Political Theory

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Ned Netterville — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:43:45 GMT

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

I have, in a sense. What I argue here is that:

1. Contrary to what many Christians have been taught by Church and political leaders, Jesus did not endorse taxation nor (human) government when he said "give Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Quite the ccontrary, since his very next words were: "But give God what is God's," and because Jesus unquestionably concured with a statement found repeatedly in OT scripture, "The earth and everything in it belong to God," what Jesus obviously said was: "Give Caesar what remains, that is to say, nothing."

2. Jesus taught and lived by principles diametrically opposed to government and taxes. If that is true, then those who would live their lives according to the principles Jesus taught will neither collect, receive, nor voluntarily pay taxes, nor be involved with the state in any way that can possibly be avoided.

3. It is entirely logical to believe that the Roman procurator of taxes, Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus for ìforbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar and teaching his disciples that taxation is condemned by Godís commandment, Thou shall not steal.

Other have argued similarly:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Eric080 — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:25:40 GMT

No, unless you're willing to say this is a cow:

Mmmmm, Steak!

All I can gather from that statement is that one must be a human blastocyst before one can derive stem cells that are applicable to human beings.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:35:26 GMT

Eric080:

Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don't necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That's an absolutely justified line of reasoning.

Would you agree that it is a fair statement that one must be a human being before one can derive human stem-cells from the source?

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:08:07 GMT

Eric080:

Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don't necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That's an absolutely justified line of reasoning.

Also, please don't say that I am close minded about what being a human being would constitute. That's not the discussion you are criticizing me over. I'd be willing to talk about that, but you are calling me close-minded because I made an assessment that we may differ on the definition, a simple statement in the context of that larger discussion. I even put the quantifier "probably" in front of it.

I was half-joking. I would like to come back to the subject at a later time though. Right now I have too much reading to do. Thanks.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Eric080 — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:42:49 GMT

Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don't necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That's an absolutely justified line of reasoning.

Also, please don't say that I am close minded about what being a human being would constitute. That's not the discussion you are criticizing me over. I'd be willing to talk about that, but you are calling me close-minded because I made an assessment that we may differ on the definition, a simple statement in the context of that larger discussion. I even put the quantifier "probably" in front of it.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

auctionguy10 — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:32:00 GMT

No, this is inaccurate. What men want is sex, and everyone knows it. It's trivial to provide, figuring out what sort of obscure emotional attention people want is not.

Furthermore the problem with most women is not that they do not receive emotional attention it is that they drive men away from giving them emotional attention. They can not decide whether they want a 'bad boy' or a 'provider' and thereby falsify (to themselves and others) what they claim to want; while acting schizophrenically to appeal to one type and then another. Then when men get fed up with this incoherent inability to choose between types they close up on women and women blame it on men.

Men may be 'emotionally distant' but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That's just not how people work.

A woman's emotional needs are neither obscure, incoherent, or in anyway difficult to provide- its quite easy when you get over the idea that men are "emotionally distant", men aren't. Being emotionally powerful doesn't mean to act like a woman either. Its quite easy to be the bad boy/lover and the provider, I don't understand this psychological impossibility. Perhaps more accurate would be "What I want is sex and everyone knows it, and I get frustrated between the girls I've met because they can't decide if I'm there type, they're probably schizo's". (But this all goes real off-topic so if you wanna continue this conversaton I'll try to do it privately)

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:08:09 GMT

Eric080:

I probably disagree on your definition.

Wow! I didn't even give a definition yet and you already probably disagree? Eric080, I just heard something close. Your mind. I think you are already predisposed not to consider certain things. That seems less than intellectually honest and you seem to have a habit of this. I am quickly losing what respect I may have had for you.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Eric080 — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:35:12 GMT

John, a blastocyst may be a necessary stage of becoming human, but it does not follow that it is therefore a human. A sperm cell is a necessary condition of creating a human being, but sperm cells are not "half human." A sperm cell is a sperm cell in the same way a blastocyst is a blastocyst. Sure it may develop into a human being and it is a necessary precursor to creating a human being, but a clump of cells with no identifiable form and no central nervous system it isn't any different than a skin cell.

If you're going to say "human blastocysts are human beings", you have to define a human being. I probably disagree on your definition.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Autolykos — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:33:18 GMT

Live_Free_Or_Die:
Autolykos,

A few questions...

If you create something does your existence manifest itself in your creation? or if you carve something a certain way does your signature so to speak manifest itself in your creation?

I'm not sure what you mean by "[my] existence/signature manifest itself in [my] creation". Certainly my creation (i.e. the re-arrangement of resources) wouldn't exist were it not for me. However, I wouldn't say that I'm present in my creation per se, as my creation isn't literally a part of me.

Live_Free_Or_Die:
Can you envision any concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach your creation? If you created artificial intelligence and provided the initial programming do you think your creation would be bound or confined to the programming you provided? Do you think this line of thought would extend to perception of reality? Would your creation be constrained to any physical based on how it's creator perceives reality? Would your creation be constrained to any limits or laws of nature based on the materials used in creating it? If you provided the initial programming would you feel like your presence was in your creation?

Yes, I can envision a concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach it. But that concept (learning) would mean that I couldn't predict exactly how or when artificial intelligence would be reached -- only that it could be reached somehow at some point in the future. Whether the AI would be bound to its initial programming depends on the nature of that initial programming. For example, would it involve code that can modify itself? I would say, though, that the AI would certainly be constrained to the limits or laws of nature -- just as we are. Aside from these things, my presence wouldn't literally be in the AI, as I wouldn't literally feel what it feels or think what it thinks.

Re: Religion and anarchism.

Jack Roberts — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:41:06 GMT

I think trying to convince christians of ancap should be treated the same as any one else. I would try to keep the biblical religious aspect out of it and try to come from a more academic perspective.

The church and state have always had a relationship. With out the state the church in some countries would get a lot smaller, it is through state contributions that a lot of the churches can continue to exist. I know in the UK churches are on some of the best land. The land would be valuable if it did not have a centuries old church on it. I am not suggesting that we start building on church land, I am just saying.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:27:14 GMT

Eric080:

Because blastocysts don't have rights.

Really? Since human beings have a right to food, water and air and human blastocysts are human beings, it logically follows that human blastocysts have a right to food, water and air. Otherwise, you are equivocating on the word "blastocyst". A blastocyst is not merely a thing, it is a stage.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

Eric080 — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 03:30:25 GMT

Because blastocysts don't have rights.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:17:30 GMT

Eric080:

John Q:

Anyway, I agree that government shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research, but obviously not for the reasons Craig suggests; I don't want the government funding anything

Though I am using the quote from a post by Eric080 I am curious as to know how others (including Eric080 if he'd like) are able to reconcile the NAP with support of embryonic stem-cell research? It appears to me to be inconsistent to state that one is morally opposed to the government funding this reasearch, yet supportive of it in the private sector. Am I missing something?

Re: Religion and anarchism.

whakaheke — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:16:40 GMT

This is exactly what you're looking for.

James Redford. Jesus is an Anarchist: A Free-Market, Libertarian Anarchist. Procesos de mercado: revista europea de economía política, ISSN 1697-6797, Nº. 2, 2009. p. 263-324.

Download .pdf here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337761.

Re: Religoin and anarchism.

John Q — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:17:14 GMT

Eric080:

John Q:
Eric080, I have to be honest and blunt with you here: I believe you have attributed certain things to Dr. Craig that are unsupportable and I am wondering why?

To be honest, I kind of have an axe to grind with him for a few reasons (fair or unfair

I appreciate your honesty and candor in admitting this Eric080. As far as the rest of your post goes, perhaps the subject will come up some other time and we can have a dialogue on those things. Honestly, my mind (and body) is getting very tired at this time and I'm going to call it a night; it's difficult enough for me to think clearly when I am well-rested and alert! Lol!