. You wasted the only life you get."
Christianity is a slave religion. If you brainwash people "It's acceptable to suffer abuse while living, because you will be rewarded after you die", then you're training people to be slaves.
Anybody who claims they know what happens after you die is a fool/troll or is conning you.
JAlanKatz: Here's a question - if people hadn't killed each other over religion, what else might they have killed each other over? Who is to say that those deaths, and more, couldn't have come about in wars fought over other topics?
What kind of an argument is that? So you're saying that just because people might still kill each other for another reason, we shouldn't get rid of the current one?
But yeh fsk is right, religion is one of if not the greatest incentive for war on a soldier level.
jmw: Careful not to lay the blame soley on religious institutions..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities.
Careful not to lay the blame soley on religious institutions..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities.
For the sake of argument, let's replace "religious institutions" with "government". See what we get:
"Careful not to lay the blame soley on government..it's the human mind that made them up, and the human that acted on the atrocities."
Oh look, a wonderful defense of statism...except it's not.