Christian Anarchy, Why I think it's the only answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Why would I say that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... Let me count the ways...

1. Most here believe that we have "inailenable rights" although most don't know why our rights
are inailenable. The old guys who founded this fiction called USA understood them to be so
because they believed we were CREATED with them (by a Creator). Remember the common
words that most believe in such "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, among them are..." Certainly if you cut out a belief in "the Creator" you gut
the authority for rights in the preceeding ideal. If you cut the Creator, where does the authority
for your creation of rights come from? Little green men? The Id? Do you simply believe they
are "just there"? Why?? If your rights come from a Creator who is of course great enough to
create you and your rights, then they are truly inailenable due to the fact that someone at least
as "great" as your "Creator" would be needed to destroy them. Certainly a mere man is not
as great as that which created him so a man would not be "great" enough to destroy what was
"created" by his "creator".

2. As Christians, the old guys who founded the fiction USA understood the Christian idea that all
men were sinners and none are "good" enough to be entrusted with "ruling" over any other men.
Therefore they tried a "new" idea never before tried in history. Was it a "republic"? No, Rome
was a republic as well as others. The "new" idea was "soverignty", another idea that came from
Christianity. All men are Kings and Princes in Christ, Paul said (or at least someone who we have
been led to believe was Paul). So the "experiment" was to put men in the rightful position as
"creator" of the fiction USA. As "creators", the fiction USA could have no authority over over
it's creators any more than we can have authority over God. No authority = anarchy.

3. The "experiment" has failed miserably as man (the rightful authority over the fiction USA)
has "forgotten" that each one is "over" his "servant" fiction USA and has allowed the fiction
to take on a form and power which is simulating a true entity (which it is not). Man has
neglected his own Creator which is the rightful authority over him and has forsaken his
stewardship of keeping the fiction USA in line.

4. Since the fiction USA is no longer within the authority of it's creator man, the fiction ceases
to exist. It is replaced by REAL MEN who are acting out as if they have some authority from
this "fiction" that allows them to use FORCE over their fellow man. These real men who use
force are violating the rights of their fellow man. Most are deceived into believing that the fiction
really exists and gives them some magical power over others.

5. Since they have no legitimate power, we are already living in anarchy, you just don't know it

[Sola_Fide]

I agree with a lot in this post.

If you took away the State entirely tomorrow, Christians and Christian churches would be fine. We would even thrive under our own voluntary self-regulation.

In fact, churches are the greatest argument for voluntary self-governmemt there are if you think about it.

[BonerJoe]

I see Gene has brought his agenda trolling to this forum now. Have fun with him.

[Sola_Fide]

After reading it again, I see the troll in it. I got duped

[ChristianAnarchist]

After reading it again, I see the troll in it. I got duped

No trolling here. This is my philosophy and it's completely in line with the "Philosophy of Liberty". My blog is:

http://www.freewebs.com/christiananarchist/

I also spent a great deal of time and effort on the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. I'm now getting ready to set up an ILDA laser system to advertise RON PAUL 2012 ..

[heavenlyboy34]

The OP gets my stamp of approval.

[Theocrat]

"Christian anarchy" is an oxymoron. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever praise a society without rulers (where every person does what is right in his own eyes). I see no Scriptural support in the OP for the anarchy he describes, especially for one who calls himself a Christian. The Bible is our final standard, so if you're going to argue the case for "Christian anarchy," then it needs to align with the Word.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Christian anarchy" is an oxymoron. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever praise a society without rulers (where every person does what is right in his own eyes). I see no Scriptural support in the OP for the anarchy he describes, especially for one who calls himself a Christian. The Bible is our final standard, so if you're going to argue the case for "Christian anarchy," then it needs to align with the Word.

False. You fail again, theo.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html
And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State.

[Theocrat]

False. You fail again, theo.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html
And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State.

Gee, HB34. I guess the Bible has nothing else to say about the nature of civil government after I Samuel 8.

[nate895]

False. You fail again, theo.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html
And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State.

As if what happened prior to this event was "Mosaic anarchy" to begin with. This Scripture says nothing about a transition from anarchy to monarchy. It is about transitioning from theocracy to monarchy. If you'll remember, this whole event was caused by Samuel's sons abusing their authority in Israel.

[heavenlyboy34]

Gee, HB34. I guess the Bible has nothing else to say about the nature of civil government after I Samuel 8.

It has plenty of other things to say, but I wanted something that would fit into 1 post. If you want a more detailed treatise, see Anarchy and Chiristianity by Jacques Ellul as well as Leo Tolstoy's "Confession", "What Then Must We Do?", and "The Kingdom of God is Within You".

P.S. here is a free version of the last chapter of "The Kingdom of God is within You.

[ChristianAnarchist]

It has plenty of other things to say, but I wanted something that would fit into 1 post. If you want a more detailed treatise, see Anarchy and Chiristianity by Jacques Ellul as well as Leo Tolstoy's "Confession", "What Then Must We Do?", and "The Kingdom of God is Within You".

P.S. here is a free version of the last chapter of "The Kingdom of God is within You.

Tolstoy is very interesting to me. I have to admit, that I have not read alot of what he has to say but I seem to be in agreement with him. I came to be a "Christian Anarchist" by my own reasoning. Many years ago (in usenet newsgroups for anyone who can remember back so far) I met a poster by the moniker of "Onry Anarchist" who convinced me that anarchy is the reality and "government" is the fiction. But ol' Onry was an athiest. I really like the guy but I still had my belief in God and had to reconcile this difference. I then determined that I was no longer a "libertarian" but something I thought I'd invented - a "Christian Anarchist". I liked the sound of it. It was shocking and sounded like a contradiction. Not much later I typed "Christian Anarchist" into a search engine and found that I had not actually invented this term but that many others had been there already (I guess there's no new thing under the sun ).

[BuddyRey]

Another Christian Anarchist here. Maybe there are more of us than we thought?

[ClayTrainor]

As an Atheist and an Anarchist, I welcome Christian Anarchists with open arms.

[heavenlyboy34]

Another Christian Anarchist here. Maybe there are more of us than we thought?

This is an encouraging trend.

[Wesker1982]

Another Christian Anarchist here.

Same here.

Maybe there are more of us than we thought?

I hope so!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Same here.



I hope so!

I believe a lot of "mainstream" Christians have a feeling deep-down that something is wrong but they just are not quite able to place their finger on what it is. I know that's how I felt. Then when I realized that the only "real rules" are the ones that come from our Creator, things started making sense. Every rule that man makes is defective in one way or another and infringes on the God-given rights of someone.

[Wesker1982]

I believe a lot of "mainstream" Christians have a feeling deep-down that something is wrong but they just are not quite able to place their finger on what it is. I know that's how I felt.

I remember feeling this way when I was really young, 8 or 9 years old all the way up until I realized I was a voluntaryist. For a while I thought it was just teenage angst or whatever, but the way things were still just didn't seem right to me though.

Now I understand why I felt this way for so long. Its liberating and frustrating at the same time. Sometimes I feel like it would be easier if all I was concerned about was football and celebrity scandals.

For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. - Ecclesiastes 1:18

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe a lot of "mainstream" Christians have a feeling deep-down that something is wrong but they just are not quite able to place their finger on what it is. I know that's how I felt. Then when I realized that the only "real rules" are the ones that come from our Creator, things started making sense. Every rule that man makes is defective in one way or another and infringes on the God-given rights of someone.

Are you of the view that God-given rights are positive or negative? I'm of the opinion that negative rights are superior. For example, the "right" to ownership is better expressed as "no one has the right to take what is not rightfully his without permission".

[ChristianAnarchist]

Are you of the view that God-given rights are positive or negative? I'm of the opinion that negative rights are superior. For example, the "right" to ownership is better expressed as "no one has the right to take what is not rightfully his without permission".

I guess I really don't see much difference between the two. I've never though about it in those terms, but when I think about it, they seem to be the same 2 me...

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess I really don't see much difference between the two. I've never though about it in those terms, but when I think about it, they seem to be the same 2 me...

Negative rights restrain other persons or groups from infringing on your liberties and can be defended and well-defined, while positive rights only exist in theory. Positive rights are also very subjective. One person might think x is an expression of "freedom of speech" while y may consider the same words to be "libelous".

We can, however, establish positive rights on our respective properties. For example, y could say that children from x house have the right to play in the backyard of y under certain conditions.

Also, recall the ten commandments. This is a list of negative rights (or privileges, if you prefer). Such a list of negative rights, if observed, is more effective.

Clear enough?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Negative rights restrain other persons or groups from infringing on your liberties and can be defended and well-defined, while positive rights only exist in theory. Positive rights are also very subjective. One person might think x is an expression of "freedom of speech" while y may consider the same words to be "libelous".

We can, however, establish positive rights on our respective properties. For example, y could say that children from x house have the right to play in the backyard of y under certain conditions.

Also, recall the ten commandments. This is a list of negative rights (or privileges, if you prefer). Such a list of negative rights, if observed, is more effective.

Clear enough?

This is a little better definition, I think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

I have to say that my own philosophy is in line with negative rights...

[heavenlyboy34]

that's good as well ^^

[ChristianAnarchist]

Oh, I was just "reminded" of this link that is a very good explanation of how belief in a "government" is participation in a cult...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cultof.htm

There are many here who believe that your rights exist because your "government" says they do, but since "government" is nothing but a fictious cult, where does the "power" come from to create or destroy rights?

[low preference guy]

there are only rights. there is no such thing as positive rights or negative rights. don't allow an orwellian manipulation of words to give legitimacy to violations of rights.

as Rand Paul said, if you have a right to health care, i'm your slave. there is no right to enslave anyone, so please cut the nonsense.

[heavenlyboy34]

there are only rights. there is no such thing as positive rights or negative rights. don't allow an orwellian manipulation of words to give legitimacy to violations of rights.

as Rand Paul said, if you have a right to health care, i'm your slave. there is no right to enslave anyone, so please cut the nonsense.

This is incoherent. The latter sentence contradicts the first.

[un.privileged]

Gee, HB34. I guess the Bible has nothing else to say about the nature of civil government after I Samuel 8.

What is the nature of civil government? Using the bible to argue against anarchy is only possible when Romans 13 is taken out of context to Romans 12, which not to fight evil with evil. It does not in anyway legitimize taking a land to establish a monopoly of law and order through violence. Rebelling/resisting is not the same as opposing.

[robert68]

Negative rights restrain other persons or groups from infringing on your liberties and can be defended and well-defined, while positive rights only exist in theory. Positive rights are also very subjective. One person might think x is an expression of "freedom of speech" while y may consider the same words to be "libelous"...

How does a “negative”, or any “right”, restrain other people from doing something?

The term “right”, in a non-legal sense, often means a justified (or possibly justified) use of force to protect ones property, with property objectively defined.

[ChristianAnarchist]

How does a “negative”, or any “right”, restrain other people from doing something?

The term “right”, in a non-legal sense, often means a justified (or possibly justified) use of force to protect ones property, with property objectively defined.

Rights do not restrain someone from action. It merely defines when an action is a VIOLATION of said right. What you do about the "violation" is another subject...

[ChristianAnarchist]

What is the nature of civil government? Using the bible to argue against anarchy is only possible when Romans 13 is taken out of context to Romans 12, which not to fight evil with evil. It does not in anyway legitimize taking a land to establish a monopoly of law and order through violence. Rebelling/resisting is not the same as opposing.

Quick bible study from the "Christian Anarchist"...

From my reading of Romans 13, Paul is being a bit sneaky in his writing. When I read the first four verses, it's clear to me Paul is speaking of Heavenly powers, not earthly ones. "Let every soul be subject unto the HIGHER POWERS. For there is no power but of God: ..." people who "resisteth" ... "receive to themselves damnation." Why? because these guys are "not a terror to good works, but to the evil." and don't be afraid of the power because "do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good."

Doesn't sound like anyone I've ever seen on TV representing those thugs in Washington...