Political Theory

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

AJ — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:08:31 GMT

In favor of: Voluntarism

Advocated program: One that dissolves monopoly, which is the main obstacle to achieving voluntarism.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

Solid_Choke — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:41:11 GMT

I have already been using Voluntaryist in the presence of everyone except people that are anarchists (although they are usually "socialist anarchists").

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

liberty student — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:21:18 GMT

Stranger:
Being in favor of the NAP is one thing. Proposing a program to preserve and enforce the NAP is an entirely different thing.

I am communicating the former, not attempting the latter.

Stranger:
It's not something that other people can build a movement around.

I'm not trying to build a movement. I'm trying to be honest, engaged and live as free as I can. Revolutions and movements end. I want to evolve.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

Sieben — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:17:13 GMT

Stranger:
The NAP isn't any program in particular. It's not something that other people can build a movement around.

Actually, the NAP is widely misunderstood by most libertarian students. Libertarian philosophers have little to say about non aggression, and in fact were arguing in favor of a National Allocation Plan for carbon emissions in the European Union. This plan would be binding and violate all national and individual sovereignty in Europe; the necessary price to stop global warming.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

Stranger — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:00:15 GMT

The NAP isn't any program in particular. It's not something that other people can build a movement around.

Being in favor of the NAP is one thing. Proposing a program to preserve and enforce the NAP is an entirely different thing. You can say that you are for the NAP, and everyone will go "yeah so am I", as they portray their system as also embodying the NAP.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

liberty student — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:06:15 GMT

Voluntaryist. It is clean, simple and sums up the NAP without abstracting it.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

AJ — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:23:17 GMT

"Anti-monopolism"

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

garegin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:27:18 GMT

if one looks at the semantic issue at hand, he understand that terms like libertarianism and free market are actually question begging. the entire debate is the how much liberty a.k.a authority someone has. libertarians believe in the law of equal authority. others like fascist arbitrarily assign that authority to the strong. the same case with the free market- the entire debate is around whether the market is free or not.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

tacoface — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:15:54 GMT

I like Free Marketeer. It sounds cool.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

Josiah Schmidt — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:22:44 GMT

I've got it!!

How about the term "consistent capitalist"?

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

MacFall — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:51:18 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

You bet here is jesus defending the state and old testament law:

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Of course you will just say that ive taken them out of context, and that Jesus is to TAKE THE PLACE OF the laws.

No, either in context or out, it is clear that Jesus is not defending the state and old testament law. And as far as context goes, just look at the rest of what Jesus said and it becomes all the more clear.

Evangelism presents itself as advocating the state to work for its ends - the christian coalition anyone.

Wait - so because a bunch of self-appointed Christian "leaders" are Pharisees, that means they represent the faith? Bull. They do not define what evangelism is, and neither do you.

It's entire aim it to coerce the unwashed.

Yes, that is the aim of the religious right. They are Pharisees. They have nothing to do with the gospel.

The current state of the christian church is one that advocates the state

I am aware of that. As the Bible itself says, many people who think they are Christians do not know Jesus. Most Western Christians regularly bow at the altar of the state. But as the Bible further declares, there is a remnant that does not.

And I'm mostly only talking about Western Christianity. If you want to see the church as it was meant to be - mutual accountability instead of hierarchy, local churches instead of denominations, and a nearly perfect separation of church and state - it exists. Mostly where Christians don't have it as good as they do here.

The fact is that in any institution, people styling themselves leaders will emerge from that system and forge an alliance with the state. That is not unique to Christianity, nor to religion in general. It is true of all systems, secular and sectarian, and the common factor is the state. The solution is to eliminate the state.

Without a political crutch, the Christian church would be forced to grow up. Its members would have to lead by example, and get their hands dirty. Or, the church would go extinct. In the meantime, I have no problem calling Christian statists exactly what they are - idolators.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

AndrewKemendo — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:18:34 GMT

MacFall:

AndrewKemendo:

Undoubtedly though, you will find him agreeing with and supporting the coercive dictates of the old testament - explicitly.

Then you should have no example of providing us with an example.

It is incumbent on the christian to make his fathers will be done on earth and that includes evangelizing.

Evangelism is the ONLY intervention to which a Christian is called.

Just as communist-anarchists do not want true anti state neither to christian anarchists - they simply want a state which controls the things which are not in accordance with christian law.

No, we damn well do not want a state of any kind. I still think it's hilarious how some people seem to think they can tell other people what they, the others, believe. I'm pretty sure I'm rather better informed than you on my own beliefs.

You bet here is jesus defending the state and old testament law:

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Of course you will just say that ive taken them out of context, and that Jesus is to TAKE THE PLACE OF the laws.

Evangelism presents itself as advocating the state to work for its ends - the christian coalition anyone. It's entire aim it to coerce the unwashed.

As a reformed anglican I think I can speak to the teachings of the church fairly well informed. If you say - well thats not what I believe then I would say you are not informed about your own religion, or you interpret it differently either way the case is not strong. Just as baptists and methodists don't agree neither will anglicans and any other Christian organization, and that's the problem. The current state of the christian church is one that advocates the state - if you say your brand of christianity is right and doesn't advocate the state and theirs wrong then it is just as easy for a presuppositionalist or other interpreter to say you are wrong as well.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

Morty — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:41:00 GMT

macsnafu:
Christianity is not inevitably opposed to or mutually exclusive to capitalism. Christianity does not necessarily call for the initiation of force. However, what Christianity does call for is an anti-capitalist mentality, an irrational worldview. Thus a Christian can be an anarcho-capitalist, but Christianity provides a poor philosophical base for AC.

My point was that Christianity is in no way contradictory with capitalism, not that we should base our philosophy in Scripture.

C.H. Hellstrom:
I havn't seen them condone the use of force, or any opposition to to various aspects of the capitalist system, so that is totally irrelevant in this matter.

You haven't read much of Mises on the necessities the state provides then? He was a minarchist, after all. He also said that his only objection to socialism is that it doesn't work - not that it is based on violence. He claimed that if socialism worked better than capitalism, he would be a socialist himself. Hardly sounds like a philosophical defender of freedom. David Friedman, as well, has no real respect for rights outside of utilitarian concerns, as well as accepting the premise that market failure exists.

It would seem that both of these objections apply to utilitarian libertarians just as well as Christians.

I have already talked about this.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the location so that I might better understand?

I'm well aware of the Spanish Scholastics (so don't you worry ), but the discussion wasn't about how some Christians helped to develop free market theories, but rather how Christianity in itself goes against capitalism, or in other words, is a poor philosophical foundation for the free market and capitalism.

I was using the example to show that even some of the most educated in the Christian traditions, as we surely can assume these theologians to be, accept that capitalism has tremendous benefits and is worthy of respect. Furthermore, the School of Salamanca has a well known pro-private property stance, they believed fully in the concept of property rights. Granted that they were not perfect in this regard, but it seems a bit much to ask for strict adherance to anarcho-capitalism in the 16th century.

An obvious conflict centers on the religious belief that profit motive is immoral, and if we are morally obligated to sacrifice for others/on the behalf of others, then private property, profit motive, and the entire free market system must be viewed as morally evil.

Again, you take far too many assumptions about Christian thought. As I mentioned above, private property was held up as not only economically necessary, but morally righteous by the Late Spanish Scholastics. In the Bible, as well, property is certainly held to be important - theft is forbidden, for example. Further, the "profit motive" may be considered immoral without condemning the capitalist system. If one labors tirelessly out of duty rather than for material gain, is one necessarily less productive, less innovative, etc? I accept the likely Smithian critique that one better serves the public good through self-interest rather than actively seeking to help the public, but simply because the Christian cannot be solely concerned with himself does not mean he must be totally unconcerned with himself.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

MacFall — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:06:52 GMT

AndrewKemendo:

Undoubtedly though, you will find him agreeing with and supporting the coercive dictates of the old testament - explicitly.

Then you should have no example of providing us with an example.

It is incumbent on the christian to make his fathers will be done on earth and that includes evangelizing.

Evangelism is the ONLY intervention to which a Christian is called.

Just as communist-anarchists do not want true anti state neither to christian anarchists - they simply want a state which controls the things which are not in accordance with christian law.

No, we damn well do not want a state of any kind. I still think it's hilarious how some people seem to think they can tell other people what they, the others, believe. I'm pretty sure I'm rather better informed than you on my own beliefs.

Re: Petition to stop being an anarchist

AndrewKemendo — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:44:03 GMT

MacFall:

Anyone who interprets Christ's advocacy of charity to in any way advocate coercion has probably never even heard of exegesis, much less bothered to employ it. Niether can they have bothered to consider the context of those verses. For one thing, a major doctrine of Christianity espoused and demonstrated by Jesus was that of free will - that morality is a personal choice to be made regardless (and in some cases in spite) of whatever the law says. That is one general consideration which is rarely acknowledged by Christian socialists (and atheist capitalists who can't stand the idea of Christians sharing their secular philosophy).

As for the idea of Hell - why should God admit a person who has refused to associate with Him during their earthly lives into His home in eternity? That's neither coercive nor despotic. That's His privilege. Whether or not people would find the absence of God to be "torturous" is irrelevant to that fact.

Actually I have and reference frequently Strong's exhaustive as well as Van-Til's apologetic so I understand quite well hermeneutics.

If you want to simply extract the words of jesus and use only them, then you will undoubtedly find conflicting viewpoints depending on which book you read and what version (for my part I use KJV). Undoubtedly though, you will find him agreeing with and supporting the coercive dictates of the old testament - explicitly. That directs believers to intervene into others lives by making the claim that there is no neutrality, and hence no libertarianism. By allowing another to do something ungodly - that is by not outlawing certain practices locally - they will never make the holy measure. It is incumbent on the christian to make his fathers will be done on earth and that includes evangelizing.

Not only is my father a theologian but also claimant to be a christian-anarchist - so we debate frequently about this issue. Just as communist-anarchists do not want true anti state neither to christian anarchists - they simply want a state which controls the things which are not in accordance with christian law.

That said, there are sooo many people who do not understand hermeneutics and exegesis, nor are they rigorous students of the bible and also call themselves christians. Just as there are others who claim to represent islam/sikhism/daoism etc... and do not follow its dictates. However if you boil each down to their fundamental level - most advocate a theocratic state - to include christianity.