An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[TauCTC]

Catholic and anarchist here- I advocate more of a Catholic Worker sort of system. Not in favor of abolishing private property, but spreading it so more people can own it. Strict pacifist, as well. Nice to see you around.

 

[sent_by_God]

tauCTC:

Strict pacifist, as well.

You can’t be a catholic and a pacifist:
“However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” - CCC, paragraph 2308

 

[bilop]

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.

Because man is not totally depraved. We tend towards sin, but we are also rational, and don’t want to be sinned against.

Government is an arrangement to restrain the evil impulses for the common good. We all agree to give up some freedom in order to form a system that protects us all from each others’ impulses to do wrong.

That’s also the reason we set up a balanced system with division of powers, checks and balances, etc. Limits on power tend to restrain bad behavior.

We don’t just pick the most virtuous person and make them dictator. Even the most virtuous person will tend towards evil and corruption if given absolute power.

God Bless

 

[St_Francis]

Whoops, sorry.

No problem; just didn’t want credit for something I didn’t write

The lack of government.

On another thread you are advocating “going to war” with people who commit actions with which you disagree. Others, who disagree with you, would then retaliate.

In a state of anarchy, no one would be saying what rules we go along with and people would be doing what you want to do against abortionists against the sellers of alcohol, sellers of religion, blood donors, euthanizers, … whatever they were against, while those attakced would be retaliating.

What keeps this from happening is that we do have government to adjudicate these things.

[quotewWould you agree to the proposition that human nature resists moral perfection? If so, then moral perfection is a foolish goal, by this principle.
[/quote]
Moral perfection is within our grasp *and * is a very good goal, so is not a foolish goal.

Anarchy, otoh, is a bad goal because we humans are by nature social beings. It is against our nature and our practical limitations to live in isolation, and for us to live together requires an agreement on which rules we will live by, whether to drive on the right or the left all the way up to under which circumstances it is allowable or prohibited to take human life, as well as an enforcement method.

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

And then you have the Hatfields and McCoys–never-ending cycles of violence.

People want to see justice done–that too is part of human nature. The problem is that people’s desire for justice can be enlarged to revenge by their passion of anger–their view is clouded and they go too far, so the other side then desires justice, and so on. Thus, an unbiased mechanism, any reasonable mechanism, for sorting out disputes is needed, whether it be the wise man or elders of a village or whether it be the full panoply of a king’s court.

When the people as a whole are attacked, I guess the defenders will organize naturally.

I don’t know where anarchists get this idea (I have heard it before). First, a nation which has a government will have an well-trained and well-equipped army which can easily overwhelm the “naturally organized” and poorly eqipped troop an anarchic nation can get together.

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?

Here you have hit the nail on the head! This is indeed the problem, what is at issue is the solution.

Is the solution anarchy? No, for the very readons you have brought up–there is just too much room for bad guys to do bad things and mess things up. Instead of having to keep an eye on those few who make up the government, one is at the mercy of *everyone *around them.

Our Founding Fathers (in the US) tried to institute a government with boundaries to keep the government from getting overbearing. Other societies have done the same.

What we need is not anarchy but a restoration of balances of power which used to exist in our nation. Government provides boundaries for us, but there need to be boundaries for government as well, because government is really just people who are just as capable of being bad as the rest of us are.

 

[St_Francis]

Catholic and anarchist here- I advocate more of a Catholic Worker sort of system. Not in favor of abolishing private property, but spreading it so more people can own it. Strict pacifist, as well. Nice to see you around.

You can’t be a catholic and a pacifist:
“However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” - CCC, paragraph 2308

Let’s save pacifism for another thread

 

[TauCTC]

You can’t be a catholic and a pacifist:
“However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” - CCC, paragraph 2308

Well, yes I can. Disagreeing with Just War Theory and being a pacifist does not make non-Catholic. Nowhere is belief in JWT necessary to be Catholic- look at Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, Ammon Hennacy, Ben Salmon, etc…

So yes, I can be a Catholic pacifist.

 

[JimG]

Catholic and anarchist here- I advocate more of a Catholic Worker sort of system. Not in favor of abolishing private property, but spreading it so more people can own it. Strict pacifist, as well. Nice to see you around.

But who would be in charge of spreading it around, except a government? And a government is not anarchy.

Of course, I suppose in an anarchic society, people would just take what they want from others without need of a government. But that might lead to private retaliation and local mob rule by the strongest. The mafia is a good example.

 

[Hobbes42]

Catholic and anarchist here- I advocate more of a Catholic Worker sort of system. Not in favor of abolishing private property, but spreading it so more people can own it. Strict pacifist, as well. Nice to see you around.

But, what happens if someone objects to have their property spread? It seems that such a system would inevitably result in violence.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

But, what happens if someone objects to have their property spread? It seems that such a system would inevitably result in violence.

He’s not talking about forcible redistribution of capital, he’s talking about natural distribution of capital brought about by the abolition of state capitalist privilege.

 

[TauCTC]

But who would be in charge of spreading it around, except a government? And a government is not anarchy.

Of course, I suppose in an anarchic society, people would just take what they want from others without need of a government. But that might lead to private retaliation and local mob rule by the strongest. The mafia is a good example.

Two things. Property would naturally be spread around without state interference. And seeing as anarchism requires a personalist bent, a firm belief in Christianity, mob rule would not be an issue.

But, what happens if someone objects to have their property spread? It seems that such a system would inevitably result in violence.

See this:

He’s not talking about forcible redistribution of capital, he’s talking about natural distribution of capital brought about by the abolition of state capitalist privilege.

Exactly!

 

[JimG]

Two things. Property would naturally be spread around without state interference. And seeing as anarchism requires a personalist bent, a firm belief in Christianity, mob rule would not be an issue.

Yes, and when property can be naturally spread around, without a great deal of government intervention, that’s a market economy, or free enterprise. Free enterprise need not be anarchical.

 

[Hobbes42]

Yes, and when property can be naturally spread around, without a great deal of government intervention, that’s a market economy, or free enterprise. Free enterprise need not be anarchical.

So, property will magically spread itself around in such a way as to ensure that all have a just amount? “naturally spread around” seems to be a bit ambiguous. Seems like you’re advocating a situation where massive, obscene gaps between the haves and have not’s would occur.

 

[JimG]

So, property will magically spread itself around in such a way as to ensure that all have a just amount? “naturally spread around” seems to be a bit ambiguous. Seems like you’re advocating a situation where massive, obscene gaps between the haves and have not’s would occur.

Free enterprise does as a matter of course usually result in fewer people being poor. Everyone acts in their own self interest in the exchange of goods and services. The alternative is some kind of coercion, and even free markets are regulated, but the greater the regulation the greater the degree of coercion and the less the degree of individual freedom–and the greater the possibility of corruption. Very controlling governments such as one finds in highly centralized nations usually also have a high degree of corruption, and there is still a great inequality between the haves and the have nots–because people have less ability to act in their own best interest…

 

[sent_by_God]

Okay, sorry, I was camping in the mountains for two days, so I’m kind of out of the loop. If anyone has said something that in particular requires my attention, please say it again.

TauCTC:

Well, yes I can. Disagreeing with Just War Theory and being a pacifist does not make non-Catholic. Nowhere is belief in JWT necessary to be Catholic- look at Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, Ammon Hennacy, Ben Salmon, etc…

This doesn’t really respond to the CCC quote I gave, but I agree with tonyrey that we should discuss pacifism somewhere else.
St Francis:

I don’t know where anarchists get this idea (I have heard it before). First, a nation which has a government will have an well-trained and well-equipped army which can easily overwhelm the “naturally organized” and poorly eqipped troop an anarchic nation can get together.

I fully agree that a “naturally organized” does not compare to a formal one. I was definitely not saying that an anarchihcal defense would be nearly as strong as a governed one.
St Francis:

Moral perfection is within our grasp and is a very good goal, so is not a foolish goal.

Agreed, I was saying that this clear fact couldn’t be reconciled with what you were saying.

 

[St_Francis]

Okay, sorry, I was camping in the mountains for two days, so I’m kind of out of the loop. If anyone has said something that in particular requires my attention, please say it again.

This doesn’t really respond to the CCC quote I gave, but I agree with tonyrey that we should discuss pacifism somewhere else.

I fully agree that a “naturally organized” does not compare to a formal one. I was definitely not saying that an anarchihcal defense would be nearly as strong as a governed one.

Agreed, I was saying that this clear fact couldn’t be reconciled with what you were saying.

Yes, it can totally be reconciled.

For example, I used to live by a beach. One day I saw a tow truck coming off the beach with a Cadillac attached. Yes, some people had not considered the nature of the beach and the nature of the Caddilac and had tried to drive their Caddy on the beach.

Now, one constantly saw Jeeps, etc, driving along the beach. That’s because their nature was such that they could be driven on the beach.

Humans are made to be social animals; we gravitate naturally to form social groups, we need to form social groups to survive on any but the most rudimentary level.

Groups, however, require some governance. In fact, when people start getting together in groups of more than two or three we see that they start making some rules, some basis for their association. They meet at certain times; they have certain purposes. If rules do not already exist from the wider society, they make some up.

I have worked with groups that were “non-hierarchical.” They were supposed to have no “government,” they were experiments in anarchy. Each one that I worked with or even just knew about ended up with a “leader,” the go-to person, the person who pushed their own agenda, whatever. This was not acknowledged, so the members ended up with less power in the group as a result of being unable to choose the leader. This whole thing split several groups up.

So, yeah there is a total difference between saying, people should have holiness as a goal, something which corresponds with their nature bit which is difficult to attain, and saying, people should have anarchy as their goal, something which totally does not fit their nature. We don’t want to have to call a tow truck, or worse, be taken for a ride by a tow truck driver because we tried to do something that was completely unsuitable to our nature.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

as Catholics, we see that people are good and bad, not fundamentally vicious. People have been affected by original sin; they are weak and it is harder for them to be good, harder for them to see clearly what is good, but not that people are fundamentally vicious.

However, we also see the truth that some people are worse than others, and it is necessary to protect ourselves and others from those people. Why would you deny help to those who are physically weak and therefore the prey of those who are both strong and bad?

what happens in an area in which there is no government? In areas where there are a lot of bad guys, a vigilante group will form to protect others. This group can go the way of the Mafia who took it upon themselves or the way of those in the West (of the US) who formulated civilized rules and elected people.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Humans are made to be social animals; we gravitate naturally to form social groups, we need to form social groups to survive on any but the most rudimentary level.

Groups, however, require some governance. In fact, when people start getting together in groups of more than two or three we see that they start making some rules, some basis for their association. They meet at certain times; they have certain purposes. If rules do not already exist from the wider society, they make some up.

I think the error here is assuming that because we gravitate naturally away from something, it must be a bad goal. This is demonstrably false: don’t humans “gravitate naturally” toward sin?
St Francis:

as Catholics, we see that people are good and bad, not fundamentally vicious. People have been affected by original sin; they are weak and it is harder for them to be good, harder for them to see clearly what is good, but not that people are fundamentally vicious.

I agree that people are not inherently/fundamentally vicious. Also, for a discussion on original sin I refer to the thread “original sin is unfair” (started by me, of course). I think (not entirely sure) it’s in the moral theology forum.
St Francis:

However, we also see the truth that some people are worse than others, and it is necessary to protect ourselves and others from those people. Why would you deny help to those who are physically weak and therefore the prey of those who are both strong and bad?

I would not deny help to those who are physically weak.
St Francis:

what happens in an area in which there is no government? In areas where there are a lot of bad guys, a vigilante group will form to protect others. This group can go the way of the Mafia who took it upon themselves or the way of those in the West (of the US) who formulated civilized rules and elected people.

True, it can go that way, but that doesn’t mean it has to

 

[St_Francis]

I think the error here is assuming that because we gravitate naturally away from something, it must be a bad goal.

Well, if I were saying that, you would have a point, but what I am saying is that anarchy is *incompatible *with human nature. We gravitate towards plenty of things which are bad for us, as you point out, but we do not urge starving people to stop gravitating away from plastic fruits when they insist on choosing real fruit, do we? No, because plastic fruits are incompatible with human nature.

I agree that people are not inherently/fundamentally vicious. Also, for a discussion on original sin I refer to the thread “original sin is unfair” (started by me, of course). I think (not entirely sure) it’s in the moral theology forum.

If you want to refer someone to another page, it is customary to provide a link instead of making them look all over for it.

I would not deny help to those who are physically weak.

OK, so how do you propose to provide protection in an anarchic society?

True, it can go that way, but that doesn’t mean it has to

My point is not that it can go either way, but that some form of government will spring up when there is no government. Better for a good government in the control of those who are affected by it than a bad government imposed by bullies.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

If you want to refer someone to another page, it is customary to provide a link instead of making them look all over for it.

Alright, try this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=828868&page=5
St Francis:

Well, if I were saying that, you would have a point, but what I am saying is that anarchy is incompatible with human nature. We gravitate towards plenty of things which are bad for us, as you point out, but we do not urge starving people to stop gravitating away from plastic fruits when they insist on choosing real fruit, do we? No, because plastic fruits are incompatible with human nature.

I dispute this assertion.
St Francis:

OK, so how do you propose to provide protection in an anarchic society?

This is a false dichotomy. There is a difference between denying and not providing. Also, I seem to remember you saying that “vigilante” groups would inevitably form in an anarchy. This, while not exactly a governing body, would provide protection if it were goodguys.
St Francis:

My point is not that it can go either way, but that some form of government will spring up when there is no government. Better for a good government in the control of those who are affected by it than a bad government imposed by bullies.

You talk like a form of government that just “springs up” will necessarily be a bully government.

 

[edwest2]

People are different. While everyone disassociates from a government and lives where there is no established government, the strong will prey on the weak. Any good history book will tell you that. All the ‘let’s live in peaceful cooperation’ types will be herded up and end up in labor camps. Those who disagree will be shot on the spot as an example to others.

Stalin did it. Pol Pot did it.

Peace,
Ed