An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[livingwordunity]

Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, St. Pope Pius X

It is moreover a vice common to the enemies of the faith of our time especially that they repudiate and proclaim the necessity of repudiating all respect and obedience for the authority of the Church, and even of any human power, in the idea that it will thus be more easy to make an end of faith. Here we have the origin of Anarchism, than which nothing is more pernicious and pestilent to the order of things whether natural or supernatural.

 

[St_Francis]

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

What do you want me to gather from this thread?

I dispute this assertion.

On what grounds?

This is a false dichotomy. There is a difference between denying and not providing.

If you dismantle the protection which currently exists, then you are denying.

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.

That’s a big if.

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

As a general rule, yes.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

What do you want me to gather from this thread?

Nothing relevant to this one. You mentioned original sin, and I wanted to debate the point with you, but this wasn’t the thread to do it in.
St Francis:

On what grounds?

You are saying anarchy is impossible. I see no particular reason for this, so Occam’s razor guides me to deny it.
St Francis:

If you dismantle the protection which currently exists, then you are denying.

I don’t see any protection currently in place. What I see in place now is far from protection. 200 years ago, it was a protection and I would have supported it wholeheartedly. But now look at how corrupt it’s become. 3000 unborn babies a days, murdered, just in this country. That means about a million annually. Also relevant to this point is the thread about “going to war”, but you’re already on that one, so I guess I don’t need to give you a link.
St Francis:

That’s a big if.

Yes, it is. You know what else is a big if? If the government doesn’t go corrupt (not saying it isn’t already).
St Francis:

As a general rule, yes.

I dispute that too, also on basis of Occam’s razor.

 

[St_Francis]

Nothing relevant to this one. You mentioned original sin, and I wanted to debate the point with you, but this wasn’t the thread to do it in.

You are saying anarchy is impossible. I see no particular reason for this, so Occam’s razor guides me to deny it.

Well, I think you are shaving off a bit of reality! I have explained to the best of my ability why I disagree with you.

I don’t see any protection currently in place.

Ahhh, I think you need to learn more about what happens in other nations where things are worse. The situation in the US is bad, but not that bad. Most of us still sleep without fear.

What I see in place now is far from protection. 200 years ago, it was a protection and I would have supported it wholeheartedly. But now look at how corrupt it’s become. 3000 unborn babies a days, murdered, just in this country. That means about a million annually. Also relevant to this point is the thread about “going to war”, but you’re already on that one, so I guess I don’t need to give you a link.

this is where I think you are contradicting yourself. Do you really believe we could forbid abortion if there were no government?

Yes, it is. You know what else is a big if? If the government doesn’t go corrupt (not saying it isn’t already).

Yes, unfortunately things aren’t looking too good in that area. But that does not mean anarchy would be a solution.

I dispute that too, also on basis of Occam’s razor.

Just saying on the basis of Ockham’s razor is insufficient too.

 

[edwest2]

If anyone wants anarchy, they will end up being ruled by “the gang in charge.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, St. Pope Pius X

It is moreover a vice common to the enemies of the faith of our time especially that they repudiate and proclaim the necessity of repudiating all respect and obedience for the authority of the Church

This is NOT what I am advocating.

If anyone wants anarchy, they will end up being ruled by “the gang in charge.”

As if the status quo isn’t exactly the same.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Ahhh, I think you need to learn more about what happens in other nations where things are worse. The situation in the US is bad, but not that bad. Most of us still sleep without fear.

I am aware that the US is a comparatively good nation to live in, but are the other societies worse because they are anarchies? No.

this is where I think you are contradicting yourself. Do you really believe we could forbid abortion if there were no government?

Without government and military and such, I think the catholic church would be more willing to fight and we would stop abortion.

Just saying on the basis of Ockham’s razor is insufficient too.

I realize that Occam’s razor is not proof, but I think unless you can provide some particular evidence for your statement, intuitivity alone does justify denying your statement.

 

[St_Francis]

I am aware that the US is a comparatively good nation to live in, but are the other societies worse because they are anarchies? No.

You said you didn’t see any protection in place in the US. I dispute that, because most people are safe. There are areas in this country which are really unsafe. Oddly enough, those areas experienced a type of mini-anarchy, neglect from the government, and the “government” which has sprung up is gangs, which has only made those areas less safe.

Without government and military and such, I think the catholic church would be more willing to fight and we would stop abortion.

It seems that you are advocating anarchy so that no one can say that we should rely on dealing with the government to outlaw abortion.

You want to knock down the government so it will be all right for you to physically fight against abortion? Look into the history of Somalia during the 1990s. It doesn’t work that way…

I realize that Occam’s razor is not proof, but I think unless you can provide some particular evidence for your statement, intuitivity alone does justify denying your statement.

It is not intuitivity alone, it is an understanding of how the world works. When there is an absence of governance, some rush to fill it. The person or group who is more willing to fight unfairly is the person or group who acquires the power. Therefore the person or group with the least moral boundaries is the person or group most likely to gain power and most likely to be bad.

This is not a question of evidence but logic.

 

[sent_by_God]

You said you didn’t see any protection in place in the US. I dispute that, because most people are safe.

First, people are safe in the US partially becase there’s no (or little) danger, so protection is not really prerequisite to safety here. But more importantly, the protection in the US is selective (excludes the unborn and is about to exclude the elderly/disabled), which is mostly what I meant.

It seems that you are advocating anarchy so that no one can say that we should rely on dealing with the government to outlaw abortion.

You want to knock down the government so it will be all right for you to physically fight against abortion? Look into the history of Somalia during the 1990s. It doesn’t work that way…

First, I haven’t explicitly said we should knock down the government (not saying we shouldn’t either).
Second, if you think the history of Somalia is relevant, just say what it is instead of asking me to research it.

It is not intuitivity alone, it is an understanding of how the world works. When there is an absence of governance, some rush to fill it. The person or group who is more willing to fight unfairly is the person or group who acquires the power. Therefore the person or group with the least moral boundaries is the person or group most likely to gain power and most likely to be bad.

This is not a question of evidence but logic.

In general, yes, government will arise, but I don’t think it will necessarily be evil. True servants of God would be willing to fight against rising tyrants, thus, the badguys won’t necessarily always get the power.

 

[St_Francis]

First, people are safe in the US partially becase there’s no (or little) danger,

And why is there no or little danger?

Why is it that I can let my children walk down the street by themselves without worrying that they will see dead bodies on the sidewalk, as some people I know experienced in El Salvador during their civil war? Why is it that when a police officer stops me, I get out my driver’s license instead of my money, as used to be necessary in the former republics of the USSR?

Why? Because we have system of law which is respected by most people in this country.

so protection is not really prerequisite to safety here.

No, few of us need personal bodyguards to accompany us everywhere we go. But it is the knowledge that the system generally works fairly well which serves to keep the need for personal bodyguards down, unlike in places like some areas of Latin America, where Americans working there take out kidnap insurance and use bodyguards.

But more importantly, the protection in the US is selective (excludes the unborn and is about to exclude the elderly/disabled), which is mostly what I meant.

Yes, it is selective, and the situation, the respect for life, is deteriorating, I agree. However, a huge foundation does exist. The US is not in a state of chaos with rampant crime in which there is even less respect for life.

First, I haven’t explicitly said we should knock down the government (not saying we shouldn’t either).

In this thread, you are advocating anarchy. In another, you advocated physically fighting abortion. I think i drew an appropriate conclusion.

Second, if you think the history of Somalia is relevant, just say what it is instead of asking me to research it.

Sorry about that I was not sure if you would know about it or not. Here is a quick overview; one note, when they say that local entities were “effectively” governing, they do not mean the governance was effective but more like in actuality. The government of Somalia fell, and chaos ensued as many tried to gain control.

In general, yes, government will arise, but I don’t think it will necessarily be evil. True servants of God would be willing to fight against rising tyrants, thus, the badguys won’t necessarily always get the power.

Given my explanation of why I thought the bad guys were more likely to gain ascendancy, why do you think this?

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Why? Because we have system of law which is respected by most people in this country.

Conversely, this law permits such things as abortion, which kills about 100 times as many people as war (not entirely sure about that statistic, but I think it’s at least fairly accurate).
St Francis:

Sorry about that I was not sure if you would know about it or not. Here is a quick overview; one note, when they say that local entities were “effectively” governing, they do not mean the governance was effective but more like in actuality. The government of Somalia fell, and chaos ensued as many tried to gain control.

I see two possible objections here. One being that just because anarchy didn’t work out in one scenario is not enouhg to make an inductive argument for the assertion that it will never work, and the other is that the reason this went so badly seems to be because people tried to reestablish government.
St Francis:

In this thread, you are advocating anarchy. In another, you advocated physically fighting abortion. I think i drew an appropriate conclusion.

It is not accurate to say that I am advocating anarchy. I at first was advocating an uncertain position slightly in favor of anarchism; now, I am advocating the view that in a society full of vice anarchy is good while it would be bad in society full of virtue. I have already given my reasons for thinking that.
St Francis:

Given my explanation of why I thought the bad guys were more likely to gain ascendancy, why do you think this?

The paragraph you quoted expresses my reasons for thinking that.

 

[St_Francis]

Conversely, this law permits such things as abortion, which kills about 100 times as many people as war (not entirely sure about that statistic, but I think it’s at least fairly accurate).

However, US law prohibits many kther things. It is terrible that our nation has fallen to this point, but in other areas, things work.

I see two possible objections here. One being that just because anarchy didn’t work out in one scenario is not enouhg to make an inductive argument for the assertion that it will never work, and the other is that the reason this went so badly seems to be because people tried to reestablish government.

And they tried to establish government because that is what people do. This is why we don’t have examples of anarchic societies, because it goes against human nature.

It is not accurate to say that I am advocating anarchy. I at first was advocating an uncertain position slightly in favor of anarchism; now, I am advocating the view that in a society full of vice anarchy is good while it would be bad in society full of virtue. I have already given my reasons for thinking that.

What moral stability exists should be nurtured rather than more fully destroyed.

The paragraph you quoted expresses my reasons for thinking that.

Restatements do not refute responses.

If you say, I think good guys will fight the bad guys and I say but the bad guys, being bad, will use tactics the good guys would eschew so the bad guys will generally win, a statement that good guys will be willing to fight is non-responsive.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

And they tried to establish government because that is what people do. This is why we don’t have examples of anarchic societies, because it goes against human nature.

Not strictly it doesn’t. Humans have free will. And I have never denied that a state of anarchy would be difficult to maintain, if not impossible in today’s society.
St Francis:

What moral stability exists should be nurtured rather than more fully destroyed.

I did not say we should try to assist the evil ones in secularizing the world.
St Francis:

Restatements do not refute responses.

Neither does hypocrisy. Given what you said at the bottom of your last post in the thread about original sin, you have no right to accuse me of that fallacy. Also, it cannot be made more clear that I did not commit the fallacy. You asked me why I thought it, I told you why, and you quoted me and asked why again.
St Francis:

If you say, I think good guys will fight the bad guys and I say but the bad guys, being bad, will use tactics the good guys would eschew so the bad guys will generally win, a statement that good guys will be willing to fight is non-responsive.

Goodguys will not eschew effective tactics. That is relying on deontologist morals, which I reject. I define Morality to be the strategy of acheiving good results.
Also, despite that the goodguys will almost always be severly outnumbered, they will have two big advantages.
One, grace confers mental and physical power. It’s not to a decisive extent, but I know from experience that it can be pretty significant, even in a person like me who is just barely on God’s side.
Two, they will be more organized. If the scenario is one of anarchy with a bunch of badguys trying to gain control, then those badguys will be very disunified. They will all want the power for themselves. They will not be loyal to a common objective cause like servants of God will.

 

[St_Francis]

Sentby,
You are clearly quite intelligent, but you are still very young. You are at that normal state where, as they used to say, you are getting too big for your britches. Your intelligence shows you things untempered by reality. With age, hopefully you will exhibit sufficient humility to attain wisdom. Remember that Socrates, iirc, said that the first step of learning is to recognize one’s own ignorance. I hope this will happen to you relatively painlessly.

Not strictly it doesn’t. Humans have free will. And I have never denied that a state of anarchy would be difficult to maintain, if not impossible in today’s society.

IOW, man would need organization to maintain a state of anarchy…

I did not say we should try to assist the evil ones in secularizing the world.

But that is the effect of removing those structures which help people to be good.

Neither does hypocrisy. Given what you said at the bottom of your last post in the thread about original sin, you have no right to accuse me of that fallacy.

I asked you on what grounds you said the idea was absurd. It is very difficult to refute an unstated argument.

Also, it cannot be made more clear that I did not commit the fallacy. You asked me why I thought it, I told you why, and you quoted me and asked why again.

I asked you *why, *or, on what grounds, did you make the assertion. You restated the assertion. Saying X will happen because X will happen is not an explanation as to *why *you think X will happen.

Goodguys will not eschew effective tactics.

Real good guys will eschew immoral tactics.

Bad guys use immoral tactics such as human shields. Real good guys want to avoid bombing the entire village in which the cowardly terrorists are blending with the non-combatants, altho that tactic would be “effective.”

That is relying on deontologist morals, which I reject. I define Morality to be the strategy of acheiving good results.

Well, so do the advocates of abortion. The only difference between the two of you is your opinion that abortion is bad and their opinion that abortion is good. On what basis do you decide what is a “good” result as opposed to a “bad” result? What makes that any more than a matter of opinion?

Also, despite that the goodguys will almost always be severly outnumbered, they will have two big advantages.
One, grace confers mental and physical power. It’s not to a decisive extent, but I know from experience that it can be pretty significant, even in a person like me who is just barely on God’s side.

This sooooo does not fit in with what you write in this post and elsewhere. You thought grace was the absense of sin, but sin apparently means only failure in your eyes because otherwise it is a deontological concept in which you do not believe.

And if good guys use effective but immoral tactics, they will lose their grace. You may reply with the whole deontonlogical thing, but then what makes the good guys any better than the bad guys?

Two, they will be more organized. If the scenario is one of anarchy with a bunch of badguys trying to gain control, then those badguys will be very disunified. They will all want the power for themselves. They will not be loyal to a common objective cause like servants of God will.

Ahhh, the sad reality is that those who believe they are acting for the good will often disagree, and bad guys often so respect power that they prefer to ally themselves with the powerful than to go after it for themselves. Moreover the head bad guy will use the “effective” tactic of violence against the followers and their families to keep them in line.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

ITT: Strawmen being beaten to death.

 

[sent_by_God]

St Francis:

Sentby,
You are clearly quite intelligent, but you are still very young. You are at that normal state where, as they used to say, you are getting too big for your britches. Your intelligence shows you things untempered by reality. With age, hopefully you will exhibit sufficient humility to attain wisdom. Remember that Socrates, iirc, said that the first step of learning is to recognize one’s own ignorance. I hope this will happen to you relatively painlessly.

I have been fed this “you will learn” stuff on too many threads, and I’ve had enough of it. If you don’t quit critiquing me personally, I will leave this thread.
St Francis:

IOW, man would need organization to maintain a state of anarchy…

It wouldn’t need organization, it woul just need everyone to want it.
St Francis:

But that is the effect of removing those structures which help people to be good.

Our government does at least twice as much evil as good. I would condone a benevolent gov, but not this one.

I asked you on what grounds you said the idea was absurd. It is very difficult to refute an unstated argument.

Yes, it is. I agree. But how is this relevant?

I asked you why, or, on what grounds, did you make the assertion. You restated the assertion. Saying X will happen because X will happen is not an explanation as to why you think X will happen.

No, I did not restate the assertion. I restated the grounds. You’d better stop this too, or I’ll leave.

Real good guys will eschew immoral tactics.

Bad guys use immoral tactics such as human shields. Real good guys want to avoid bombing the entire village in which the cowardly terrorists are blending with the non-combatants, altho that tactic would be “effective.”

Real goodguys will not eschew evil means as long as the good ends outweighs the evil.

Well, so do the advocates of abortion. The only difference between the two of you is your opinion that abortion is bad and their opinion that abortion is good. On what basis do you decide what is a “good” result as opposed to a “bad” result? What makes that any more than a matter of opinion?

I have not implied relativism at all. I demand that you stop the strawmen too, or I will leave.

This sooooo does not fit in with what you write in this post and elsewhere. You thought grace was the absense of sin, but sin apparently means only failure in your eyes because otherwise it is a deontological concept in which you do not believe.

And if good guys use effective but immoral tactics, they will lose their grace. You may reply with the whole deontonlogical thing, but then what makes the good guys any better than the bad guys?

No, sin does not mean failure. Sin leads to lack of power, and the effect is not so strong that it cannot be outweighted by factors such as intelligence and superior technology.
To your second paragraph, they will not lose their grace. This is flatly circular, and you had better stop it too. BTW, the difference is in the ends the goodguys achieve which outweigh the otherwise immoral means.

Ahhh, the sad reality is that those who believe they are acting for the good will often disagree, and bad guys often so respect power that they prefer to ally themselves with the powerful than to go after it for themselves. Moreover the head bad guy will use the “effective” tactic of violence against the followers and their families to keep them in line.

1. 
   *]They will not disagree nearly as often or as critically as you think. People who are truly good will be extremely likely, if not certain, to come to the same conclusions at least about theissues important enough to start a war over. Also, the googuys will use logical arguments to refute mislead goodguys.
   *]Sure, the badguys won’t be all one by one, but their faction will in general be much less united than the goodguys. Besides, if they care so much about power, then they will only fight for the “head bad guy” if he is winning. To assert that that means they will usually side with him is circular.
   PS: what are ITT, IOW, and IIRC?
   

 

[Reep]

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?

Such attacks would be met with force, just as they are now. The sort of libertarian***** anarchy being discussed here does NOT preclude the use of defensive force. Only the initiation of violence would be rejected. This is called the non-aggression principle.

If someone “goes crazy,” people will still defend themselves. They can morally defend others and they could band together for self-defense as they choose (as would certainly be necessary If an outside invader threatened). I’d wager there would be a lot fewer “outside invaders,” if this government were not constantly busying itself in other peoples’ countries all over the world. (God doesn’t seem to look so highly on busybodies either. Check your Bible.)

*****In my view, libertarianism, libertarian anarchy, voluntaryism and yes, even anarchism, all mean the same thing:

Nobody, neither individuals–nor government–may initiate force or the threat of force. It means you leave your neighbor alone if he is not hurting you or messing with your stuff. And don’t cheat by voting to have somebody ***else ***to do that same dirty work for you. Mind your own business.

I realize that many socialist types like to call themselves anarchists, but they certainly do not reject government aggression; they depend on it to steal other peoples stuff for their own purposes.

Here’s a bit more on the subject: What is a libertarian?

 

[St_Francis]

Such attacks would be met with force, just as they are now. The sort of libertarian***** anarchy being discussed here does NOT preclude the use of defensive force. Only the initiation of violence would be rejected. This is called the non-aggression principle.

If someone “goes crazy,” people will still defend themselves. They can morally defend others and they could band together for self-defense as they choose (as would certainly be necessary If an outside invader threatened).

Yes, and after they band together and catch or lose rhe bad guy, they’d sit around and say things like, Joe, you don’t know how to fight, and Rick, you can’t aim, and Phil, you’re so out of shape you couldn’t run… we’ve got to be organized about this. Let’s meet every Tuesday and practice and learn stuff. Next thing you know, the community would ask these now-organized people to start a night watchman route because of burglaries, and you’d pretty much have a government… no more anarchy.

[quotew I’d wager there would be a lot fewer “outside invaders,” if this government were not constantly busying itself in other peoples’ countries all over the world. (God doesn’t seem to look so highly on busybodies either. Check your Bible.)
[/quote]
I totally agree that governments should have boundaries restricting their actions. We should not have the federal government of the US mandating pre-school lunches nor interfering with the internal business of other nations.

*****In my view, libertarianism, libertarian anarchy, voluntaryism and yes, even anarchism, all mean the same thing:

In my view, we have different words for different things, and libertarianism is *minimal *government and anarchy is *no *government. Never heard of the other two.

Nobody, neither individuals–nor government–may initiate force or the threat of force. It means you leave your neighbor alone if he is not hurting you or messing with your stuff. And don’t cheat by voting to have somebody ***else ***to do that same dirty work for you. Mind your own business.

I believe the government is supposed to help us attain Heaven just as every other human interaction is supposed to do.

I realize that many socialist types like to call themselves anarchists, but they certainly do not reject government aggression; they depend on it to steal other peoples stuff for their own purposes.

That type of socialist has always been around (well, for over 100 years ) The fact that achieving anarchy of any sort seems to involve forcing it on some is amusingly ironic.

What is a libertarian?

 

[St_Francis]

I have been fed this “you will learn” stuff on too many threads, and I’ve had enough of it. If you don’t quit critiquing me personally, I will leave this thread.

I am not critiquing you, I am stating a fact, or at least what you said. And I say this becauze I am three times your age and still learning myself, bit also looking back at my younger self and recalling how I was once like you.

It wouldn’t need organization, it woul just need everyone to want it.

And those who prefer having some government–will you force them to live without it?

Our government does at least twice as much evil as good. I would condone a benevolent gov, but not this one.

I don’t know about the precise numbers here, but accepting them for the sake of argument, that means the US government is doing 1/3 good. My thought is that the good should be preserved rather than thrown out with the bathwater. Destruction of the whole would lead to an even worse situation than we currently have.

Yes, it is. I agree. But how is this relevant?

It was in response to your comment about my reply on the other thread.

Real goodguys will not eschew evil means as long as the good ends outweighs the evil.

I have not implied relativism at all. I demand that you stop the strawmen too, or I will leave.

No, sin does not mean failure. Sin leads to lack of power, and the effect is not so strong that it cannot be outweighted by factors such as intelligence and superior technology.
To your second paragraph, they will not lose their grace. This is flatly circular, and you had better stop it too. BTW, the difference is in the ends the goodguys achieve which outweigh the otherwise immoral means.

Since I am a Catholic, you cannot refute what I say with your singular theology.

1. 
   *]They will not disagree nearly as often or as critically as you think. People who are truly good will be extremely likely, if not certain, to come to the same conclusions at least about theissues important enough to start a war over. Also, the googuys will use logical arguments to refute mislead goodguys.
   *]Sure, the badguys won’t be all one by one, but their faction will in general be much less united than the goodguys. Besides, if they care so much about power, then they will only fight for the “head bad guy” if he is winning. To assert that that means they will usually side with him is circular.
   PS: what are ITT, IOW, and IIRC?

1. 
   ITT is either I think that or In this thread
   IOW is In other words
   and IIRC is if I recall correctly.
   
   Anyway, Sent by, I think that we have reaches the end of our abilities to explain ourselves. My best may not have been very good. Don’t let this discourage you–it is my policy to bow out after I have explained because I used to think I had to keep on going til the other person was convinced and that kind of drove me and others crazy. Keep coming back to CAF with questions.

 

[St_Francis]

Such attacks would be met with force, just as they are now. The sort of libertarian***** anarchy being discussed here does NOT preclude the use of defensive force. Only the initiation of violence would be rejected. This is called the non-aggression principle.

If someone “goes crazy,” people will still defend themselves. They can morally defend others and they could band together for self-defense as they choose (as would certainly be necessary If an outside invader threatened). I’d wager there would be a lot fewer “outside invaders,” if this government were not constantly busying itself in other peoples’ countries all over the world. (God doesn’t seem to look so highly on busybodies either. Check your Bible.)

*****In my view, libertarianism, libertarian anarchy, voluntaryism and yes, even anarchism, all mean the same thing:

Nobody, neither individuals–nor government–may initiate force or the threat of force. It means you leave your neighbor alone if he is not hurting you or messing with your stuff. And don’t cheat by voting to have somebody ***else ***to do that same dirty work for you. Mind your own business.

I realize that many socialist types like to call themselves anarchists, but they certainly do not reject government aggression; they depend on it to steal other peoples stuff for their own purposes.

Here’s a bit more on the subject: What is a libertarian?

Hi Reep!