Arguments Against Anarchy

[disorderlyvision]

http://mises.org/daily/4094


The belief that government is necessary to ensure social order is a pure superstition, based upon a psycho-epistemological process different in no important respect from the belief in goblins and witches....


At the outset, let it be made clear that government is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent authority to act is in no way greater or different than the authority to act of individuals in isolation.

If it is moral for government policemen to arrest suspect criminals, it is also moral for "private policemen" to do so. If it is moral for government to try and imprison men, then it is also moral for nongovernmental corporations to do so. Government has no magic powers or authority not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention.

The basic reason why a social order could, and would, arise in the absence of governments (as they are known today) is the fact that man has an objective need for social order and protection from initiatory force. This objective need would create human associations producing order in society. The morality and permanence of these associations will be determined by the morality and rationality of the men creating and working in them, as is the case for any social institution.

Perhaps the strongest attack on "anarchism" — certainly the most vitriolic — was made by Ayn Rand. In her article on "The Nature of Government," she states the following:

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called "competing governments." Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists — who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business — the proponents of "competing governments" take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to "shop" and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Once one gets past Miss Rand's typically vitriolic rhetoric (which only indicates that Miss Rand is quite hostile to what she mislabels as "competing governments") one finds that she has essentially one argument. Miss Rand asserts that what is properly designated as "competing agencies of retaliatory force" or a free market of justice would not work, because the competing agencies would end up protecting criminals and shooting it out with each other. One can only term this a straw man argument.

The situation which Miss Rand "describes" is patently absurd. If competing agencies of retaliatory force protected criminals, they would not be competing agencies of retaliatory force at all. Rather, they would be criminal gangs, plain and simple.

Further, it would be sheer insanity for individuals "subscribing" to competing criminal gangs to live on the same "turf." In this respect, Miss Rand is correct. However, what I and every other advocate of a society without coercion are advocating are not "competing governments" (a misnomer) or "competing criminal gangs" (an ethical monstrosity), but "competing agencies of retaliatory force," which Miss Rand has in fact not dealt with at all.

In the situation described above, in which neighbors subscribed to competing police departments, what is certain (if they were in fact police departments operating on the basis of objective law, rather than criminal gangs operating on the basis of mob rule — which is what Miss Rand described) is that Police B would accept the validity of Police A, or in fact the validity of any reputable police department, and cooperate with them in the arrest of Mr. Jones. Police B certainly would not protect Mr. Jones from justice if there was objective evidence that Mr. Jones had committed a crime, nor would Police A proceed to attempt to arrest Mr. Jones unless there were such evidence. In this manner, objective law would eliminate coercive "shootouts."

Once competing police departments begin to function, standard operating procedures would be created to deal with such cases. At least two possible procedures come to mind: either by stipulation, the police department to which a man subscribed would be the only one which could incarcerate him; or, by stipulation, the police department where the complaint was filed would incarcerate him.

In the extreme, there would be little motivation for policemen to put their lives on the line for a suspected thief, and if competing police departments operated as Miss Rand falsely pictures, then they would quickly go out of business due to the attrition rate of policemen killed in the "line of duty."

This is only one of the flaws of Miss Rand's argument. Other problems include her failure to explain exactly how government can morally outlaw competing agencies of retaliatory force, or what it is that prevents the state police from shooting it out with the county police in similar situations. Clearly, both Miss Rand's premises and logic are in error in this case.

[__27__]

With each day and each argument I face, I find myself far more believing that the sheep cannot exist without the government than the other way around. Even 'limited government' conservatives are so hopelessly dependent upon the state, faced with the question of it's need to exist they cannot fathom themselves without it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

With each day and each argument I face, I find myself far more believing that the sheep cannot exist without the government than the other way around. Even 'limited government' conservatives are so hopelessly dependent upon the state, faced with the question of it's need to exist they cannot fathom themselves without it.

Have you listened to Rockwells Misesian Vision? It is very good, and it touches on this.

[LittleLightShining]

With each day and each argument I face, I find myself far more believing that the sheep cannot exist without the government than the other way around. Even 'limited government' conservatives are so hopelessly dependent upon the state, faced with the question of it's need to exist they cannot fathom themselves without it.

Funny, had this same conversation earlier today.

[disorderlyvision]

Have you listened to Rockwells Misesian Vision? It is very good, and it touches on this.

yeah, that was an excellent speech

edit: here it is

http://mises.org/media/4539

[CCTelander]

With each day and each argument I face, I find myself far more believing that the sheep cannot exist without the government than the other way around. Even 'limited government' conservatives are so hopelessly dependent upon the state, faced with the question of it's need to exist they cannot fathom themselves without it.

It's so good to see that others recognize this very salient point. I've posted similar comments several times now myself. (re bolded part)

As for your comment on the "sheep," I'm just curious. Are you in some way implying that government is inevitable? THAT I'd disagree with.

[heavenlyboy34]

thanks for posting this. I was just about to post it myself. :cool:

[bucfish]

Great post

[Deborah K]

What is the opinion of anarchists on James Madison?

[Met Income]

I own myself, therefore, no one else has the right to use force against me. This includes individuals with guns that call themselves government, sorry.

[Deborah K]

What is the opinion of anarchists on James Madison?

Anyone?

[__27__]

It's so good to see that others recognize this very salient point. I've posted similar comments several times now myself. (re bolded part)

As for your comment on the "sheep," I'm just curious. Are you in some way implying that government is inevitable? THAT I'd disagree with.

Not at all. I'm implying that they WANT government, no matter how illogical it may be, they NEED government almost more than government needs them to exist.

[reardenstone]

I argue that minarchism is still a more viable transitory option:


1. Total Anarchy among mere humans may still yet an defensively apathetic non-culture primed for domination by a cultural revolution and superior might. If we completely opened the borders, it would be very easy for people from non-free countries to begin a generation long subversion and cultural revolution to either lead us to a new communism or into a theocracy. This is why I support the anarchist shill theory: Chomsky-Leninites posing as libertarians for anarchy when their end-game is really a new communism.


2. Completely free groups would then, as they do on the black markets, resort to tribal gang affiliations. Many groups would be free but they would all begin to encourage more insular behavior or a form of insider's collectivism. I am not arguing for this but rather making a comment on basic human nature. The more insular they become, the more protectionist and antagonistic they could become should they want more resources. Without formal law, there would only be mob rule and despotism.

To prevent these examples, a minimal government and agreement for common defense and sovereignty is needed in order to protect freedom and a new national identity based on freedom. All we need is the Constitution and a minimal government and court system to protect it and some sort of checkpoint to control immigration and border access.

Other than that, I am fine with ending the other programs.

[CCTelander]

Not at all. I'm implying that they WANT government, no matter how illogical it may be, they NEED government almost more than government needs them to exist.

I'd agree that there ARE a LOT of people out there in this condition. I do think at least some of them could be reached and persuaded otherwise. The rest may not necessarily need GOVERNMENT, per se, but certainly do need LEADERS. They could find those through private associations in a stateless society though, I believe.

[Keller1967]

Might as well say this:


At the outset, let it be made clear that organized crime is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of organized crime, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since organized crime is nothing but men, its inherent authority to act is in no way greater or different than the authority to act of individuals in isolation.

Which is why you look at the actions rather than who is performing them, and you will see that the majority of what government does is wrong, and 100% of the few and far between "good" actions that it performs are also wrong when you go back and look at what acts were performed to make funding possible.

[Keller1967]

I'd agree that there ARE a LOT of people out there in this condition. I do think at least some of them could be reached and persuaded otherwise. The rest may not necessarily need GOVERNMENT, per se, but certainly do need LEADERS. They could find those through private associations in a stateless society though, I believe.

Not me, if I am killing in the process of pulling off the leech I will still pull it off.

[ARealConservative]

no arguments.

Unicorns are also amazing, and I would love to have one.

Anybody want to argue about my dream of owning a unicorn?

[Keller1967]

no arguments.

Unicorns are also amazing, and I would love to have one.

Anybody want to argue about my dream of owning a unicorn?

You are saying anarchy is a unicorn?

[ARealConservative]

You are saying anarchy is a unicorn?

heck no.

I still dream of unicorns. :p

[Keller1967]

heck no.

I still dream of unicorns. :p

I still ignore laws. :D

[ARealConservative]

I still ignore laws. :D

so do statists in charge.

in that sense we already have anarchy.

my unicorn dream keeps ending the same way though.

I lasso the unicorn but on closer inspection, it is just a donkey with a cone glued to its forehead, put there by the government.

[Keller1967]

so do statists in charge.

in that sense we already have anarchy.

my unicorn dream keeps ending the same way though.

I lasso the unicorn but on closer inspection, it is just a donkey with a cone glued to its forehead, put there by the government.

Of course we have anarchy, that is the natural state of human relations. Until god comes down from the sky and sets a real higher authority above mankind, humans will always interact in a state of anarchy. Unfortunately most of us are used as slaves to serve the few who are truly sovereign.

We have anarchy.

We have might makes right.

We have survival of the fittest.

That is the natural state our existence, we just accepted limitations by those who are stronger than us and called it government.

[ARealConservative]

Of course we have anarchy, that is the natural state of human relations. Until god comes down from the sky and sets a real higher authority above mankind, humans will always interact in a state of anarchy. Unfortunately most of us are used as slaves to serve the few who are truly sovereign.

We have anarchy.

We have might makes right.

We have survival of the fittest.

That is the natural state our existence, we just accepted limitations by those who are stronger than us and called it government.

outside of the divine revelations, we seem to be in total agreement then.

[revolutionisnow]

Anarchy is a temporary state, just a transitional period until some form of government or control worse than you had before takes its place.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Anarchy is a temporary state, just a transitional period until some form of government or control worse than you had before takes its place.

History tells revolutionisnow, you are wrong. There have been many Stateless societies that lasted for a long time.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

so do statists in charge.

in that sense we already have anarchy.

my unicorn dream keeps ending the same way though.

I lasso the unicorn but on closer inspection, it is just a donkey with a cone glued to its forehead, put there by the government.

Odd....I seem to recall anarchists calling minarchy the unicorn utopia that never will exist:

YouTube - Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI)

Oh man, is that Thomas Woods, a guy you guys look up to, who himself is a devout An-Cap...Oh gracious me.

[disorderlyvision]

oh man, is that thomas woods, a guy you guys look up to, who himself is a devout an-cap...oh gracious me.


lmao! :d

[revolutionisnow]

History tells revolutionisnow, you are wrong. There have been many Stateless societies that lasted for a long time.

Which ones? And how many others have done exactly what I said? Let's see some statistics so we know the odds.

[Theocrat]

Another argument against anarchy is that it will never eliminate the initiation of force amongst human beings in society, for human beings are naturally wicked and evil towards their neighbor (though they may not always be as evil as they can be). Anarchists continually forget that truth about human nature, and thus, it becomes a fatal flaw in their philosophy of non-civil government. Civil government presupposes the sinful nature of men, and therefore, evil men in society must be restrained in their civil affairs with others.

Also, the initiation of force does not exclusively mean physical harm. Someone can initiate force just by speaking words harshly to another person or even by an ill look. Now, if we grant proponents of the Non-Aggression Principle the ethic that a retaliation of force against an initiation of force is always just, then we must conclude that, for instance, a person has the right to shoot someone who initiated force by insulting him. Or, a person can punch a person in the face who looks at him with a cold stare. Of course, that will just lead to arbitrary measures of retaliatory force in society, which leave any person subject to being harmed physically for a perceived initiation of force, even if it's not physical. That, in my opinion, leads to a very chaotic and despotic civilization, subject to the whims of each person to decide what force is for himself, all in the name of upholding non-aggression. Yet, that is what anarchical ethics leaves us with as the basis for right behavior in society, in the absence of a civil magistrate.

Of course, who are anarchists to enforce their behavior upon others as the standard of civil governance...

[reardenstone]

That, in my opinion, leads to a very chaotic and despotic civilization, subject to the whims of each person to decide what force is for himself, all in the name of upholding non-aggression. Yet, that is what anarchical ethics leaves us with as the basis for right behavior in society, in the absence of a civil magistrate.

Of course, who are anarchists to enforce their behavior upon others as the standard of civil governance...


Much better version of what I said...

Who would make the rules in a voluntary society? If we learned one thing through cultures is that we enculturate norms and in larger more advanced societies we tended to develop rules. If we were to tell everyone to agree to the Non-Agression Principle, who would enforce it. What if the next community(tribe) over didn't care?

I really like the idea of a peaceful anarchy, but fail to see proof of how it could protect the free people from outside aggression. One could saw Afghanistan is a tribal anarchy, but what did that get those various groups? Well it got an invasion by the Mongols, later invasions by Turko-mongols, then later an Arabian Islamic takeover and forced conversion to Islam, then even much later attempts at land grabs by the Soviet Union.

I do believe that the size of our government should be drastically reduced and that more power needs to be given to local governments, yet we still need some rudimentary court system for protecting individual rights and a system that will protect communities and states from eachother and a way to band together to protect ourselves from foreign invasions.


I would try minarchism first.

[ARealConservative]

Odd....I seem to recall anarchists calling minarchy the unicorn utopia that never will exist:

YouTube - Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI)

Oh man, is that Thomas Woods, a guy you guys look up to, who himself is a devout An-Cap...Oh gracious me.

look up to?

how old are you?

[RedStripe]

for human beings are naturally wicked and evil towards their neighbor (though they may not always be as evil as they can be).

Heh, well we were created in his image. What more could expect? hahaha

[reardenstone]

Heh, well we were created in his image. What more could expect? hahaha


I responded to your view on creation of man and woman here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2558690#post2558690

[reardenstone]

Okay here is one and one that makes me worry.

What is the difference between the Rothbard anarchism and the "anarchists" who hate capitalism and want to break it down and replace it with their own version of communism. What stands out to me is that they seem different but actually both may be means to the same end. A new despotic communism with no law protecting private practice or private property.


The Black Block protesting the global summits call themselves anarchists. How is it that they will not be the ones trying to call pose as "Rothbard anarchists"?


Hence, the minarchism failsafe.

[andrewh817]

Also, the initiation of force does not exclusively mean physical harm. Someone can initiate force just by speaking words harshly to another person or even by an ill look.

By making a face at someone, you're not initiating force..... that's just ridiculous. Force is physically harming or moving, or threatening to physically move or harm someone against their will.



Another argument against anarchy is that it will never eliminate the initiation of force amongst human beings in society, for human beings are naturally wicked and evil towards their neighbor (though they may not always be as evil as they can be). Anarchists continually forget that truth about human nature, and thus, it becomes a fatal flaw in their philosophy of non-civil government. Civil government presupposes the sinful nature of men, and therefore, evil men in society must be restrained in their civil affairs with others.


I'd love to debate this point in the chat room with you....... but for now.

The philosophy of anarchy or voluntarism doesn't state that having no government eliminates the initiation of force. It states that of all types of interactions, voluntary ones are in the best interest of both parties every time.

Also I think calling wickedness and evil human nature isn't accurate in the least.
Just because humans are capable of wickedness and evil doesn't mean that's their nature.

In my experiences with humans, they seem more motivated by self-interest or improving their own situation than by the desire to make others' situations worse.
You say government presupposes the sinful nature of men, but that means sinful men will be running the government!! You say evil men in society must be restrained, but who's going to restrain the evil men in the government? Sounds like hypocrisy to me, and something you owe it to yourself to address if you have any intention of logical consistency.

[Theocrat]

By making a face at someone, you're not initiating force..... that's just ridiculous. Force is physically harming or moving, or threatening to physically move or harm someone against their will.

Well, actually, you're proving my point when I said an anarchical society leaves the definition of "force" up for each individual to decide, because people are not always going to agree on what "force" means when they use the term. That will present problems for adjudication of cases involving the use of force in the private courts anarchists advocate for, which I won't get into in this discussion. According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force), the word "force" can mean things which are non-physical, such as:

power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power
persuasive power; power to convince
mental or moral strength
intensity or strength of effect ("the force of her acting")
any influence or agency analogous to physical force ("social forces")
binding power, as of a contract

So, yes, the word "force" can have a non-physical quality to it, as well.


I'd love to debate this point in the chat room with you....... but for now.

The philosophy of anarchy or voluntarism doesn't state that having no government eliminates the initiation of force. It states that of all types of interactions, voluntary ones are in the best interest of both parties every time.

The problem with anarchists when they discuss the possibility of voluntary associations in a society is that they falsely assume that under a civil government such associations cannot co-exist. Of course there can be voluntary associations in a civil republic. However, because a republic is always under a rule of law, those who break the law (assuming the law is just, based on God's standards, not man's) cannot voluntarily evade justice. They must be forced to meet the requirements of breaking the law (i.e. punishment for murder and theft). As long as the individual is being civil and moral, he can have as many voluntary relationships as he wants.


Also I think calling wickedness and evil human nature isn't accurate in the least.
Just because humans are capable of wickedness and evil doesn't mean that's their nature.

I don't have time to fully give that discussion justice, but here's a summary (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm#chapvi) of human nature, based on the Christian worldview, which was the worldview our Founders had in reasoning and establishing our republic.


In my experiences with humans, they seem more motivated by self-interest or improving their own situation than by the desire to make others' situations worse.
You say government presupposes the sinful nature of men, but that means sinful men will be running the government!! You say evil men in society must be restrained, but who's going to restrain the evil men in the government? Sounds like hypocrisy to me, and something you owe it to yourself to address if you have any intention of logical consistency.

There is no logical inconsistency. Yes, government presupposes the sinful nature of men, but it also drives the need for each man to be self-governed through a spiritual regeneration by God. Men can only be made good through God's work of redemption to cleanse their souls from the condemnation of sin. Once men are made righteous before their Maker, then they may be able to govern other men. That is how civil governments are made possible for men to execute its offices. Consider what some of our Founders had to say about that:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy. - John Quincy Adams ((Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. - Fisher Ames (Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. - Charles Carroll (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. - Robert Winthrop (Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")

[mediahasyou]

If Bob punches Tom, Bob owes a debt to Tom. The debt can be paid in reparations. However, if in self-defense Tom shoots and kills Bob, Tom now owes Bob (or his family since he is dead) a debt. However, the shooting does not change the face that Bob still owes a debt to Tom.

So Bob owes a little debt to Tom. Tom owes a larger debt to Bob and his family. Killing a person is more harmful than punching a person. Different monetary reparations will be paid to the victims depending upon the severity of the crime.

All involved in the crime would likely go to an arbitration business. If a person in a dispute refused to go to an arbitration business, people in society would assume that person was guilty/untrustworthy and not interact with that person.


I highly recommend "The Market for Liberty" http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ if you would like to take the time to learn how a better world (a world without government coercion) might work.

[andrewh817]

According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force), the word "force" can mean things which are non-physical, such as:

power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power
persuasive power; power to convince
mental or moral strength
intensity or strength of effect ("the force of her acting")
any influence or agency analogous to physical force ("social forces")
binding power, as of a contract

So, yes, the word "force" can have a non-physical quality to it, as well.

You say that
an anarchical society leaves the definition of "force" up for each individual to decide, because people are not always going to agree on what "force" means when they use the term

Last time I checked not everyone agrees on what force means even without an anarchic society. Our language is controlled by anarchism already..... a dictionary definition is only what certain people use the word for. You have to ask people what their definition of a word is to understand what they mean when using it..... I gave you my definition of force, and if it goes against your definition, I'll gladly make up a new word for the idea I'm trying to convey.

As for the the non-physical aspects of the word "force" I was using force as an action verb so the other definitions don't really apply.



The problem with anarchists when they discuss the possibility of voluntary associations in a society is that they falsely assume that under a civil government such associations cannot co-exist. Of course there can be voluntary associations in a civil republic. However, because a republic is always under a rule of law, those who break the law (assuming the law is just, based on God's standards, not man's) cannot voluntarily evade justice. They must be forced to meet the requirements of breaking the law (i.e. punishment for murder and theft). As long as the individual is being civil and moral, he can have as many voluntary relationships as he wants.


The problem with generalizing is that I never claimed what you say anarchists assume. I know voluntary choices are possible within a republic, obviously, or I couldn't write this.....

The problem I have with government is that I can't choose voluntary interactions in every aspect of my life. I can't choose to drive car I PAID FOR, regardless of how skilled a driver I am unless I pay off the government. I can't print my own currency to compete with other currencies because the government will call it counterfeiting. I can't get whatever weapons I want to defend my home because the government will (or at least wants to) take the guns.



I don't have time to fully give that discussion justice, but here's a summary (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapvi-x.htm#chapvi) of human nature, based on the Christian worldview, which was the worldview our Founders had in reasoning and establishing our republic.



There is no logical inconsistency. Yes, government presupposes the sinful nature of men, but it also drives the need for each man to be self-governed through a spiritual regeneration by God. Men can only be made good through God's work of redemption to cleanse their souls from the condemnation of sin. Once men are made righteous before their Maker, then they may be able to govern other men. That is how civil governments are made possible for men to execute its offices. Consider what some of our Founders had to say about that:

I don't care what the founders had to say about god because I don't believe in god, or least your or their definition of god. If you can't argue with my points without mentioning god, there's no way for this discussion to continue, as it will digress into a debate about the existence of god.

Again, I'd love to debate this in the chat room...... just PM a time if you're up for it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Theocrat would do well to read about the likes of Ammon Hennacy and the history of Christian anarchism before he comes here pretending to know what he's talking about. ;)

[Theocrat]

Theocrat would do well to read about the likes of Ammon Hennacy and the history of Christian anarchism before he comes here pretending to know what he's talking about. ;)

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, and thus, it is a true contradiction of Christianity. You can rest assured that any Christian who calls himself a "Christian anarchist" has not studied his Bible concerning the nature of civil governments. To prove that point, I'd be happy to debate any Christian on that subject. Anarchy is a direct rebellion against God's ordination of civil righteousness in a holy nation.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, and thus, it is a true contradiction of Christianity. You can rest assured that any Christian who calls himself a "Christian anarchist" has not studied his Bible concerning the nature of civil governments. To prove that point, I'd be happy to debate any Christian on that subject. Anarchy is a direct rebellion against God's ordination of civil righteousness in a holy nation.

As usual, your ignorance on this subject betrays you. Get up to speed, and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation. I've given you plenty of literature, now go read it! :D

Here is just a taste of it-

Biblical Anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)
The Bible Against the State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/rostan1.html)
Religious Roots of Liberty (http://mises.org/story/3639)

[__27__]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, and thus, it is a true contradiction of Christianity. You can rest assured that any Christian who calls himself a "Christian anarchist" has not studied his Bible concerning the nature of civil governments. To prove that point, I'd be happy to debate any Christian on that subject. Anarchy is a direct rebellion against God's ordination of civil righteousness in a holy nation.

"The Bible" is a contradictory storybook written by fallible men. You can rest assured that any Christian who professes his faith is based on the bible has not studied the literal life and teachings of Christ.

[CCTelander]

"The Bible" is a contradictory storybook written by fallible men. You can rest assured that any Christian who professes his faith is based on the bible has not studied the literal life and teachings of Christ.

Even if we restrict ourselves to the Bible Theo's position is flatly inaccurate. Apparently Theo himself is quite unaware of what his Bible actually says "concerning the nature of civil government."

Here's an excerpt from one of my previous posts that Theo failed to adequately answer:


Your own scriptures paint "the institution of government" in a very dismal light. See I Samuel Chapter 8, Verses 4-18 as an example, to wit:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.

Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

I notice that your bible's God characterizes the desire for a human government as a rejection of his authority. Furthermore, while I've read the bible numerous times, I can't recall a single instance wherein God or Christ EVER characterized human government in a favorable manner.

Seems to me, as a Christian, you ought to OPPOSE human government, not embrace it.

Romans 13 doesn't really deal with the issue as Theo would like us to believe. Since neither God himself nor Christ (according to the Bible) have EVER characterized human government in anything but an extremely negative light, Paul's words are in direct conflict with nthose of God himself and Christ.

This presents a conflict that must be resolved. Either the Bible contradicts itself or one or the other of these characterizations means something other than what it appears at face value. Since God (in his own words) and Christ have BOTH characterized human government in extremely unfavorable manners, Paul's characterization MUST give way to their superior authority.

Therefore, Roman 13 must mean something other than the state worshiping interpretation mainstream Christianity acsribes to it.

Furthermore, when Satan is purported to have tempted Christ, one of the things that he offered to GIVE Christ was "all of the kingdoms of the world." How could Satan offer to give something that wasn't his? Nor does Christ EVER challenge Satan's ownership.

And then there's Ephesians 6:11, 12.

"Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (emphasis mine)

Theo, apparently, is intent upon choosing particular parts of his Bible which he feels validate his point, while completely ignoring those parts which are in opposition to it.

All of this, of course, is assuming that the scriptures have any validity as the "revealed word of God" at all, which I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion.

[CCTelander]

It just occurred to me. Doesn't Christian Tradition hold that Paul wrote Ephesians?

So, on the one hand we have Paul telling Christians that Earthly rulers and authorities are put in their positions by God to act as his agents for their good, and on the other we have Paul characterizing those rulers and authorities as part of the "devil's schemes."

What gives?

[heavenlyboy34]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, and thus, it is a true contradiction of Christianity. You can rest assured that any Christian who calls himself a "Christian anarchist" has not studied his Bible concerning the nature of civil governments. To prove that point, I'd be happy to debate any Christian on that subject. Anarchy is a direct rebellion against God's ordination of civil righteousness in a holy nation.


Your ignorance still confounds your judgment.

Count Leo Tolstoy was as true a Christian as you'll ever know of, yet he was an anarchist. This tradition continued through Hennesy up to the modern Christian anarchists like Stephen Carson.

[mediahasyou]

"Thou shall not steal" suggests government sins every time it taxes. I suggest you look into alternative organizations of society i.e. voluntarism (voluntaryist.com).

[Pete_00]

I beleive total lack of government or a total lack of some form of control of the "masses" over the "individual" will never be possible. I find some arguments about things like police force, justice system, protection from economic monopolies and their abuses, protection of nature and enviroment, etc too optimistic, but i also understand that all this theories are objectives, goals.

I think that this whole libertarian movement in the USA is cool in the sense that it would be a progressive and controlled transformation from a big government society to a small or no government society, the process of "trial and error" would show how far a society can go regarding the issue of government and centralization. Its this transition fase and learning process that makes this movement so interesting and promising, real "hardcore" revolutions always turn out to be a mess. Plus this ideology suits well the USA, there is still that spirit of the "isolated old west town in the middle of nowhere where the individual and the collective have to depend on nothing but themselfs" in much of america...

[TortoiseDream]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, and thus, it is a true contradiction of Christianity. You can rest assured that any Christian who calls himself a "Christian anarchist" has not studied his Bible concerning the nature of civil governments. To prove that point, I'd be happy to debate any Christian on that subject. Anarchy is a direct rebellion against God's ordination of civil righteousness in a holy nation.

I can see you'd have a problem with Tolstoy...

What do you think of this?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tolstoy_letter_to_an_NCO

[heavenlyboy34]

I can see you'd have a problem with Tolstoy...

What do you think of this?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tolstoy_letter_to_an_NCO (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tolstoy_letter_to_an_NCO)


I think that's beautiful-almost as good as his fiction. :cool: