Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.
Oh and sorry about any spelling mistakes there are am about to go to bed :)
I think Gary North has.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
IMO, Christians believe that because God permitted man to create government that this necessarily means that God condoned man's creation of government.
Lyle,
As is the case with most generalizations, all "Christians" do not believe any one thing, except those things that are required for them to meet the definition for group membership.
God quite clearly states that it is his perfect will for the Israelites not to have a king, but he lets them sign away their own lives to tyranny. Contrary to common misconception, this cannot be logically construed as condonement, nor can it be argued that because the Israelites once submitted to a king, we must all likewise submit.
Evilsceptic: Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Thats as close as you get!
Thanks, this is more than I was looking for lol!
I ment to quote filc there.
You can check out
Jacques Ellul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul
also this blog has some useful references:
http://christianandstate.wordpress.com/
The bible is not a clear text, like a science book. It's a religious book. This means that the believer will see in it what he wants to see in it (i.e. the way he was raised). If someone is a neo-con hawk then they will believe the bible supports that.
My advice would be: don't try to change one religious belief (statism) through another religious belief (god-ism). Instead, try to get him to drop his religious beliefs and see reality.
It seems very manipulative to me to say: "Believe in liberty because the Tooth Fairy says so!!" Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.
Nielsio: The bible is not a clear text, like a science book. It's a religious book. This means that the believer will see in it what he wants to see in it (i.e. the way he was raised). If someone is a neo-con hawk then they will believe the bible supports that. My advice would be: don't try to change one religious belief (statism) through another religious belief (god-ism). Instead, try to get him to drop his religious beliefs and see reality. It seems very manipulative to me to say: "Believe in liberty because the Tooth Fairy says so!!" Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.
Or stop trying to get theists to stop being theists, and just have them read Gary North. :)
filc: Nielsio: Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation. Or stop trying to get theists to stop being theists, and just have them read Gary North. :)
Nielsio: Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.
Such a person would not actually believe in liberty and be a self-reliable thinker but would be a slave to dillusion and manipulation.
For the record, Gary North is not an an-cap.
He belongs to the Christian Reconstructionists who want to exchange the US state for a completely Christian theocratic state.
God is right, and His essence (the logical framework of His mind, which is reflected in humans -- though imperfectly because of humans' lack of information/non-omniscience -- as logic/reason) is the perfect realization of logic. God's commands are a relay of information about the nature of His essence. They would be right independent of His choice to relay the message, but they are not independent of Him (as nothing is independent of Him, seeing as he is omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent). What is right or wrong is not arbitrary, as this constitutes merely statement about the nature of that framework. God is perfect, and so the framework must be perfect, and therefore the framework is also not arbitrary.
Euthyphro's Dilemma misses the point if it is used in the intent to disprove God. It merely exposes a fatal flaw in the logic of many Christians, who divorce logic from the nature of God.
I think what Matticus is saying, in too many words, is that you should just use regular arguments anyone else would use.
I find that consistent, devout Catholics are among the most receptive when it comes to hearing ideas regarding ancap.
John Ess: I think what Matticus is saying, in too many words, is that you should just use regular arguments anyone else would use.
Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.
My discussion of Euthyphro's Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it.
Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma.
That's my view by now.
P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"Not really. With Christians, you get to use all those regular arguments, but you also get to show how those arguments are perfectly compatible with the Bible. I was sympathetic to, but not totally convinced of, anarcho-capitalism until I did in-depth study of the Biblical context for the commonly-perceived contradictions.
My discussion of Euthyphro's Dilemma was intended to show that it is not necessarily a refutation of the things its users wish for it."
Understood.
On the second point:
ED is not trying to disprove God. But saying that morality doesn't depend on God's commandments.
And for that matter, I don't see economics being any different. Though, if one believes Christianity, obviously, one would appeal to what is easiest: to what the other person is biased towards.
MaikU: Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma. That's my view by now. P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists.
Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.
"it is the rejection of illegitimate authority."
But what person says they support illegitimate authority, though?
Not trying to be difficult. But this seems a problematic definition.
I'm reminded of a relevant quote regarding God's right to torture you forever:
"So ownership is a bad thing?"
"....Of people, yes."
MaikU: If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. .... That's my view by now. ....
If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. .... That's my view by now. ....
My thoughts exactly. The more ancap I became the less religious I became, in fact I am starting to see better many religion's views on god as god having sort of a totalitarian rule and everyone is fine with it. This is completely contradictory to the idea of anarchy.
@freeradicals, I was the other way around first. I used to be conservative and religious, but then became atheist and saw no use for social conservatism. A few more years of study and I found anarcho-capitalism, and figured antitheism and an-cap fit like two peas in a pod.
Although I suspect he was an atheist, Robert LeFevre has used the words in Samuel II to demonstrate the nature of government. Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist.
Matticus Rex: MaikU: Once christian embraces anarchism he is one step away from God. If you reject authority of the state, then you can surely reject authority of the invisible. Furthermore, most religion, in my humble opinion, were found to control people, just like states. They emerge naturally, yes, but there is nothing necessary, or rational or logical about them. Bad ideas arise naturally all the time. It takes wise mind to reject them or at least to try to consistently justify them. If you can not do that, then you do not talk about that and stick to your dogma. That's my view by now. P.S. I am not saying christians ought to reject God. Most people are fine living with contradicting ideas and keeping them in seperate parts of their brains. But I think, to rejet the visible God (State) takes more "guts" so to speak than the invisible. That's why I perefer christian anarchists to statist atheists. Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.
Yes, I should have clarified it and said "illegitimate". That is correct. So if one believes God has legitimate authority, then I can't argue with that. It is easier though (in my opinion) to show the illegitimacy of the state's authority, because it is visible and is bound to the laws of nature, while theists can always say, that God is not bound by logic and physical laws.
Ok, I will retract my point about what is easier or not easier, because if I wanted to prove it I would contradict my previous post. I need more thinking. Statism is a last and strongest religion that has more followers than any modern traditional religion and that is a problem for anarchist when they try to convince statists.
Matticus Rex: Anarchism is not the rejection of authority -- it is the rejection of illegitimate authority. Under Christianity, God is the First Owner -- all of our "ownership" merely constitutes stewardship rights granted by God.
Isn't the idea of a first owner, or the first ones owning the children and so fourth down the line a concept derived from tribalism? I believe Autolykos told me that.
The question of hereditary ownership of person is irrelevant, as God (in granting free will) renounced His ownership over us in order to develop relationship (the entire point of creation, from His perspective). As God is omnipresent, however, He not only brought about creation (by spoken word, big bang, whatever), but He has quite literally mixed with every atom that exists even before sentient life existed. There can be no quarrel about His rightful ownership over everything He claims.
Note: I'm just arguing this from a Biblical perspective. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe it, just showing how it is an internally consistent philosophy.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
freeradicals:Isn't the idea of a first owner, or the first ones owning the children and so fourth down the line a concept derived from tribalism? I believe Autolykos told me that.
While the Bible probably doesn't put it that way (I haven't read all of it), I'd say some kind of eternal ownership over one's descendants is indeed an outgrowth of tribalism. If one presumes this concept, and one believes that the universe was created by some deity, then it follows that one is ultimately a descendant of that deity and therefore that deity ultimately owns him.
However, I don't think these ideas were common to all tribal societies throughout history. Some tribes may well have followed more libertarian ethea.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Matticus Rex:The question of hereditary ownership of person is irrelevant, as God (in granting free will) renounced His ownership over us in order to develop relationship (the entire point of creation, from His perspective). As God is omnipresent, however, He not only brought about creation (by spoken word, big bang, whatever), but He has quite literally mixed with every atom that exists even before sentient life existed. There can be no quarrel about His rightful ownership over everything He claims.
It does not necessarily follow that granting free will means renouncing ownership. After all, animals have free will, but people typically consider them ownable.
If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.
"If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent."
This is panantheism (I think), which is not completely adopted by most major religions. Under Christianity, I would venture to say God is present in creation in that He upholds its existence, as in, without Him it would "disintegrate" (or not be in existant imprimus).
Or it could be that He granted humanity temporary stewardship/deputyship of the material universe, so in that way he is omnipresent by proxy.
Or it could be that He could be omnipresent but simply choses not to be in some cases.
There's many way this could go. I'm not a theologian so I'm not that reliable.
Robert Murphy has a good lecture on this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTLsOgSyno
Tom Woods too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-emqvbAqnr0
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I'm in agreement with Autolykos. It's a tribalistic mentality. We need some authoritarian to "own" us. It all goes back to human ownership (i.e., slavery). Parents don't "own" children because they had a large part in creating them, they are custodians of children. I was under impression that the rules for ownership of conscious creatures was different than that of inanimate objects. Apparently not.
"Gary North is also a notable Christian-derived libertarian, not only is he Christian he is an UltraCalvinist Theonomist."
He is not a libertarian. He is a Christian reconstructionist who wants Christians to seize the state and subjugate or deport other religions or belief systems. It is basically the furthest position from libertarianism you can be as a Christian. And probably the furthest period.
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision. —Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, p. 87.
"The stranger in ancient Israel did not serve as a judge, although he received all the benefits of living in the land. The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God's people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?"
jay: Or it could be that He could be omnipresent but simply choses not to be in some cases.
Christians do claim that god is omnipresent, just not all-knowing.
I think that God is supposed to be both according to Chrisitians?
"just not all-knowing."
I've never heard this.
The Christian (Evangelical belief, at least) is that God cannot foresee the future. This is what I leaned when I used to do bible studies with the church. Hence he is omnipresent but not all knowing.
No, that's open-theism, which is a view that's in the extreme minority.