I find it a little strange that those who believe that governments screw up economies in every way imaginable can still follow today's religions (mainly the "big 3"). Haven't government and politics also screwed religion up enough to create skepticism about it as well? Or is there some original text that those who are against government have and/or believe in that others do not, that allow them to practice their faith without ever having to worry about government tampering with it? Maybe we could compare following today's Christian faith to driving on a public road, for those who advocate for a stateless society? Sometimes you just have no choice. I don't know.
Personally an apatheist with first principle deist leanings, but there are certain forms of Christianity such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites etc that do have a good record when it comes to opposition to war and the state in general. It ought also should be taken into consideration that as long as they don't receive funds through coercion churches can provide an alternative to state institutions; in terms of education and charity for example. I'll agree with you that most religions and religious people are in bed with the state, but it's not inherently inconsistent to be religious and be against the state.
CrazyCoot: Personally an apatheist with first principle deist leanings, but there are certain forms of Christianity such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites etc that do have a good record when it comes to opposition to war and the state in general. It ought also should be taken into consideration that as long as they don't receive funds through coercion churches can provide an alternative to state institutions; in terms of education and charity for example. I'll agree with you that most religions and religious people are in bed with the state, but it's not inherently inconsistent to be religious and be against the state.
I'm more or less talking about the teachings of the actual religions themselves. For example, there are and have been many different versions of the Bible due to politics. Why would someone who is against the state read the King James version of the Bible and follow it, for example?
jmorris84:Why would someone who is against the state read the King James version of the Bible and follow it, for example?
Me? I belong to the Cult of Zeus. Thunderbolts > floods, Hercules >> Jesus
I'm not really getting the connection here. Moreover, believing in God or reading the Bible does not necessarily make one religious in the sense that one doesn't have to go to church and believe what everyone else believes just because one believes in God or reads the bible.
I've heard some convincing arguments to be made for the notion that the Render unto Caesar passage was a lot more radical in terms of anti-statism than most folks think .
I don't know; part of me believes that religious institutions can provide alternative institutions to the state and they can give people some moral fiber while resisting the state. But another part does acknowledge that their record of supporting the state, equating opposition to the regime with opposition to God, living off taxpayers' dollars, and for the most part preaching the notion (as Hitchens put it) of a deity who has a lot in common with Kim Jong-Il.
The part of the New Testament that strikes me as the most pro-anarchist is the one where the Devil promises Jesus reign over all the kingdoms of the Earth. Perhaps he was lying and did not have the power to give away the crowns. But what if he were telling Jesus the truth?
Snowflake: jmorris84:Why would someone who is against the state read the King James version of the Bible and follow it, for example? Faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith everyone else around me is christian. Me? I belong to the Cult of Zeus. Thunderbolts > floods, Hercules >> Jesus
---
THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS (THE PENTABARF)The PENTABARF was discovered by the hermit Apostle Zarathud in the Fifth Year of The Caterpillar. He found them carved in gilded stone, while building a sun deck for his cave, but their import was lost for they were written in a mysterious cypher. However, after 10 weeks & 11 hours of intensive scrutiny he discerned that the message could be read by standing on his head and viewing it upside down.KNOW YE THIS O MAN OF FAITH!I - There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your Goddess. There is no Erisian Movement but The Erisian Movement and it is The Erisian Movement. And every Golden Apple Corps is the beloved home of a Golden Worm.II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document Numbering System.III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE TRANSGRESSICUTED.
http://principiadiscordia.com/book/11.php
well, I have more "problems" with atheistic statists than religious anarchists (which I encountered very few). In my opinion State does more damage than fairy tales about gods. Though these too are not very mutually exclusive as they thrive on indoctrination from generation to generation.
But anyway, religion is usually personal thing, while advocating for a sate is...not so personal
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
As a Catholic anarchist I understand how ancaps get mad at people of faith, but I don't think it's necessarily think it's faith that's to blame. It seems to be political apathy. I've had many discussions with Catholic priests/sisters about politics and they really can't come up with good reasons for believing in statism. The only thing I've come across is that Thomas Aquinas seemed to say the state was legitimate, but then I point out that Catholics today don't believe everything he says because we've learned since then.
Religious anarchists are hard to come by since anarchy is not the natural state of thinking for most, so to question the need for a state also undermines other previously held beliefs.
Can you rephrase the first scentence please? Because as I'm reading it now it seems total gibberish.
If there's a single thing that I think Nietzche got almost totally correct it was religeon, so let me make this very clear.
GOD IS DEAD AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM.
Ironically however I consider radicle agnoticism to be the only really logical position.
I'm sure the beliefs of the Church of Satan are widely libertarian in nature.
jmorris84: I find it a little strange that those who believe that governments screw up economies in every way imaginable can still follow today's religions (mainly the "big 3"). Haven't government and politics also screwed religion up enough to create skepticism about it as well?
I find it a little strange that those who believe that governments screw up economies in every way imaginable can still follow today's religions (mainly the "big 3"). Haven't government and politics also screwed religion up enough to create skepticism about it as well?
Why would you find it hard in the first place Morris? As far as I am concerned, a State that tampers with religious structures and doctrines does not naturally follow that a religion ought to be viewed with suspicion either, nor does it disprove it either (Unless the State originated the religion itself, as is the case of North Korea's official religion ).
jmorris84: Or is there some original text that those who are against government have and/or believe in that others do not, that allow them to practice their faith without ever having to worry about government tampering with it?
Or is there some original text that those who are against government have and/or believe in that others do not, that allow them to practice their faith without ever having to worry about government tampering with it?
Odd demand you are making Jmorris. That a religious text condemns coercive governments or not is irrelevant. In case you don't know, this is the sad reality of devoted Christians in China. The Communist Party of China does not permit ministers that are not approved by them, practically keeping some of the churches there under their thumb. And then you got the Clandestine Churches in China that refuse to obey the statutes of the Communist Party, many of them dying in the process. What devotee of any system of belief is NOT going to worry when you got a State going after you?
jmorris84: Maybe we could compare following today's Christian faith to driving on a public road, for those who advocate for a stateless society? Sometimes you just have no choice. I don't know.
Maybe we could compare following today's Christian faith to driving on a public road, for those who advocate for a stateless society? Sometimes you just have no choice. I don't know.
Eh... I dont really understand your analogy regarding those who are devotees to Christianity driving a public road, and also advocating a Stateless society. Can you clear up a bit?
jmorris84: I find it a little strange that those who believe that governments screw up economies in every way imaginable can still follow today's religions (mainly the "big 3"). Haven't government and politics also screwed religion up enough to create skepticism about it as well? Or is there some original text that those who are against government have and/or believe in that others do not, that allow them to practice their faith without ever having to worry about government tampering with it? Maybe we could compare following today's Christian faith to driving on a public road, for those who advocate for a stateless society? Sometimes you just have no choice. I don't know.
I don't get the hostility towards people who follow a religion and do their best to abide by the NAP. Are they really that threatening? I mean, a statist is a statist no matter their race, gender or religion.
CrazyCoot: I've heard some convincing arguments to be made for the notion that the Render unto Caesar passage was a lot more radical in terms of anti-statism than most folks think .
Truth be told, the expression "Render unto Caesar what belong's to Caesars and to God what belongs to God" was hardly an anti-statist expression (That's the modernist reader inserting values that did not exist in that time period). The expression is declaring, to put it in our terms, "Because this coin has the face of the Caesar, lets get rid of this coin and be rid of it's image amongst us!" An answer that cleverly satisfied Judaic separatist notions, yet at the same time, did not incur the wrath of Rome either, and in effect, leaving his questioners who challenged him with the question looking like idiots.
There was no such thing as Separation of Church and State in that era, or to put it in their terms (I hate anachronisms), no Separation of a religious system and a domain of a lord.
CrazyCoot: I don't know; part of me believes that religious institutions can provide alternative institutions to the state and they can give people some moral fiber while resisting the state.
Some people do that.
CrazyCoot: But another part does acknowledge that their record of supporting the state, equating opposition to the regime with opposition to God, living off taxpayers' dollars, and for the most part preaching the notion (as Hitchens put it) of a deity who has a lot in common with Kim Jong-Il.
Many do so so, your point? Pfftt, that comparison that Hitchens pulls off be nothing more than a Strawman of God, typical of Fundamentalist Atheists like Hitchens.
CrazyCoot: The part of the New Testament that strikes me as the most pro-anarchist is the one where the Devil promises Jesus reign over all the kingdoms of the Earth. Perhaps he was lying and did not have the power to give away the crowns. But what if he were telling Jesus the truth?
There is nothing pro-anarchist regarding Jesus' rejection of lordship of the world, that's you reading your own modernistic values and understanding in a text where no such values existed in it's time period. Satan was not lying when he offered every kingdom on Earth, but what Satan did was the equivalent of offering a dime to a person that already owned billions and billions of dollars (It in effect, portrays Satan as a fool.). It's a Shame and Riposte challenge, one that Satan lost miserably in the narrative. There is nothing anarchist about it (Jesus, as King, is going to retake the world either way by establishing his kingdom on Earth, making Satan's offer all the more silly).
I'm a christian anarchist. The OP makes very little sense, and I'm not sure how to respond to it. Instead, I'll say a few things to say about the relationship between christianity and anarchism.
First of all, christianity implies anarchism. Under the ethical system prescribed in the the Bible, States of any sort are immoral. This is explicitly stated in I Samuel 8. Moreover, many other passages have anarchist implications. "Do not steal" comes to mind. Acts 5:4, The parable of the vineyard, and the parable of the talents imply that people have the right to do as they please with their money. This right is incompatible with the existence of a state. Moreover, heaven and the garden of Eden (the biblical portrayal of perfection) are both stateless. Finally, freedom and individual responsibility are central to the message of the bible. These concepts that are impossible to reconcile with stateism.
The question of why there aren't more christian anarchists is a tough one, I admit. I think it stems from several things. First, from the unfortunate tradition that the church (particularity the catholic church) has had with authoritarianism. I suppose the inference is that if the church can control people's lives, then it's okay for the State to do so as well. This view is supremely unbiblical, but it is perpetrated by those with religious authority, and it is unquestioned by their sycophantic drones. Secondly, the State is the result of, and the punishment for sin. This is also implied in 1 Samuel 8, as well as in the garden of Eden story. As soon as Adam sinned, God forcibly evicted them from the garden, and sent a coercive figure (an angel with a sword) to guard his private property. Yes, an angel is not a state, but it was a sign of things to come.
I Samuel 8
Heya bro, a couple observations here regarding some understandings you hold regarding Bible writ, and how it translates in Anarcho Capitalist Christian Ethos and values.
Jesse: I'm a christian anarchist. The OP makes very little sense, and I'm not sure how to respond to it. Instead, I'll say a few things to say about the relationship between christianity and anarchism.
True, the OP was not exactly the shine of comprehension.
Jesse: First of all, christianity implies anarchism. Under the ethical system prescribed in the the Bible, States of any sort are immoral. This is explicitly stated in I Samuel 8.
I disagree. Remember that the existence of Private Property does not mean an absence of Lords and Masters. In Property Rights terminology, the one who is proprietor of a thing is by definition, lord over that thing, and can do whatever he/she pleases with it, this includes land properties. If one wishes to work or live in the field in the private property of another, he/she must submit to the rules or laws the owner of that property has erected.
What the Israelites did in the narrative of 1 Samuel 8 has nothing to do with the evils of the State. What's going on here is the equivalent of the employees of a company demanding the replacement of their boss, on the basis that their boss makes the company look weak against their competition, and they want a "stronger" looking boss that will make the company look more powerful. They allowed their concern with how the nations around them thought of them get the best of them, and wanted a warrior king to lead them in battle (So it can also hardly even be called coercive the demand of having a king in the first place! The Israelites knew damn well what was it in for them, but their sense of superficial honor got the best of them. They preferred the honor of men, instead of the honor of God). (Oh, and mind you that remember that honor-shame dialectic was the social dynamic that governed their behaviour, honor being defined as how others looked at you in positive fashion, whilst shame is others looking at you in a negative fashion).
Remember that the land that constituted ancient Israel was considered the private property of God himself, a point God stated in Leviticus 25:23. The Israelites themselves were never coerced to sign the contract either. The book of Deuteronomy is in truth a contract, a contract that Israelites willingly signed and were expected to honor (And you know as well as I do how they kept breaking the contract again and again and again, in contrast with God, who always kept His end of the bargain).
Jesse: Moreover, many other passages have anarchist implications. "Do not steal" comes to mind. Acts 5:4,
No objections here, but I would hardly have the "Do not steal" as exclusive to anarchism.
Jesse: The parable of the vineyard, and the parable of the talents imply that people have the right to do as they please with their money.
This was pretty much a given amongst ancients. He/She who is lord of a land, is lord of it, nuff said.
Jesse: This right is incompatible with the existence of a state. Moreover, heaven and the garden of Eden (the biblical portrayal of perfection) are both stateless.
It is Stateless, but neither it is lordless. The Garden of Eden was still the private property of God, and Adam was merely it's occupier, who still has to answer to God. (The expression, Image of God, in ancient thought, was an idiom of Representative of God. If memory serves, being the Image of a king in ancient thought conveyed that you were his representative, and thus, possessed his authority as well, examples of other ancient literature back this up).
Jesse: Finally, freedom and individual responsibility are central to the message of the bible. These concepts that are impossible to reconcile with stateism.
I would hardly deem it the central message of Bible writ, that's your own modernistic values being shoved in a text where none of it existed, at least, not in the terms that your thinking.
Firstly, freedom, as we conceive it, is never talked about in the Bible. The ancients had a completely different understanding of Freedom, it was understood like this (to cite Malina and Neyrey, Biblical Scholars of the Context Group):
"When ancient Mediterraneans speak of 'freedom,' they generally understand the term as both freedom from slavery to one lord or master, and freedom to enter the service of another lord or benefactor."
Secondly, yes, there are verses that imply individual responsibility, but they are expressed in terms of being accountable to the in-group you belonged in (In the case of the Christians, the Church). The ancients were collectivists, and being accountable to the group you were in (family, clan, tribe, nation, etc), was what took precedence. Failure for being individually responsible meant that those within your in-group will suffer the consequences (welcome to the reality of corporate responsibility of the Ancient Middle East).
Jesse: The question of why there aren't more christian anarchists is a tough one, I admit. I think it stems from several things. First, from the unfortunate tradition that the church (particularity the catholic church) has had with authoritarianism. I suppose the inference is that if the church can control people's lives, then it's okay for the State to do so as well.
I don't consider it tought at all, because I suspect that your average human being believes that States are a natural thing of humanity, at least that's my take on it. In many ways it has cooperated with many authoritarian governments (in 19th Century Latinamerica, the State, together with the RCChurch, were concieved as being the enforcers of morality). But do not forget a huge deal of it's oppositions towards authoritarianism as well (By the 20th, Latinamerican dictators deemed the RCChurch an incredible nuisance, and kicked them out of their affairs). For example, The very same Roman Catholic Church were opposed to the dictatorships that plagued Latinamerica in the 20th century, and many noble hearted priests were killed for it (And there were of many flavors. There were some with socialist orientation, but there were others who didn't give a crap regarding political ideologies, and merely sought to defend communities, pure and simple).
Jesse: This view is supremely unbiblical, but it is perpetrated by those with religious authority, and it is unquestioned by their sycophantic drones.
I agree on this one as well.
Jesse: Secondly, the State is the result of, and the punishment for sin. This is also implied in 1 Samuel 8, as well as in the garden of Eden story.
The State the result of our sins? Well, I must admit you are half right regarding this matter. Because the masses are too foolish to recognize the irrationality that IS the State, and refuse to stop feeding the State apparatus with their taxes because they are too chicken to conceive of Stateless societies, they will get their rears handed to them, just as it happened in 1 Samuel 8. But I will hardly deem that this was implied in the Garden of Eden (The only thing it implied, Adam and Eve violated their end of the bargain in Eden, and God rightly exiled them out of Eden just as a Landlord, that instructed his tenant not to keep pets in the apartment, but did either way, and evicts the unfaithful tenant).
Jesse: As soon as Adam sinned, God forcibly evicted them from the garden, and sent a coercive figure (an angel with a sword) to guard his private property. Yes, an angel is not a state, but it was a sign of things to come.
Not sure what Rabbinical or Biblical scholar would agree with this interpretation regarding what the angel represented... 0.o
The mass atheism we see today is a product of Marxian thought.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: The mass atheism we see today is a product of Marxian thought.
Can you elaborate a bit further on that?
Personally I am a Christian Voluntaryist. However, it's sad that I rarely see writings in the Austrian Tradition on religion in particular (I found the section in the Literature section here and it looked so dead ). This thread has struck my attention massively in the case for applying Christianity in Austrian thought. Can anyone suggest specific readings/Biblical texts, etc. that show the libertarianism/anarchism in the Bible more thoroughly?
I remember there was this article as well:
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/Anarcho-Theocracy.htm
^ Outlines very clearly the ideas of Christianity and Anarchism. I found it a nice read. Anybody have particular pieces of literature, however?
CrazyCoot:The part of the New Testament that strikes me as the most pro-anarchist is the one where the Devil promises Jesus reign over all the kingdoms of the Earth. Perhaps he was lying and did not have the power to give away the crowns. But what if he were telling Jesus the truth?
What I find interesting is that in the oldie, it is god who promises Abraham the very same thing for his progenitors. But somehow when gods does it its fine, but when satan does it its eeeeevil. Typical statist moral relativism.
Esuric:The mass atheism we see today is a product of Marxian thought.
Funny... I didn't know Richard Dawkins was a marxist.
Conza88:Funny... I didn't know Richard Dawkins was a marxist.
You don't have to be a Marxist to be influenced by Marxian thought. What percentage of the population still adheres to the exploitation theory of interest? And how many are able to actually identify the source of their confusion? Those who have never heard of Marx will say, with absolute certainty, that businessmen exploit their workers for profit. Marx's theories, to this day, are omnipresent. He is probably the most influential economics of all-times.
In Germany, the government collects taxes for the church. Hitler introduced it and it was conveniently never gotten rid of.
Well I got a sort of strongly leftist felling while reading his otherwise great works, but that is beside the point. I myself know many, many atheist who could hardly be further form being Marxists.
And in general, I think Molineux hits it when he portrays organized religion and statism as being what microcosmic would call “close substitution goods”. If you have more of one, you can get rid of the other. Hence the strange dichotomy we witness increasingly nowadays: you have atheist or agnostic leftists and libertarian Christian fundamentalists.
Of course the whole argument includes only those who need such mental constructs at all. Those who don’t, have the luxury of avoiding both. Those who are desperate, need both.
Merlin:Of course the whole argument includes only those who need such mental constructs at all. Those who don’t, have the luxury of avoiding both.
Luxury is a good word. Atheism has no restrictions. You can basically believe whatever you if you accept that the universe created itself, or is part of some random infinite regression. Leftist atheists are not bound by discursive reasoning, and don't find internal contradictions problematic.
Merlin:Those who are desperate, need both.
Accepting both is untenable in my opinion. If you believe in a God, that granted you free will and indubitable rights, you cannot believe that any man is sovereign over you or your property. The blind leading the blind type of thing. But, of course, protestants hold a purely deterministic position which rejects free-will. Thus, the protestant position can logically defend (if you accept its premises) certain institutional arrangements which can "guide you" (giving the state authority and legitimacy).
Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
@andius
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Andius:What the Israelites did in the narrative of 1 Samuel 8 has nothing to do with the evils of the State. What's going on here is the equivalent of the employees of a company demanding the replacement of their boss, on the basis that their boss makes the company look weak against their competition, and they want a "stronger" looking boss that will make the company look more powerful. They allowed their concern with how the nations around them thought of them get the best of them, and wanted a warrior king to lead them in battle (So it can also hardly even be called coercive the demand of having a king in the first place! The Israelites knew damn well what was it in for them, but their sense of superficial honor got the best of them. They preferred the honor of men, instead of the honor of God).
I'm not convinced. The Israelites demanded a king, and God (through Samuel) warned them about the evil that would follow. Israel had no state prior to this. More interestingly, God recognized this demand for a State as a rejection of him. (Is this not reason enough to demonstrate that anarchism is the Christian position?)
Andius:It is Stateless, but neither it is lordless.
Agreed. God is the only final authority that a Christian needs.
Andius:I would hardly deem it the central message of Bible writ, that's your own modernistic values being shoved in a text where none of it existed, at least, not in the terms that your thinking.
Maybe I was a little bit strong in saying that it is a central message, but I will maintain that it is a major one. Read chapter 9 of the Westminster confession. I understand that "free will" as we commonly understand it isn't taught in scripture. I agree with chapter 3 of the Westminster confession; nobody is free from the decrees of God. In discussing "free will" in chapter 9, the freedom attributed to humans is only with respect to nature (i.e., our actions are not determined by the things in nature). I would argue that in view of this sort of freedom, political freedom should follow, and anarchism should follow from that. (I refer to the Westminster confession somewhat authoritatively, because I think it is the most accurate summary of scripture ever written.)
Andius:I suspect that your average human being believes that States are a natural thing of humanity, at least that's my take on it.
But shouldn't a Christian, having the advantage of God's word, know better? I would like to think so. Such is not necessarily the case, though.
Andius:I will hardly deem that this was implied in the Garden of Eden (The only thing it implied, Adam and Eve violated their end of the bargain in Eden, and God rightly exiled them out of Eden just as a Landlord, that instructed his tenant not to keep pets in the apartment, but did either way, and evicts the unfaithful tenant).
It seems like it's more than a coincidence that an angel with a flaming sword was introduced to the world immediately after sin was. Why weren't there angles with swords before the fall? Answer: force wasn't necessary to adjudicate disputes. As far was we can tell, there were no disputes. After the fall, force becomes necessary. This is a devastating punishment. This force has traditionally taken the form of a State, but I (as an anarchist) would argue that it does not have to.
EternalMind: Esuric: The mass atheism we see today is a product of Marxian thought. Can you elaborate a bit further on that? Personally I am a Christian Voluntaryist. However, it's sad that I rarely see writings in the Austrian Tradition on religion in particular (I found the section in the Literature section here and it looked so dead ). This thread has struck my attention massively in the case for applying Christianity in Austrian thought. Can anyone suggest specific readings/Biblical texts, etc. that show the libertarianism/anarchism in the Bible more thoroughly? I remember there was this article as well: http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/Anarcho-Theocracy.htm ^ Outlines very clearly the ideas of Christianity and Anarchism. I found it a nice read. Anybody have particular pieces of literature, however?
Read John Robbins. He is unfortunately not an Anarchist, but he is an austro-libertarian who derives his position from scripture. I am indebted to John Robbins for getting me interested in the Austrian school. Start here: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=127
Esuric:You don't have to be a Marxist to be influenced by Marxian thought.
Diagoras of 5th century BCE... you marxist! Foooor shammmmmeeee
Esuric:What percentage of the population still adheres to the exploitation theory of interest?
Esuric:He is probably the most influential economics of all-times.
Yeah, you give him way to much credit.
Conza88:^ a b "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620. Retrieved 2007-04-15. 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion). 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
Three cheers here!
Conza88:Diagoras of 5th century BCE... you marxist! Foooor shammmmmeeee
What does this have to do with anything? The LTV predates classical economics, but it was the classical school that made it the center of all economic thought (until the marginalist revolution).
This doesn't answer my question. Also, do you have the statistics for modern industrialized economies/societies?
Conza88:Yeah, you give him way to much credit.
Ridiculous. No one serious would ever deny this assertion. 3/4ths of the world implemented the Marxian economic system, up until fairly recently, and the mainstream is heavily influenced by Marxian political economy, which is why they were so quick to accept already refuted under-consumption doctrines (overproduction). The leader of the IMF/BIS and other international economic institutions are dominated by post Keynesian/neo Marxist economists. Never mind the dominance of historical materialism in philosophy classes around the world. Keynes, Smith, and Marx are the most influential economists of all times.
Tenants of communism:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Esuric:But, of course, protestants hold a purely deterministic position which rejects free-will. Thus, the protestant position can logically defend (if you accept its premises) certain institutional arrangements which can "guide you" (giving the state authority and legitimacy).
This has not been the inference that Protestants have typically drawn from their determinism. Their position, as far as I can tell, is that history has been planned out by God, but this plan is a part of God's secret will. An attempt to construct political institutions based on inaccessible information is obviously impossible. The protestant response to this realization has been much more laissez-fair then their Catholic counterparts. ("We don't know what God's plan, so we'll just do what we're supposed to do and leave other people alone." Not every protestant shared this view, obviously. John Calvin and Martin Luther did.) The Catholics, who believed in total free will, were more prone to Statism and authoritarianism because they thought that their actions were determinative of other people's salvation and well-being.
Jesse:This has not been the inference that Protestants have typically drawn from their determinism. Their position, as far as I can tell, is that history has been planned out by God, but this plan is a part of God's secret will. An attempt to construct political institutions based on inaccessible information is obviously impossible. The protestant response to this realization has been much more laissez-fair then their Catholic counterparts. ("We don't know what God's plan, so we'll just do what we're supposed to do and leave other people alone." Not every protestant shared this view, obviously. John Calvin and Martin Luther did.) The Catholics, who believed in total free will, were more prone to Statism and authoritarianism because they thought that their actions were determinative of other people's salvation and well-being.
Incorrect. It is true that later protestants, such as Adam Smith and the like, were warm to the idea of capitalism and freedom. But when you compare their positions to the earlier pre-Smithian economists (who were catholic) you realize that Smith was a big step towards statism. He supported regulation, taxation, fiat money, ect.
Catholic thomism and Scholasticism revived the Aristotelian tradition; they didn't believe that they "knew god's plan," but rather that they could logically deduce truth from natural law. That is, they rejected the protestant position that man is to stupid to figure out and understand his environment. Furthermore, the later scholastics, such as Juan de Mariana, were the first libertarians, though some claim that Lao Tzu is the first real libertarian. He (Mariana) deduced that kings who tax without consent of the people, or debase the currency, should be executed (also attacked divine right nonsense).
I'm familiar with Rothbard's arguments. He is right, as far as it goes, but he is ignoring the fact that the percentage of Catholics who adopted libertarian views is quite small compared to those who adopted authoritarian views. I would bet money that the percentage of libertarian(ish) protestants was higher than libertarian(ish) Catholics. I am unaware of any existing empirical data to prove or disprove this, if you know of any, let me know. I suppose I could cite the Weber thesis, but I know what Rothbard thinks of this.
Esuric: Jesse:This has not been the inference that Protestants have typically drawn from their determinism. Their position, as far as I can tell, is that history has been planned out by God, but this plan is a part of God's secret will. An attempt to construct political institutions based on inaccessible information is obviously impossible. The protestant response to this realization has been much more laissez-fair then their Catholic counterparts. ("We don't know what God's plan, so we'll just do what we're supposed to do and leave other people alone." Not every protestant shared this view, obviously. John Calvin and Martin Luther did.) The Catholics, who believed in total free will, were more prone to Statism and authoritarianism because they thought that their actions were determinative of other people's salvation and well-being. Incorrect. It is true that later protestants, such as Adam Smith and the like, were warm to the idea of capitalism and freedom. But when you compare their positions to the earlier pre-Smithian economists (who were catholic) you realize that Smith was a big step towards statism. He supported regulation, taxation, fiat money, ect. Catholic thomism and Scholasticism revived the Aristotelian tradition; they didn't believe that they "knew god's plan," but rather that they could logically deduce truth from natural law. That is, they rejected the protestant position that man is to stupid to figure out and understand his environment. Furthermore, the later scholastics, such as Juan de Mariana, were the first libertarians, though some claim that Lao Tzu is the first real libertarian. He (Mariana) deduced that kings who tax without consent of the people, or debase the currency, should be executed (also attacked divine right nonsense).
If I may intrude, I find both your arguments appealing. What that means is that both Protestants and Catholics could be persuaded into libertarian thinking, as well as to authoritarian thinking. That they do or do not is, I believe, dependent on other considerations.
Jesse:I'm familiar with Rothbard's arguments. He is right, as far as it goes, but he is ignoring the fact that the percentage of Catholics who adopted libertarian views is quite small compared to those who adopted authoritarian views.
This may or may not be true. Either way, it has nothing to do with the implications and philosophical doctrines of catholic thomism and scholasticism. There are many "Christians" today who support theft (taxation), murder (war), and who bear false witnesses against their neighbors.
Merlin:If I may intrude, I find both your arguments appealing. What that means is that both Protestants and Catholics could be persuaded into libertarian thinking, as well as to authoritarian thinking. That they do or do not is, I believe, dependent on other considerations.
Agreed.
Esuric:There are many "Christians" today who support theft (taxation), murder (war), and who bear false witnesses against their neighbors.
What is this bearing of false witness in other words?
Esuric:This may or may not be true. Either way, it has nothing to do with the implications and philosophical doctrines of catholic thomism and scholasticism.
That's true. I just think it's something to look into to. I still find the Catholic argument for authoritarianism more convincing than the Protestantism argument for authoritarianism, though. Natural Law is ill-defined; it would be easy for someone to define it in such a way that supported Statism. Scripture, however, cannot be so easily molded to fit one's political views.
Esuric: Merlin:If I may intrude, I find both your arguments appealing. What that means is that both Protestants and Catholics could be persuaded into libertarian thinking, as well as to authoritarian thinking. That they do or do not is, I believe, dependent on other considerations. Agreed.
x2
Caley McKibbin:What is this bearing of false witness in other words?
NPR.
Wrong.
Marxism is perfectly religious.
And:
Claiming that the pre-state market society—anarchism--is chaos is thus nothing but a very bad attempt by statists to make the state look good. The real truth is so far from this created statist "truth" that it would be laughable if so many weren't blinded by the powers of the state and therefore willing to accept its propaganda and lies. Libertarians claim to see through this "veil of ignorance" the state has carefully set up between people and the truth, and they seek to tell the world. But they have a hard time telling people what they don't believe they want to hear. It isn't that people have accepted the state's point of view, they have adopted it and believe in it like it was a religion. The state is god, and its gospel is brought to the masses through the cunningly devised systems of democracy and public schooling.
-Per Bylund
http://www.perbylund.com/the_library.htm
Andius:It is Stateless, but neither it is lordless. The Garden of Eden was still the private property of God, and Adam was merely it's occupier, who still has to answer to God. (The expression, Image of God, in ancient thought, was an idiom of Representative of God. If memory serves, being the Image of a king in ancient thought conveyed that you were his representative, and thus, possessed his authority as well, examples of other ancient literature back this up).
Were Adam and Eve NOT given the choice whom to serve - God or themselves?
Andius: Firstly, freedom, as we conceive it, is never talked about in the Bible. The ancients had a completely different understanding of Freedom, it was understood like this (to cite Malina and Neyrey, Biblical Scholars of the Context Group): "When ancient Mediterraneans speak of 'freedom,' they generally understand the term as both freedom from slavery to one lord or master, and freedom to enter the service of another lord or benefactor." Secondly, yes, there are verses that imply individual responsibility, but they are expressed in terms of being accountable to the in-group you belonged in (In the case of the Christians, the Church). The ancients were collectivists, and being accountable to the group you were in (family, clan, tribe, nation, etc), was what took precedence. Failure for being individually responsible meant that those within your in-group will suffer the consequences (welcome to the reality of corporate responsibility of the Ancient Middle East).
Were the Christian groups and the inherent accountability which you claim existed voluntary or involuntary?
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
Esuric: Conza88:Diagoras of 5th century BCE... you marxist! Foooor shammmmmeeee What does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with anything?
The point I'm making, and that you're missing - is that just because atheism has increased(?) in no way does it mean that the source is marxist.
There are other sources... and as correctly pointed out by Neilso - marxism is a religion in of itself, so your point is erroneous.
Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist - MNR
Furthermore; it's the classical liberals we have to thank... not the marxists.
"The object of the classical liberals was to bring about individual liberty in all of its interrelated aspects. In the economy, taxes were to be drastically reduced, controls and regulations eliminated, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers. Entrepreneurs were to be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control were to be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty were to be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the king or his minions. Religion, the source of bloody wars for centuries when sects were battling for control of the State, was to be set free from State imposition or interference, so that all religions — or nonreligions — could coexist in peace. Peace, too, was the foreign policy credo of the new classical liberals; the age-old regime of imperial and State aggrandizement for power and pelf was to be replaced by a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations. And since war was seen as engendered by standing armies and navies, by military power always seeking expansion, these military establishments were to be replaced by voluntary local militia, by citizen-civilians who would only wish to fight in defense of their own particular homes and neighborhoods.
Thus, the well-known theme of "separation of Church and State" was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as "separation of the economy from the State," "separation of speech and press from the State," "separation of land from the State," "separation of war and military affairs from the State," indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything."
Esuric:This doesn't answer my question.
That's right, but it addresses the principle - far more important, since your question was basically a red herring.
Esuric:Ridiculous. No one serious would ever deny this assertion. 3/4ths of the world implemented the Marxian economic system
Not ridiculous at all. Individuals with power, attempt to increase it - in all areas of life, they are parasites and want a bigger piece of the pie. What is a natural scenario - the growth of government everywhere, you attribute all to Marx? HAHAH...!! Get a grip.