An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[edwest2]

"The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible." Pope Benedict

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[sent_by_God]

Interesting argument. While it could be responded that government is needed for civil protection, I am leaning toward agreeing with you.

 

[JimG]

Somehow I’m not envisioning anarchy as a big improvement. Anarchy leads toward social chaos and societal breakdown. Any major nation which wishes to make anarchy it’s working mechanism is likely setting itself up for conquest and tyranny.

 

[mikekle]

I find it strange that even in our US constitution, (paraphrasing), if such citizens know of wrongs or injustice in the Govt, they have the DUTY to right that wrong, but if someone should try that in todays world, they would be quickly labeled a domestic terrorist, also the part that says the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots, again, should this be attempted in todays world, they would be labeled a domestic terrorist.

It seems to me our leaders only cite the constitution when it suits them and when it doesnt, they dont talk about it.

I like to think if an incident such as the boston tea party happened today, EVERYONE involved would be arrested and labeled terrorists, even though those in power look back at the original tea party and commended them for this…???

I realize we need some form of authority, or there would a free for all, and only the strong would survive, or those with the most weapons, ( a mad max type of world), the problem is though, those in power tend to get full on themselves, and flex their muscle a bit too much, law enforcement does this all the time, when they go overboard and make mountains out of molehills, so it seems we need someone at the absolute top, who is totally 100% neutral, but in our times, this cannot happen, too much room for corruption, which is rampant thru out law enforcement, state and fed govt.

 

[St_Francis]

I find it strange that even in our US constitution, (paraphrasing), if such citizens know of wrongs or injustice in the Govt, they have the DUTY to right that wrong, but if someone should try that in todays world, they would be quickly labeled a domestic terrorist, also the part that says the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots, again, should this be attempted in todays world, they would be labeled a domestic terrorist.

Have you read the actual Constitution? The tree of liberty thing is not in it. And I can’t imagine what younare referring to wrt the responsibility to right wrongs wherever they find them… maybe you could quote what you are talking about?

It seems to me our leaders only cite the constitution when it suits them and when it doesnt, they dont talk about it.

I like to think if an incident such as the boston tea party happened today, EVERYONE involved would be arrested and labeled terrorists, even though those in power look back at the original tea party and commended them for this…???

I realize we need some form of authority, or there would a free for all, and only the strong would survive, or those with the most weapons, ( a mad max type of world), the problem is though, those in power tend to get full on themselves, and flex their muscle a bit too much, law enforcement does this all the time, when they go overboard and make mountains out of molehills, so it seems we need someone at the absolute top, who is totally 100% neutral, but in our times, this cannot happen, too much room for corruption, which is rampant thru out law enforcement, state and fed govt.

So what is really needed is a government with limits placed upon it, which is what we had, altho as per human nature people are constantly trying to go over the limits.

Yea, we must be vigilant, bit we must not go too far ourselves in righting wrongs lest we too become wrong.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Yea, we must be vigilant, bit we must not go too far ourselves in righting wrongs lest we too become wrong.

You can’t become wrong by righting wrongs.
St Francis:

Have you read the actual Constitution? The tree of liberty thing is not in it. And I can’t imagine what younare referring to wrt the responsibility to right wrongs wherever they find them… maybe you could quote what you are talking about?

It doesn’t really matter whether the constitution says it or not. We know it’s true, whether or not the constitution says it.

JimG:

Somehow I’m not envisioning anarchy as a big improvement. Anarchy leads toward social chaos and societal breakdown. Any major nation which wishes to make anarchy it’s working mechanism is likely setting itself up for conquest and tyranny.

Anarchy isn’t really what leads to rule of the strong. vice is what leads to rule of the strong, anarchy or not.

 

[St_Francis]

You can’t become wrong by righting wrongs.

Of course you can, don’t be silly. We even have a saying warning against it: 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

It doesn’t really matter whether the constitution says it or not. We know it’s true, whether or not the constitution says it.

OK, go and try to right every wrong in your school and tell me how it goes.

Anarchy isn’t really what leads to rule of the strong. vice is what leads to rule of the strong, anarchy or not.

Well, I’d say vice leads to anarchy and then to rule of the strong.

Check out the parable of the cockles and wheat–St Matthew 13:24-30

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Of course you can, don’t be silly. We even have a saying warning against it: 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

First, just because there is a saying against it doesn’t mean the saying is true. Second, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” means that another person’s sin doesn’t justify yours, not that doing the will of God too much makes you evil.
St Francis:

OK, go and try to right every wrong in your school and tell me how it goes.

I’m homeschooled, so this would mean righting every wrong in my family. Unfortunately, my family has a severe case of verophobia (fear of truth) as well as perfectophobia (self-explanatory), so I can’t fix them.
St Francis:

Well, I’d say vice leads to anarchy and then to rule of the strong.

I disagree. Vice + anarchy = rule of the strong. Virtue + anarchy = freedom. Vice - anarchy = oppression. Virtue - anarchy = ideal.

I read the parable, but I don’t see what it has to do with this. Also, keep in mind I’m not Christian, so you can’t refute me with a bible verse.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Also, keep in mind I’m not Christian, so you can’t refute me with a bible verse.

OK, if you won’t be swayed by Christian principles of morality, here is a totally secular refutation. Throughout history there have been many forms of government tried - monarchy, democracy (in varying degrees), dictatorship, etc. Some of these instances of government have worked out better than others. Perhaps all of them are flawed to one extent or another. But where can we look in history to see an instance of a well-functioning anarchy that can be used for comparison with these other forms of government? Without such examples, the whole concept of a well-functioning anarchy is purely theoretical. It is quite an extraordinary claim to say that such a thing can be stable and serve the common good when it has never even existed. And as scientists like to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As things stand, the most likely scientific position to take is that human nature is incompatible with anarchy. Even if one were established with the best of intentions, it will collapse into something else. Speculations to the contrary are just that - pure speculations.

 

[St_Francis]

First, just because there is a saying against it doesn’t mean the saying is true. Second, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” means that another person’s sin doesn’t justify yours, not that doing the will of God too much makes you evil.

What do you think is the source of God’s will? I am asking because you say you are not a Christian and so I don’t know where you’re coming from.

I’m homeschooled, so this would mean righting every wrong in my family. Unfortunately, my family has a severe case of verophobia (fear of truth) as well as perfectophobia (self-explanatory), so I can’t fix them.

Well, if you have veriphilia, then at least you are in the right place

So, imagine if everyone in your family tried to right everything each perceived as wrong. Well, this may only work if you have brothers and sisters…

I disagree. Vice + anarchy = rule of the strong. Virtue + anarchy = freedom. Vice - anarchy = oppression. Virtue - anarchy = ideal.

So, how does one set up a situation in which all are virtuous?

I read the parable, but I don’t see what it has to do with this. Also, keep in mind I’m not Christian, so you can’t refute me with a bible verse.

Ah, I didn’t know that you are not Christian.

Look at it like this: suppose everyone who told a lie, no matter how minor, was put into jail for a week or more.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I have never denied the necessity for moral and civil authority, the line I draw is when these entities grant themselves the right to use violence and slavery to stay in power, which virtually every state in the world uses.

You are interpreting political power like a Protestant.

Right…

This idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the only morally consistent position is anarchism/voluntarism/panarchism.

Well the thing is most of us in the world voluntarily support having governments to govern us because otherwise the world around us turns to chaos or anarchy, what most people want to avoid.

Why you might ask?

*1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or **institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them. **
*

Where in the Catechism is support of government through territorial monopolies of violence mandated? The social doctrine of the Church assumes a just social structure for its precepts to operate, the modern state makes this impossible.

Obviously modern states (for the most part–some states like Malta or Chile might be exempt) make it hard for a just social structure to exist. It’s an example of a legitimate authority acting in an illegitimate way.

The apostles didn’t call for an abolition of the Roman Empire even when the State was burning Christians by the thousands, in fact they were told to pray for them and to be obedient to them.

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed - St. Paul

 

[sent_by_God]

LeafByNiggle:

OK, if you won’t be swayed by Christian principles of morality, here is a totally secular refutation. Throughout history there have been many forms of government tried - monarchy, democracy (in varying degrees), dictatorship, etc. Some of these instances of government have worked out better than others. Perhaps all of them are flawed to one extent or another. But where can we look in history to see an instance of a well-functioning anarchy that can be used for comparison with these other forms of government? Without such examples, the whole concept of a well-functioning anarchy is purely theoretical. It is quite an extraordinary claim to say that such a thing can be stable and serve the common good when it has never even existed. And as scientists like to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As things stand, the most likely scientific position to take is that human nature is incompatible with anarchy. Even if one were established with the best of intentions, it will collapse into something else. Speculations to the contrary are just that - pure speculations.

All of these forms of government collapse at some point. They don’t work, in short, at least not for more than about 250 years. The reason there are no examples of anarchy working for 250 years+ is because there are no examples of anarchy. It has never been tried. At least not insofar as you have cited.
St Francis:

What do you think is the source of God’s will? I am asking because you say you are not a Christian and so I don’t know where you’re coming from.

I do believe in God. I have proven that there must be some kind of God. And I am fairly sure that there is some kind of mysterious, powerful soul that intervenes from time to time in my life. Naturally, I assume that this mysterious intercessor is some kind of God.
St Francis:

So, how does one set up a situation in which all are virtuous?

You can’t make people virtuous. Not directly. That is the problem. You can try to get them to choose to be virtuous, but it is one’s own choice. Forced virtue is a contradiction in terms.
St Francis:

look at it like this: suppose everyone who told a lie, no matter how minor, was put into jail for a week or more.

That would be outlandishly disproportionate punishment.

CrossOfChrist:

The apostles didn’t call for an abolition of the Roman Empire even when the State was burning Christians by the thousands, in fact they were told to pray for them and to be obedient to them.

That is part of why I am not a Christian. The catholic church never fights back against persecution. Since it’s off-topic, I don’t want to get into a discussion about the morality of such action here. If you wish to discuss that, go to the thread “there should be a war…”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All of these forms of government collapse at some point. They don’t work, in short, at least not for more than about 250 years. The reason there are no examples of anarchy working for 250 years+ is because there are no examples of anarchy. It has never been tried. At least not insofar as you have cited.

That was exactly my point. You can’t very easily extoll the virtues of a system that has never even been tried. At least with the other forms of government we can point to instances of them and discuss the empirical pros and cons of them. With anarchy you have a very high bar to clear. Not only do you have to show why you think it is a good thing, you have to offer an explanation as to why such a simple idea has not been tried. Absent some other explanation, the most reasonable conclusion is that it is not something people naturally want to do. Don’t you see how this makes your job harder?

 

[St_Francis]

All of these forms of government collapse at some point. They don’t work, in short, at least not for more than about 250 years. The reason there are no examples of anarchy working for 250 years+ is because there are no examples of anarchy. It has never been tried. At least not insofar as you have cited.

I do believe in God. I have proven that there must be some kind of God. And I am fairly sure that there is some kind of mysterious, powerful soul that intervenes from time to time in my life. Naturally, I assume that this mysterious intercessor is some kind of God.

You can’t make people virtuous. Not directly. That is the problem. You can try to get them to choose to be virtuous, but it is one’s own choice. Forced virtue is a contradiction in terms.

So how do we get to a situation of Anarchy+Virtue before all the bad guys kill us off?

That would be outlandishly disproportionate punishment.

Well, that’s just your opinion, isn’t it? Joe over here, who also wants to right all wrongs, thinks it would be perfectly fine to do that.

What makes your opinion better than his?

 

[sent_by_God]

LeafByNiggle:

That was exactly my point. You can’t very easily extoll the virtues of a system that has never even been tried. At least with the other forms of government we can point to instances of them and discuss the empirical pros and cons of them. With anarchy you have a very high bar to clear. Not only do you have to show why you think it is a good thing, you have to offer an explanation as to why such a simple idea has not been tried. Absent some other explanation, the most reasonable conclusion is that it is not something people naturally want to do. Don’t you see how this makes your job harder?

I think it makes my job easier. You know what else has never been tried? Everyone being saints. But this doesn’t mean a nation of saints would be a bad thing.
Same thing applies to anarchy. If anarchy has never been tried, and the only real other thing that has not been tried is the ideal solution, this points to anarchy being good.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make with the whole “vice/virtue +/- anarchy =” thing was that system of government isn’t really the key to man’s problems. It makes rather little difference whether we are a monarchy, a democracy, or an anarchy. No matter the system, a nation of vicious people will be a bad nation, and a nation of saints will be a good nation.
St Francis:

So how do we get to a situation of Anarchy+Virtue before all the bad guys kill us off?

First, it’s not like the minions of evil are about to exterminate us. There isn’t a limited supply of good people and bad people that never gets replenished. Even if the evil ones did kill us all, someone is some future era would be bound to rediscover the way of service to God. As long as humanity lives on, the conflict can never truly end.
Second, as I’ve said before, we can’t just make people virtuous. Virtue is by definition freely chosen. This rule of spiritual warfare is both our doom, because we can’t turn people into saints, and our salvation, because the evil ones can’t turn us into them either.
However, there is more we can do to further the cause of global sanctification than just pray and hope God moves everyone to conversion (not that God has any more direct power over people’s moral alignments than we do). Despite the existence of free will, most people will change their lives if given a hard enough push. Vice’s twin epidemic of philosophical/religious error is important if the enemy’s regime of evil is to stand. A refutation can often be the root cause of a conversion. It was certainly an important part of mine.
Also, see the thread “there should be a war…” for a discussion of something else relevant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You know what else has never been tried? Everyone being saints.

The choice of being a saint is an individual one. Within any given form of government, an individual can choose to become a saint. But the choice of anarchy as a form of government is not an individual choice. It is a societal one that would have to be undertaken by a sovereign people. An individual living under some other form of government cannot just decide to try anarchy. The existing government will not tolerate it. Besides, “being saints” is hardly the only other thing that has not been tried. If you use your imagination you can think of many other untried thing, most of them nonsensical (because sensible things tend to get tried) and some of them very bad. I am not saying that anarcy is bad because it has not been tried. I am saying that it is difficult to prove the converse without examples to analyze.

No matter the system, a nation of vicious people will be a bad nation, and a nation of saints will be a good nation…

To this I can agree completely. But in a disussion of the relative merits of different forms of government, this introduces an independent variable. We should be trying to evaluate anarchy vs other forms of government with this variable (the virtuousness of the people) held constant, at least at the beginning. You might be able to argue that anarchy actually favors the balance of virtue to vice. But my sense is that anarchy would either have no affect on this variable, or else a negative one. The real question is what would anarchy be like, given the current mix of good and evil people, and good and evil tendencies within each person? There is every reason to believe that without some degree of coercion by the government, people with bad tendencies will see an opportunity to do bad things without penalty, and good people who voluntarily work for the common good will feel taken advantage of when they see their neighbors doing nothing. But that is just my speculation, since I can’t point to a functioning anarchy.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it makes my job easier. You know what else has never been tried? Everyone being saints. But this doesn’t mean a nation of saints would be a bad thing.
Same thing applies to anarchy. If anarchy has never been tried, and the only real other thing that has not been tried is the ideal solution, this points to anarchy being good.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make with the whole “vice/virtue +/- anarchy =” thing was that system of government isn’t really the key to man’s problems. It makes rather little difference whether we are a monarchy, a democracy, or an anarchy. No matter the system, a nation of vicious people will be a bad nation, and a nation of saints will be a good nation.

I totally agree with you, and have been saying this maybe since before you were born, or at least around that time.

However, even if everyone is virtuous, or most everyone, a system of governance, a system of figuring things out, if it is not there will develop. That’s just a part of human nature. Best to have it all out in the open rather than have an informal system which can be abused by an unscrupulous person (since even in a virtuous society there will still be some who are not virtuous).

First, it’s not like the minions of evil are about to exterminate us. There isn’t a limited supply of good people and bad people that never gets replenished. Even if the evil ones did kill us all, someone is some future era would be bound to rediscover the way of service to God. As long as humanity lives on, the conflict can never truly end.

So we should try anarchy because even if it turns out really badly, some in future generations might be good? And if some good people did turn up, how long would they last?

Second, as I’ve said before, we can’t just make people virtuous. Virtue is by definition freely chosen. This rule of spiritual warfare is both our doom, because we can’t turn people into saints, and our salvation, because the evil ones can’t turn us into them either.

I can’t say I entirely agree with you. In a society in which everything is ordered to virtue, the knowledge is there, children will learn the discipline necessary to become virtuous, and it is easier for the weak to maintain their virtue.

Our society is not now ordered to virtue. Vietue is derided, children are taught vietue at home if at all and these teachings are no longer supported in the schools, and there are many who lead others into evil.

However, there is more we can do to further the cause of global sanctification than just pray and hope God moves everyone to conversion (not that God has any more direct power over people’s moral alignments than we do).

Well, here is where we differ. Ultimately, we all make the final decision, but God is the most powerful force in the encouragement towards virtue as He sends us grace. We help in that by our prayers and sacrifices.

Despite the existence of free will, most people will change their lives if given a hard enough push. Vice’s twin epidemic of philosophical/religious error is important if the enemy’s regime of evil is to stand. A refutation can often be the root cause of a conversion. It was certainly an important part of mine.

Yes, that can work for some people. Bit there are those for whom this is not true and a much deeper change must occur *first. *This is accomplished through God’s grace. Even your conversion had God’s grace behind it.

 

[sent_by_God]

LeafByNiggle:

The choice of being a saint is an individual one. Within any given form of government, an individual can choose to become a saint. But the choice of anarchy as a form of government is not an individual choice. It is a societal one that would have to be undertaken by a sovereign people.

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.
St Francis:

However, even if everyone is virtuous, or most everyone, a system of governance, a system of figuring things out, if it is not there will develop. That’s just a part of human nature. Best to have it all out in the open rather than have an informal system which can be abused by an unscrupulous person (since even in a virtuous society there will still be some who are not virtuous).

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

So we should try anarchy because even if it turns out really badly, some in future generations might be good? And if some good people did turn up, how long would they last?

That wasn’t my point at all. The “eternal conflict” thing was mostly just me rambling and getting off-topic. It had very little bearing on the concept of anarchy.
St Francis:

I can’t say I entirely agree with you. In a society in which everything is ordered to virtue, the knowledge is there, children will learn the discipline necessary to become virtuous, and it is easier for the weak to maintain their virtue.
Our society is not now ordered to virtue. Vietue is derided, children are taught vietue at home if at all and these teachings are no longer supported in the schools, and there are many who lead others into evil.

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.
St Francis:

Well, here is where we differ. Ultimately, we all make the final decision, but God is the most powerful force in the encouragement towards virtue as He sends us grace. We help in that by our prayers and sacrifices.

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

Yes, that can work for some people. But there are those for whom this is not true and a much deeper change must occur first. This is accomplished through God’s grace. Even your conversion had God’s grace behind it.

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.

 

[JimG]

There was a rule of anarchy for a short period during the French Revolution. The result was a lot of bloodshed. There have been occasions during history when civilizations broke down resulting in anarchy; the results have not been pretty.

In the absence of original sin, perhaps it would work.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

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