An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[JimG]

You can’t be serious. The French Revolution was an era of democratic statism.

Yes, except for those parts in which it devolved into mob rule.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

That’s exactly what democracy is. If you think anything in the French Revolution resembled anarchism, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

 

[edwest2]

There is no compatibility. The end. From the dictionary:

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

I’ll put my money on history and human nature. Nobody is going to see utopia here. And it’s been tried in the past, but the problem is: there will always be bad people, regardless of how you define the word bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Do you realize how ignorant it looks to argue against any idea at all using a dictionary definition?

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, the choice of holiness is individual, but in reality, so are all choices, because a group of separate wills cannot make a collective choice. It can make a unanimous choice, but the choices of each person are always metaphysically distinct.

“Anarchy is impossible, therefore it’s bad.” - you

Anarchy is incompatible with human nature, therefore it is a bad goal is what I think.

I agree that social pressure is an important factor, but only because people are weak and easily convinced to relinquish their beliefs, not because it isn’t entirely our choice.

I said direct power. If it’s us that makes the final decision, then we’re the only ones with direct power over it.

It’s not that black and white. For instance, there are times when people make movies based on the fact their families are kidnapped and the kidnappers want them to commit a crime. Circumstances do play into people’s decisions; they are pressured, sometimes more and sometimes less.

Additionally, there is the issue of the training of children. It is said, and let’s take this as true for the sake of argument, that Gypsy children are raised that it is all right to steal from non-Gypsies. This is the only message they hear. It’s hard to overcome that kind of thing entirely on one’s own.

Additionally, both the Church and the law recognize a reduction of guilt under various circumstances. So altho one is the final decider of one’s actions, we don’t always know what goes into the making of that final decision.

I agree. I have met people that simply won’t be convinced by reasoning and I do not doubt their existence, but since we can’t force this “deeper change”, I think argument is pretty much the most direct role we can play.

Well, I guess we’ll have to disagree. I see prayer as a much stronger weapon.

 

[JimG]

That’s exactly what democracy is. If you think anything in the French Revolution resembled anarchism, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

If democracy is mob rule and the equivalent to the bloody reign of terror put in place by the French revolutionaries to quell any opposition to the revolution, then I’m glad that I don’t live in one. I much prefer living in a Constitutional Republic. At least the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn’t pulled out the guillotines. Yet.

 

[St_Francis]

Do you realize how ignorant it looks to argue against any idea at all using a dictionary definition?

So what’s your definition?

 

[triumphguy]

I always thought anarcho-syndicalism was kind of interesting:

youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

 

[edwest2]

Monty Python. That’s where everyone should get their information

Komrade. You see what Collective means. You want repression? We give you repression in labor camp. Kulak! Wake up!

Ed

 

[MarcusAndreas]

So what’s your definition?

The organization of society through the rejection of violence, most especially through the rejection of the most institutionalized and anti-social organization of violence, the state.

 

[edwest2]

The organization of society through the rejection of violence, most especially through the rejection of the most institutionalized and anti-social organization of violence, the state.

So everybody just makes up their own rules. Sorta like how too many are living now. Bad idea. So when the natives from Bora Bora enslave the population using nothing but sharp sticks - taking only small groups of people at a time and putting them in remote labor camps, we’ll be doing what?

“What? Oh that’s just a rumor, man. We’re anti-violence now. Peace. Love.” I heard that in 1968. The last thing we need are Hippie communes - again.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Anarchy is incompatible with human nature, therefore it is a bad goal is what I think.

Anarchy is not completely incompatible with human nature. It is possible. Besides, human nature is not the ultimate determiner of what is good.
St Francis:

Well, I guess we’ll have to disagree. I see prayer as a much stronger weapon.

Pray all you want, but prayer and argument are not exclusive.
St Francis:

If democracy is mob rule and the equivalent to the bloody reign of terror put in place by the French revolutionaries to quell any opposition to the revolution, then I’m glad that I don’t live in one. I much prefer living in a Constitutional Republic. At least the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn’t pulled out the guillotines. Yet.

The US can be considered a democracy for the present purpose. Also, democracy is not equivalent to any “bloody reign of terror”. Neither is anarchy.
St Francis:

So everybody just makes up their own rules. Sorta like how too many are living now. Bad idea. So when the natives from Bora Bora enslave the population using nothing but sharp sticks - taking only small groups of people at a time and putting them in remote labor camps, we’ll be doing what?

Anarchy doesn’t mean everybody makes their own rules, it just means there’s no official governing body. Also, if some natives enslaved us, an anarchical society wouldn’t necessarily not fight back. Despite Marcus’s incorrect definition, anarchy has nothing to do with pacifism.

 

[edwest2]

Anarchy is not completely incompatible with human nature. It is possible. Besides, human nature is not the ultimate determiner of what is good.

Pray all you want, but prayer and argument are not exclusive.

The US can be considered a democracy for the present purpose. Also, democracy is not equivalent to any “bloody reign of terror”. Neither is anarchy.

Anarchy doesn’t mean everybody makes their own rules, it just means there’s no official governing body. Also, if some natives enslaved us, an anarchical society wouldn’t necessarily not fight back. Despite Marcus’s incorrect definition, anarchy has nothing to do with pacifism.

Anarchy = everyone running around in their own direction. A huge, massive waste. People don’t trust the State now? Who’s going to trust an anarchist who decides he’s going to sqwuak like a chicken as opposed to speak English? “We’re all free man. Free from language. I think I’ll paint myself blue tomorrow. Free from everything.” I don’t need a commune. I don’t need anybody. I’ll just live in the woods and eat roots and berries.

Freedom, man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

You somehow attached my name to all your quote boxes, bit I only wrote the first two.

Anarchy is not completely incompatible with human nature. It is possible.

What is your definition of anarchy?

Besides, human nature is not the ultimate determiner of what is good.

I did not mean morally good but pragmatically good. If anarchy goes against human nature, then it would be foolish to set anarchy up as a goal.

Pray all you want, but prayer and argument are not exclusive.

Considering that I am “arguing” with you, I think it would be pretty obvious I don’t think they are mutually exclusive I’m just saying that prayer is the *essential *act.

 

[St_Francis]

The organization of society through the rejection of violence, most especially through the rejection of the most institutionalized and anti-social organization of violence, the state.

And what happens when someone goes crazy and starts attacking people? And what happens when the people as a whole are attacked by an outside invader?

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

You somehow attached my name to all your quote boxes, bit I only wrote the first two.

Whoops, sorry.
St Francis:

What is your definition of anarchy?

The lack of government.
St Francis:

I did not mean morally good but pragmatically good. If anarchy goes against human nature, then it would be foolish to set anarchy up as a goal.

Would you agree to the proposition that human nature resists moral perfection? If so, then moral perfection is a foolish goal, by this principle.
St Francis:

And what happens when someone goes crazy and starts attacking people? And what happens when the people as a whole are attacked by an outside invader?

In the case of violence between the citizens of an anarchy, people would pick whichever side they believed to be righteous. That’s human nature
When the people as a whole are attacked, I guess the defenders will organize naturally. True, there wouldn’t be a standing army, that’s the main point of government… but governments get so overbearing after they’ve been in power for 150+ years, is it really worth it?

 

[sent_by_God]

Something relevant I’ve just noticed: At both extremes of vice/virtue, the line between anarchy and government blurs. The difference is only that big if the people are spiritually mediocre. Look:

Vice + anarchy = rule of the strong.
Vice + government = oppression.
Come to think of it, the two aren’t that different, are they?

Virtue + government = justice, freedom, equality for all, charity, etc.
Virtue + anarchy = freedom, equality (because people share naturally, without communistic pressure from the gov), charity, justice, etc.
If a just nation with a government is under attack, what happens? The army fights back.
If a just society without a government is under attack, there isn’t a standing army, so the resistance isn’t as strong, but the scenario of invasion is then the only real area where government differs from anarchy on the virtuous end of the scale.

However:
Mediocrity + anarchy = chaos, maybe some micro-warfare, but there is at least a moderate-high degree of freedom.
Mediocrity + government = order, moderate-low degree of freedom. A standing army, probably, but the government is somewhat oppressive.

Only in mediocrity are the two wildly different.

 

[bilop]

The organization of society through the rejection of violence, most especially through the rejection of the most institutionalized and anti-social organization of violence, the state.

All that leads to is a dictatorship of those who don’t reject violence.

What does you “anarchist state” do when my neighbor decides he wants to kill me, rape my wife, and take my house?

If your answer is “nothing” then I am forced to band together with other people to protect myself and create a new government.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum of power will always be filled; usually by the people we’d least like to have power.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Something relevant I’ve just noticed: At both extremes of vice/virtue, the line between anarchy and government blurs. The difference is only that big if the people are spiritually mediocre. Look:

Vice + anarchy = rule of the strong.
Vice + government = oppression.
Come to think of it, the two aren’t that different, are they?

Virtue + government = justice, freedom, equality for all, charity, etc.
Virtue + anarchy = freedom, equality (because people share naturally, without communistic pressure from the gov), charity, justice, etc.
If a just nation with a government is under attack, what happens? The army fights back.
If a just society without a government is under attack, there isn’t a standing army, so the resistance isn’t as strong, but the scenario of invasion is then the only real area where government differs from anarchy on the virtuous end of the scale.

However:
Mediocrity + anarchy = chaos, maybe some micro-warfare, but there is at least a moderate-high degree of freedom.
Mediocrity + government = order, moderate-low degree of freedom. A standing army, probably, but the government is somewhat oppressive.

Only in mediocrity are the two wildly different.

You ignore the fundamental reality that man is not virtuous. Concupiscence is the fundamental nature of man since the Fall.

Any system has to be prepared to restrain human vice.

God Bless

 

[sent_by_God]

No, I’m not ignoring that. I agree that people are, in general, not virtuous, but if you assert that viciousness is the “fundamental nature” of man, then how do you expect us to implement a system that is “prepared to restrain human vice”? To say that humans are vicious, therefore we need government, is therefore a contradiction.