You are already an anarchist - with Larken Rose .

[PaulConventionWV]

False on both counts. Especially the second. You would have to assume God to be the Author Of Evil to make that claim-which is both false and unbiblical.

Look, I believe in God, but to say that God is not the author of evil is to admit that something or someone else created evil, thus establishing that that something or someone has power over God. Evil exists for a reason in this world. We cannot see it yet because we are mortal, but it is completely contradictory to God's nature to assert that He is responsible for only the good and none of the evil. Those who believe in Satan are tacitly agreeing that God is not all-powerful. I don't want to make this a theology thread, but there is no fallacy in assuming that God is the author of evil. God is the author of everything.

[TheTexan]

isn't entirely Biblical. I wrote a post about this in the "Peace Through Religion" forum.

I like ancap but I can't really agree with it anymore. There are too many theological issues.

I wasn't aware that being religious required a person to suppress all independent thought.

[A Son of Liberty]

Anarcho-capitalism is extremely unlikely to come about, but that's not my main problem with it. My main problem with it is that the total rejection of civil authority isn't entirely Biblical. I wrote a post about this in the "Peace Through Religion" forum.

I like ancap but I can't really agree with it anymore. There are too many theological issues.

If you're going to go back and accept the State because you believe that God ordains it, then show me where you get the idea that God advocates another man standing between you and Him. Show me where Jesus Christ spoke in favor of the unprovoked (or otherwise, frankly) initiation of violence (which you full well know the state to be by definition, regardless of how small you prefer it).

You also need to acknowledge the very simple premise fisharmor posed to you, that "minarchism" is a non-sequitur; that in the mind of somebody, today's US government IS minarchist. How do you avoid the obvious conflict inherent in that?

[Ronin Truth]

cheap shot.

Nope, really it's just a quick jump to the obvious chase, and eliminates much of the meaningless back and forth chit chat.

[otherone]

My main problem with it is that the total rejection of civil authority isn't entirely Biblical.

In an anarchist society, civil authority rests with the individual. In America, civil authority is supposed to rest with the people. Why would you have a problem with that?

[Ronin Truth]

I thought the "percentage of people that will rob you" argument was a good one!

I can't believe they didn't use my favorite anarchist joke. "What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About three months!!" Ahhhh..... good times!

That riddle/joke answer used to be: about 20 years. Things are definitely looking up and getting better.

"An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[fisharmor]

I like ancap but I can't really agree with it anymore. There are too many theological issues.

Then I'm sure you can understand how I feel about the reformation.

Which is, I'm pretty sure, where you're getting the theology that makes you have issues with anarchocapitalism.

[ctiger2]

I'm a newly converted voluntary socialist anarchist

[Christian Liberty]

If you're going to go back and accept the State because you believe that God ordains it, then show me where you get the idea that God advocates another man standing between you and Him. Show me where Jesus Christ spoke in favor of the unprovoked (or otherwise, frankly) initiation of violence (which you full well know the state to be by definition, regardless of how small you prefer it).

I'm not sure we mean the same thing by "State." I believe that Romans 13 is teaching a legitimate civil authority that has the right to execute wrath on evildoers (specifically, those who commit violence against person or property). I am not suggesting that its power is unlimited. Rightful authority only exists where God ordains it.

The biggest problem with ancap is that it creates a situation where righteous vengeance ("the sword") is supposed to exist, but where no specific person or people have the right to normatively wield said sword. Pacifists can get out of this by saying there is no sword and that any criminal punishment of any kind (including laws against theft or murder) are unjust. Minarchism gets around it by saying that Romans 13 is ordaining a very limited authority, but nonetheless an authority that has the right to punish certain evildoers and keep society in peace and order by doing so (if they go beyond that they are actually tyrants, not rulers.) But, anarcho-capitalism just leaves the sword open to... well... who has the right to wield it? After all, human authority can only exist by God's ordination. God gave parents authority over their children. God gave the church authority over believers. And I would say God gave States very limited authority to govern their subjects. If they go beyond the ministry of the sword, whether by punishing morally good or neutral actions, punishing actions outside their purview, or using public money to do things that should be done by private developers, that would be illegitimate use of authority, much like parental authority does not provide an excuse for child abuse.

You also need to acknowledge the very simple premise fisharmor posed to you, that "minarchism" is a non-sequitur; that in the mind of somebody, today's US government IS minarchist. How do you avoid the obvious conflict inherent in that?

By defining it?

Both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism struggle with the same issues of it being very easy for some corrupt person to take control. I'm not under the illusion that systems "work" so to speak. Its easy to poke holes in anarcho-capitalism, in minarchism, or any other system.

Then I'm sure you can understand how I feel about the reformation.

Which is, I'm pretty sure, where you're getting the theology that makes you have issues with anarchocapitalism.

I'm not sure how Rome or the EO would help with this, considering that both (from my understanding) are predominately statist churches. But, I'd be curious to find out. Feel free to PM me, as I doubt people want to discuss theology in this thread. I'd love to be able to discuss this with Christian ancaps without the distraction of atheists whining about Christianity

[Ronin Truth]

I'm a newly converted voluntary socialist anarchist

You are a newly converted oxymoron.

[acptulsa]

You are a newly converted oxymoron.

But at least he's voluntarily a newly converted oxymoron.

[heavenlyboy34]

Look, I believe in God, but to say that God is not the author of evil is to admit that something or someone else created evil, thus establishing that that something or someone has power over God. Evil exists for a reason in this world. We cannot see it yet because we are mortal, but it is completely contradictory to God's nature to assert that He is responsible for only the good and none of the evil. Those who believe in Satan are tacitly agreeing that God is not all-powerful. I don't want to make this a theology thread, but there is no fallacy in assuming that God is the author of evil. God is the author of everything.

I completely disagree. I'll save it for another thread though, so as not to derail this one.

[otherone]

Minarchism gets around it by saying that Romans 13 is ordaining a very limited authority, but nonetheless an authority that has the right to punish certain evildoers and keep society in peace and order by doing so (if they go beyond that they are actually tyrants, not rulers.)

In what ways may an individual remove his consent from your minarchy?

[Ronin Truth]

But at least he's voluntarily a newly converted oxymoron.

Nah, this an instance of a very rare 3 term oxymoron.

[otherone]

I wouldn't put it that way. In the United States, civil authority rests with some group sanctioned by some portion of the people who are governed. And that portion will usually be a minority of the entire governed population, and in many cases even be a minority of those who turned out to vote (Lincoln, for instance, was sanctioned by roughly a quarter of those who voted ... the exercise of his civil authority killed hundreds of thousands).

That's why I wrote: "supposed to".
Our government was intended to be a popular sovereignty, the power vested in the people, who choose representatives to speak for them. This system is flawed, as that power is then concentrated in the legislative branch, becoming a parliamentary sovereignty. The framers sought to balance that power in the executive and judicial branches, which further removed the power from the people. We of course, currently, live in an oligarchy that manipulates a prodigious bureaucracy to control us.
A popular sovereignty is essentially collectivism; the framers believing that the fictional authority of the common good was superior to the fictional authority of a monarch. IMO, both are flawed in that they deny individual consent of the governed, which defines tyranny.
I believe individual sovereignty, Autarchy, is the only just system. It also sounds less scary to boobus than "anarchy".

[ChristianAnarchist]

Where does the Bible tell you to hate gays?

Actually, it doesn't. It states that certain behavior is a "sin" and to "hate" sin, but it never says someone is to hate another person. After all we are all "sinners" (I believe)...

My personal belief system is that all "sin" is forgiven and although we should try to not sin and we shouldn't encourage sin it's completely in our nature to sin. Kinda like telling a scorpion not to sting...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ok, I watched the OP's video. I agree with Larkin pretty much always but I don't think they really proved that people are already anarchist. Their point was that most moral people will agree with their anarchist views when presented logically. While that's true it really is not that those people were anarchist and didn't know it, it is that they can be convinced to come over to that viewpoint.

On the other hand I've been stating that everyone ALREADY LIVES IN ANARCHY (quite a different point really) and they simply don't know it. People have been tricked into "believing" that there is some fictional creature called "government" but such a thing is no more "real" than the Easter Bunny (NO! Say it ain't so!).

My position is that since there is NO legitimate "authority" for stealing and murdering and since there is no physical entity called "government", what we really have is anarchy... There is NO government, just several large gangs with guns who trick people into giving them their "stuff". If people will not peacefully give up their stuff, the gangs will send armed goons to take your stuff and maybe murder you in the process. Sounds like anarchy to me...

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok, I watched the OP's video. I agree with Larkin pretty much always but I don't think they really proved that people are already anarchist. Their point was that most moral people will agree with their anarchist views when presented logically. While that's true it really is not that those people were anarchist and didn't know it, it is that they can be convinced to come over to that viewpoint.

On the other hand I've been stating that everyone ALREADY LIVES IN ANARCHY (quite a different point really) and they simply don't know it. People have been tricked into "believing" that there is some fictional creature called "government" but such a thing is no more "real" than the Easter Bunny (NO! Say it ain't so!).

My position is that since there is NO legitimate "authority" for stealing and murdering and since there is no physical entity called "government", what we really have is anarchy... There is NO government, just several large gangs with guns who trick people into giving them their "stuff". If people will not peacefully give up their stuff, the gangs will send armed goons to take your stuff and maybe murder you in the process. Sounds like anarchy to me...

Semantics.

[Christian Liberty]

In what ways may an individual remove his consent from your minarchy?

If I'm king (not that I want to be, but bear with me) some anarchists who want to live peaceably are not a problem. A fascist gang controlling a private defense agency is a problem.

[Occam's Banana]

If I'm king (not that I want to be, but bear with me) some anarchists who want to live peaceably are not a problem. A fascist gang controlling a private defense agency is a problem.

How is a king (i.e., the State) a solution to such a problem?

[Feeding the Abscess]

If I'm king (not that I want to be, but bear with me) some anarchists who want to live peaceably are not a problem. A fascist gang controlling a private defense agency is a problem.

So if a private defense agency being run by a fascist gang is a problem, how is handing the only defense agency over to a fascist gang the solution?

[otherone]

If I'm king (not that I want to be, but bear with me) some anarchists who want to live peaceably are not a problem.

Don't identify with the "king" (which is a monarchy. btw). Identify with the governed. Answer my question, please.

[fisharmor]

Minarchism gets around it by saying that Romans 13 is ordaining a very limited authority, but nonetheless an authority that has the right to punish certain evildoers and keep society in peace and order by doing so (if they go beyond that they are actually tyrants, not rulers.)

Who decides when they have gone beyond simply punishing certain evildoers?
What is to be done about it when they have gone beyond their mandate?

I'm sorry to be blunt but I know you appreciate it kind of blunt... you haven't thought this through.
Someone got to you. You had a good argument to present and someone came along and thumped a bible in front of you, and told you that if you believe the words in that book you can't believe the things you're saying.

If you haven't done so already, give this entire treatise a good read. It contains all sorts of things that are irrevocable parts of reformation theology: the state bears the sword for God, people who are out of line need to get cut down like dogs, the people who will be cutting them up are doing God's work, and anyone who dies trying to cut them down is a martyr.

Minarchism is not possible, FF. It evolves into tyranny. I won't even say it devolves, because evolving into tyranny is its purpose.
When it does, the people who aim to correct it are labeled rebellious dogs, and cut up like livestock, and nobody bats an eye - not even those doing the cutting - because of Luther's interpretation of the verses you quote.
You see it daily here - people are cut up without even knowing why - and what is the state's first order of business in the aftermath? Find some reason why the person who was just cut down was actually a rebel. He was resisting. Or obstructing. He was getting in the way of the state's business.

I'm sorry to say it - I certainly didn't like hearing it the first time I heard it either, but it's something everyone with a conscience has to confront at some point. Luther opened a Pandora's Box of state power. It's true, he probably wasn't thinking explicitly of the Third Reich... but it certainly wouldn't have been possible had he not explicitly granted the state the power to treat the defiant like animals.

[Christian Liberty]

Who decides when they have gone beyond simply punishing certain evildoers?
What is to be done about it when they have gone beyond their mandate?

I'm sorry to be blunt but I know you appreciate it kind of blunt... you haven't thought this through.
Someone got to you. You had a good argument to present and someone came along and thumped a bible in front of you, and told you that if you believe the words in that book you can't believe the things you're saying.

This is something of an oversimplification. And, the questions you ask apply regardless of whether we're talking about a minarchy or an anarcho-capitalist society. Either way someone needs to draw the line (and that includes BOTH the governors and those who are making a judgment call whether to obey them or revolt against them, I'm not saying governors have an automatic right to make those calls and that we should always obey them.) The difference with ancap is that if EVEN ONE of the several competing PDAs or arbitration companies in an ancap society goes corrupt, you're going to have serious problems, doubly so if the philosophical libertarians are loath to kill civilians (as they should be) and the corrupt fascists who want to take control don't care.

Civil authority is also a part of a societal system that is disconnected from the economy, which would allow for righteous laws such as a banning of torture even if it is seen as economically utilitarian. This is another problem with ancap, no reason whatsoever to ignore fiscal utility.

In OT law you couldn't just go to any court you wanted. You went to the town elders. They had limited, but real authority. When the Israelites demanded the king, God told them it was evil to set up a kingdom, but once they did it, God himself annointed the king. This is a real problem from an ancap perspective, as some good, well meaning friends pointed out to me. Oh, the king would abuse his power yes, but if even being king was an inherent evil, how could God have his prophet ANNOINT him? Not to mention there were some good kings like David, Joash, etc. While its definitely a theme of the OT that power corrupts easily (and I don't support monarchism as a system), there's nothing that holding the office of king is sinful AS SUCH. Ancap essentially demands that it is. I understand that there's another ancap position which basically says ancap is just a pragmatic good, but I've never been much for non-philosophical arguments.

We don't get anything NEARLY clear enough in the NT for me to be able to say "well, it was OK to hold the office of civil magistrate in the OT but not the NT."


If you haven't done so already, give this entire treatise a good read. It contains all sorts of things that are irrevocable parts of reformation theology: the state bears the sword for God, people who are out of line need to get cut down like dogs, the people who will be cutting them up are doing God's work, and anyone who dies trying to cut them down is a martyr.

Minarchism is not possible, FF. It evolves into tyranny. I won't even say it devolves, because evolving into tyranny is its purpose.
When it does, the people who aim to correct it are labeled rebellious dogs, and cut up like livestock, and nobody bats an eye - not even those doing the cutting - because of Luther's interpretation of the verses you quote.

I know little of eschatology, but I'd say we are likely societally doomed in this regard unless postmillennialism is accurate (if postmillennialism were accurate I'd likely be happy with whatever we "ended up" with along the line.) Human nature generally sucks. I'd say both are "possible" but that neither is likely. I don't see why your anti-minarchist arguments wouldn't apply to ancap to. People will inevitably build bigger and bigger power structures. I'm seeing bigger problems with connecting governance to the economy.

My position at present would be that Romans 13 was written in order to refute the idea of absolute moral pacifism and to say that there is a legitimate role for civil authority in the punishment of violent crime. I do not think Paul anticipated the absurd ideas that some people have today about this passage... and the kinds of absurd moral hoops people would jump through to defend certain actions of the State. But, when I claimed there was NO such thing as civil authority, I was the one jumping through hoops.

You see it daily here - people are cut up without even knowing why - and what is the state's first order of business in the aftermath? Find some reason why the person who was just cut down was actually a rebel. He was resisting. Or obstructing. He was getting in the way of the state's business.

People justify all kinds of insanely immoral things for absurd reasons. But, just like parental abuse doesn't prove that parents don't have legitimate authority, I believe Romans 13 is teaching that there is a (very limited) ministry of the sword. It doesn't make sense otherwise. The OT also doesn't make any sense otherwise.

I'm sorry to say it - I certainly didn't like hearing it the first time I heard it either, but it's something everyone with a conscience has to confront at some point. Luther opened a Pandora's Box of state power. It's true, he probably wasn't thinking explicitly of the Third Reich... but it certainly wouldn't have been possible had he not explicitly granted the state the power to treat the defiant like animals.

I'm not sure what about Catholicism or Orthodoxy would make ancap easier to defend, though I'd be curious to find out. But really, I don't think the Reformers were really responsible for the mess we have today. Their intellectual tradition was that government should be limited and logically lead to the positions of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and Gary North (Note that I am not saying they believed the same things, just that their system of thought logically lead there.) Personally, my Baptist theology and my views on the covenant cause me to support even less of a State than those guys. It is modern majoritarians who read way too much into Romans 13 that are responsible for the mess of modern society, not the Reformers.

Just IMO.

[Christian Liberty]

So if a private defense agency being run by a fascist gang is a problem, how is handing the only defense agency over to a fascist gang the solution?

Ideally I'd like to hand the "only" defense agency to a minarchist, which would allow him to uphold justice and prevent fascists from taking power. That's easier said than done, but even that's easier than getting rid of all government.

[heavenlyboy34]

Who decides when they have gone beyond simply punishing certain evildoers?
What is to be done about it when they have gone beyond their mandate?

I'm sorry to be blunt but I know you appreciate it kind of blunt... you haven't thought this through.
Someone got to you. You had a good argument to present and someone came along and thumped a bible in front of you, and told you that if you believe the words in that book you can't believe the things you're saying.

If you haven't done so already, give this entire treatise a good read. It contains all sorts of things that are irrevocable parts of reformation theology: the state bears the sword for God, people who are out of line need to get cut down like dogs, the people who will be cutting them up are doing God's work, and anyone who dies trying to cut them down is a martyr.

Minarchism is not possible, FF. It evolves into tyranny. I won't even say it devolves, because evolving into tyranny is its purpose.
When it does, the people who aim to correct it are labeled rebellious dogs, and cut up like livestock, and nobody bats an eye - not even those doing the cutting - because of Luther's interpretation of the verses you quote.
You see it daily here - people are cut up without even knowing why - and what is the state's first order of business in the aftermath? Find some reason why the person who was just cut down was actually a rebel. He was resisting. Or obstructing. He was getting in the way of the state's business.

I'm sorry to say it - I certainly didn't like hearing it the first time I heard it either, but it's something everyone with a conscience has to confront at some point. Luther opened a Pandora's Box of state power. It's true, he probably wasn't thinking explicitly of the Third Reich... but it certainly wouldn't have been possible had he not explicitly granted the state the power to treat the defiant like animals.

+rep

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, it doesn't. It states that certain behavior is a "sin" and to "hate" sin, but it never says someone is to hate another person. After all we are all "sinners" (I believe)...

My personal belief system is that all "sin" is forgiven and although we should try to not sin and we shouldn't encourage sin it's completely in our nature to sin. Kinda like telling a scorpion not to sting...

Yup. "There is no man who lives and sins not." (from an Orthodox trisagion prayer for recently departed souls)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Semantics.

It's not really semantics. One position is that everyone's moral base is anarchistic and one position is that everyone already lives in an anarchy but they've been tricked into believing otherwise... almost Matrix-like.

[otherone]

It's not really semantics. One position is that everyone's moral base is anarchistic and one position is that everyone already lives in an anarchy but they've been tricked into believing otherwise... almost Matrix-like.

It's more like "The Emperor's New Clothes".