An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[St_Francis]

You claim that God instituted a government which slaughters 1,000,000+ babies annually?

No one seems to have answered this properly… God institutes a government. If the people in the government followed God’s laws, they would not permit abortion.

They were given a big job by God, and they are messing it up and creating a huge mess But how much do we mess up our little jobs?

 

[St_Francis]

How do you know milk doesn’t have some anomalous chemical properties that make it work like fuel?

Go ahead and try it in your parents’s car, Sent by.

Oh, you’re not willing to do that? Why not? Could it be that when an experiment like that becomes a concrete reality, you think that *you *do not want to take that risk personally?

 

[mikekle]

I bet he did (if he even existed), and I bet he too was stumped at the blaring contradiction.

If the main deterrent from crime is fear of punishment, then we aren’t really solving the problem. If the thread of punishment was necessary to keep crime levels low, then the society in question would be so full of vice that the government would quickly be corrupted and become far more totalitarian than an anarchy (which is actually quite the opposite of totalitarianism).

This is basically where our society is at today, I find it amazing our leaders who create the laws do not realize many of the laws they have in place, are not working and the crimes continue to go up and up, DUI is a prime example, they have tried a few things in dealing with this, usually it is more punishment, more time with a legal driving license, more fines, more jail time, etc. but each year, DUI numbers keep rising, so the current laws are not effective, I cant believe our leaders do not see this!!!

Isnt it time they try another approach to stop people from driving drunk? We claim to be one of the most advanced civilizations on the planet, there must be someone that can come up with something effective…right?

I fear though, the real goal is not to reduce or prevent people driving drunk, versus the city/state bringing in as much fine money as possible, many counties and cites rely on this money for their operating budget, so, once could say, they rely on people choosing to drive drunk. We need to change how we look at crimes and laws before we can hope to prevent them. Drug crimes are another, our leaders keep trying more and more punishments to sway people from doing such things, but each year, the number for these kinds of crimes rise very steadily, yet hey still continue with the same old logic and methods in crime prevention…how stupid can they be? When something has not ever worked in the past, why would they expect it to suddenly work now?

 

[St_Francis]

I bet he did (if he even existed), and I bet he too was stumped at the blaring contradiction.

If the main deterrent from crime is fear of punishment, then we aren’t really solving the problem. If the thread of punishment was necessary to keep crime levels low, then the society in question would be so full of vice that the government would quickly be corrupted and become far more totalitarian than an anarchy (which is actually quite the opposite of totalitarianism).

There are ways to greatly reduce crime: Catholicism and a supportive social structure. However, you have rejected both in favor of anarchy.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I bet he did (if he even existed), and I bet he too was stumped at the blaring contradiction.

Ah, not a Christian I see. Then anymore conversation with me about this is probably a waste of both of our time; a dialogue about Christ himself would be more fruitful, and that would be very off topic for the purposes of this thread.

:tiphat:

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

There are ways to greatly reduce crime: Catholicism and a supportive social structure. However, you have rejected both in favor of anarchy.

Catholicism is folly, and a supportive social structure wouldn’t last for long in our current culture of vice.
St Francis:

No one seems to have answered this properly… God institutes a government. If the people in the government followed God’s laws, they would not permit abortion.

They were given a big job by God, and they are messing it up and creating a huge mess But how much do we mess up our little jobs?

According to catholicism, God knows the future before it happens, so he wouldn’t have instituted this government since he would have forseen it turning evil. Besides, I thought God’s policy was to avoid direct intervention whenever possible, for the sake of free will.

This is basically where our society is at today, I find it amazing our leaders who create the laws do not realize many of the laws they have in place, are not working and the crimes continue to go up and up, DUI is a prime example, they have tried a few things in dealing with this, usually it is more punishment, more time with a legal driving license, more fines, more jail time, etc. but each year, DUI numbers keep rising, so the current laws are not effective, I cant believe our leaders do not see this!!!

Isnt it time they try another approach to stop people from driving drunk? We claim to be one of the most advanced civilizations on the planet, there must be someone that can come up with something effective…right?

I fear though, the real goal is not to reduce or prevent people driving drunk, versus the city/state bringing in as much fine money as possible, many counties and cites rely on this money for their operating budget, so, once could say, they rely on people choosing to drive drunk. We need to change how we look at crimes and laws before we can hope to prevent them. Drug crimes are another, our leaders keep trying more and more punishments to sway people from doing such things, but each year, the number for these kinds of crimes rise very steadily, yet hey still continue with the same old logic and methods in crime prevention…how stupid can they be? When something has not ever worked in the past, why would they expect it to suddenly work now?

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Go ahead and try it in your parents’s car, Sent by.

Oh, you’re not willing to do that? Why not? Could it be that when an experiment like that becomes a concrete reality, you think that you do not want to take that risk personally?

The risk of damaging the car would outweigh making my point stronger. Besides, the point wasn’t that milk is a form of gasoline, but rather that neither of us know enough about how anarchy would go to conclusively prove either side of this. We would need an experiment, and that is not something I can see happening.

 

[Reep]

There are ways to greatly reduce crime: Catholicism and a supportive social structure. However, you have rejected both in favor of anarchy.

You know better than this.

1. The Catholic Church–since it does NOT rely on the initiation of force to exist–would not be rejected by a social order that rejects government aggression.
2. You assume that a “supportive social order” can only exist by violent government coercion. To the extent the social order exists by the initiation of violence, that order is corrupt and illegitimate. “Supportive” is that last word I would use to describe it.

 

[St_Francis]

You know better than this.

1. The Catholic Church–since it does NOT rely on the initiation of force to exist–would not be rejected by a social order that rejects government aggression.

My comment about rejecting the Church was addressed to Sent by, as the reult of a remark made elsewhere by him. The “you” I used there was specific to him Sorry about that!

1. You assume that a “supportive social order” can only exist by violent government coercion. To the extent the social order exists by the initiation of violence, that order is corrupt and illegitimate. “Supportive” is that last word I would use to describe it.

Maybe the problem we have here is that you seem to think that government IS violent, and that that is a bad thing. The Church does teach that government is necessary: 1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him.

There are times when force, even violent force, is necessary. There must be order and authority to the world or it would be chaotic and a mess in which nothing worked. From the CCC: 1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

Take a simple matter such as driving on the wrong side of the road. Here’s a story of a woman who drove on the wrong side of a major highway in the fast lane at 50 mph. She caused 4 accidents.

Now, imagine if there were no government. A simple matter like that would, if we even had cars and roads which we probably wouldn’t, be a common everyday occurence. People would necer know when they left home if they would make it back.

It’s just a matter of human nature. Without teeth, law is useless and authority is utterly meaningless.

 

[mikekle]

The risk of damaging the car would outweigh making my point stronger. Besides, the point wasn’t that milk is a form of gasoline, but rather that neither of us know enough about how anarchy would go to conclusively prove either side of this. We would need an experiment, and that is not something I can see happening.

Somalia has not had a govt for many years, there is your example of anarchy in modern times. I recently watched a documentary about the area, I did not know when pirates hijack ships for ransom, the money goes for the communities, they use it to help pay for schools, food, etc. So it is not something done for pure criminal reasons, or greed, they do it to survive and help their community survive.

I used to think the opposite thing about pirates and why these people were hijacking ships, but now I see what is happening and have changed my views on the pirates and how their society gets by, in fact I can honestly say, if there were no Govt in the US, I highly doubt the citizens here would do what many somalians do for their communities, In the US, it would be every man, woman, child for themselves, no one would be trying to help anyone, everyone would be trying to get as much money, food, water, etc for themselves as possible. So, IMO, anarchy can work, but it depends on the people who live there.

 

[St_Francis]

Catholicism is folly, and a supportive social structure wouldn’t last for long in our current culture of vice.

You call folly the Church founded by the God you claim sent you but Whose Existence you now question…

According to catholicism, God knows the future before it happens, so he wouldn’t have instituted this government since he would have forseen it turning evil. Besides, I thought God’s policy was to avoid direct intervention whenever possible, for the sake of free will.

God knows what is for us the future because He sees His creation from outside of time. He knows it because it happens. Most of the bad things in this world happen because people behave so very badly.

Look at a Ponzi scheme: people eventually lose money and we feel sorry for them and imprison the malefactor. But the victims would not have had their money in the scheme had they not had some greed… Same with voting–when we vote “for our own self-interest,” we are doing the same thing.

God did not choose our government officials; *we did. *And it is the way it is because of our own sinfulness.

 

[St_Francis]

The risk of damaging the car would outweigh making my point stronger. Besides, the point wasn’t that milk is a form of gasoline, but rather that neither of us know enough about how anarchy would go to conclusively prove either side of this. We would need an experiment, and that is not something I can see happening.

And the reason people don’t try the experiment of anarchy may be exactly the same as the reason you won’t run the risk of destroying your parents’s car: the risks outweigh the extremely small possibility of benefit.

I say the possibility is extremely small because a bit of experience with human nature shows that the likelihood of benefit is very small. Why destroy a bad situation when the probable result is *worse? *Why try running yournparents’s car, battered as it may be (not talking abour your actual parents’ actual car here), with milk when the experiment may result in an even worse car?

 

[JimG]

The example of anarchy in Somalia is a good one. There are others. Anarchy often occurs after or in the midst of, political revolutions. A group of people overthrow an oppressive government. Everyone is free of the oppressor. There is no law, they do their own thing. Crime and chaos rule. That is anarchy. Ultimately, people yearn for order, and a new tyranny arises to meet the need for order. That’s why anarchy leads to tyranny.

One can even note the phenomenon is other social situations. In high school, I had one teacher who was too weak and could not keep order in a class, not even in a study hall. As soon as students gathered in her class, disorder broke out because of the lack of leadership. It was no good for anyone. Eventually she was replaced by a teacher with a more commanding—not to say tyrannical—presence!

 

[Reep]

What happens when people commit crimes, if there is no state to administer punishment? Don’t the strong overpower the weak and take control? And then we’re left with totalitarianism.

Even though there would be no authority initiating violence against citizens, there will still be a need for lawful authority to use defensive force. Even a society which rejects aggression will be interested in protecting its members from criminals. I can think of no reason we should not defend ourselves against aggressors, by organizing to provide mutual security.

For that to happen, there would be people paid to handle security (i.e. police). There must be courts. There would still be some need for prisons, but that need would be pared back in a society that only criminalized the harming of others and which valued restitution over retribution.

Of course, such a system would need to protect the poor and helpless, not just those who could pay. Many writers have proposed ways it could be handled without coercive government.

 

[Reep]

Take a simple matter such as driving on the wrong side of the road. Here’s a story of a woman who drove on the wrong side of a major highway in the fast lane at 50 mph. She caused 4 accidents.

Now, imagine if there were no government. A simple matter like that would, if we even had cars and roads which we probably wouldn’t, be a common everyday occurence. People would necer know when they left home if they would make it back.

It’s just a matter of human nature. Without teeth, law is useless and authority is utterly meaningless.

Francis, we are always talking past one another. Perhaps I am missing a key point you are making. I know you are missing my key point.

I get your point (which you make over and over) that government can (an often must) legitimately use force. I have no problem with using defensive force of a preventive or restorative nature. I do not need to be convinced that if no one can use defensive force, then aggressors could run wild.

So let’s drop the canard about defensive force and concentrate on aggression. Some people take it upon themselves to initiate force against others–not in response to aggression–but simply to force others to comply with their will. This is the essence of aggression. I believe it is evil.

Most people–perhaps you too–concede such behavior is wrong for individuals in their everyday lives. You would not use violence to stop your neighbor from drinking or gambling or cheating on his wife. You would not rob your neighbor at gunpoint (even if it was for the good cause of helping out another neighbor). It would be immoral to do so.

My point is that government–as we understand it today–is somehow permitted to do these immoral things on our behalf. I challenge the authority of government to do things which would be immoral for you and I to do.

 

[St_Francis]

Francis, we are always talking past one another. Perhaps I am missing a key point you are making. I know you are missing my key point.

Reep,
I was responding to Sent by God, who has been advocating anarchy in this thread.

I get your point (which you make over and over) that government can (an often must) legitimately use force. I have no problem with using defensive force of a preventive or restorative nature. I do not need to be convinced that if no one can use defensive force, then aggressors could run wild.

So let’s drop the canard about defensive force and concentrate on aggression. Some people take it upon themselves to initiate force against others–not in response to aggression–but simply to force others to comply with their will. This is the essence of aggression. I believe it is evil.

Most people–perhaps you too–concede such behavior is wrong for individuals in their everyday lives. You would not use violence to stop your neighbor from drinking or gambling or cheating on his wife. You would not rob your neighbor at gunpoint (even if it was for the good cause of helping out another neighbor). It would be immoral to do so.

My point is that government–as we understand it today–is somehow permitted to do these immoral things on our behalf. I challenge the authority of government to do things which would be immoral for you and I to do.

I see what you are saying, and I am happy that you clarified your point of view, because I do admit to having at times (over many threads) been muddled by the various points of view and definitions.

I have to admit, however, that I do believe the government has the authority to do certain things which private people as private people do not: one which comes up frequently is taxation. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Or were you thinking about other things?

 

[St_Francis]

Francis, we are always talking past one another. Perhaps I am missing a key point you are making. I know you are missing my key point.

I get your point (which you make over and over) that government can (an often must) legitimately use force. I have no problem with using defensive force of a preventive or restorative nature. I do not need to be convinced that if no one can use defensive force, then aggressors could run wild.

So let’s drop the canard about defensive force and concentrate on aggression. Some people take it upon themselves to initiate force against others–not in response to aggression–but simply to force others to comply with their will. This is the essence of aggression. I believe it is evil.

Most people–perhaps you too–concede such behavior is wrong for individuals in their everyday lives. You would not use violence to stop your neighbor from drinking or gambling or cheating on his wife. You would not rob your neighbor at gunpoint (even if it was for the good cause of helping out another neighbor). It would be immoral to do so.

My point is that government–as we understand it today–is somehow permitted to do these immoral things on our behalf. I challenge the authority of government to do things which would be immoral for you and I to do.

OK, I think part of the problem is that you use several terms interchangeably, which I already mentioned as problematical to me, since I think those terms, including libertarian anarchy, refer to different things. As a result, I misunderstood your take; at the same time, you seem to have misunderstood mine, as when you wrote to me, “You assume that a “supportive social order” can only exist by violent government coercion. To the extent the social order exists by the initiation of violence, that order is corrupt and illegitimate. “Supportive” is that last word I would use to describe it.”

So, apparently you think my idea of reasonable government involves “violent coercion,” bit that your idea of reasonable government does not.

I am not sure what you consider violent coercion… maybe you could clarify

 

[Reep]

I am not sure what you consider violent coercion… maybe you could clarify

With pleasure. Here is a couple simple examples:

“Stop doing *that or we will hurt you.”

or

“Give us your money or we will hurt you.”

*** **could be anything the rulers don’t want you do do, whether it is hurting anyone else or not.

******charge you with a crime, take your money, your car, your home, arrest you, tase you, mace you, beat if you don’t come quietly, put you in prison, and–if you resist strongly enough–we can kill you, and get away with it.

I realize there are other kinds of coercion: mental duress, shaming/shunning or a lack of other reasonable options, but I believe there is a rational basis for distinguishing between physical violence (and the threat of physical violence) and other forms of coercion.

 

[St_Francis]

With pleasure. Here is a couple simple examples:

“Stop doing *that or we will hurt you.”

Stop waving that gun around threatening people, driving drunk, beating that person… I have no problem with that. Maybe you need to be a little more specific about what “that” is?

or

“Give us your money or we will hurt you.”

Taxation. The state has the right to tax people–from the CCC: 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45 [45 Rom 13:7]
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

*** **could be anything the rulers don’t want you do do, whether it is hurting anyone else or not.

******charge you with a crime, take your money, your car, your home, arrest you, tase you, mace you, beat if you don’t come quietly, put you in prison, and–if you resist strongly enough–we can kill you, and get away with it.

I totally agree that the government has moral boundaries as do individuals and other social entities. And to be honest, I think our government (US) is violating some of these

However, there are certain actions which the libertarians perceive as “victimless crimes” or “not harming anyone” which are not victimless or not harmful. The harm to others may be harm to the social order or harm to individuals involved, altho they have supposedly consented. Of these types of crimes, some should definitely be illegal, and those which are not currently illegal should be on a sort of “tolerated” list due to causing more disorder to enforce than the acts themselves cause.

I realize there are other kinds of coercion: mental duress, shaming/shunning or a lack of other reasonable options, but I believe there is a rational basis for distinguishing between physical violence (and the threat of physical violence) and other forms of coercion.

Well, physical violence is certainly easier to be clear about, and the others may be more subjective and this trickier to deal with, bit i don’t think they should be ruled out as immoral.

 

[Reep]

Well, physical violence is certainly easier to be clear about, and the others may be more subjective and this trickier to deal with, bit i don’t think they should be ruled out as immoral.

I agree that many sorts of non-physical coercion are immoral. Cruel words, rudeness, racism, these are all immoral. By now, I think I have made it clear that I believe it wrong to resort to state violence to punish such immoral behaviors. Not every vice must be a crime.

The Church has no trouble with this idea. The list of condemned moral behavior from the catechism is FAR longer than the list of sins the Church calls upon the state to punish.

I like to think that God leaves a few opportunities for us to exercise genuine virtue without having the buzzkill of having a cop standing by to take us into custody when we fall short.