An argument for the compatibility of Catholicism and anarchism

[St_Francis]

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.

The part of my reply you quoted was based on the idea that you were discussing those actions as actions which could be taken by the government.

 

[sent_by_God]

Sorry I can’t respond to everything that was said, there’s just too many replies. If I have failed to answer something that was intended to refute me, someone please say it again.

Reep:

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.

Reep:

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.

Also a good point. State punishments are outlandishly disproportionate.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Catholic thought has recognized for centuries that the legitimacy of government, while ordained by God, is derived from the consent of the governed. The modern state, a territory monopoly of violence, derives “legitimacy” not through consent but through force. Taxes are imposed on populations of millions of people without any consent, and spent without any choice. If it is immoral for a private individual to commit a sin, it is immoral for an institution that calls itself government to impose taxes without consent. This idea is present in historical Catholic thought, such as that of Suarez.

It would seem that anarchism or voluntarism would be the only morally acceptable political philosophy. In the absence of a central state, free, voluntary, and polycentric governments would spring up in their places, promoting the common good and never imposing upon individuals. Property rights, the most sacred right other than the right to life, would no longer be systematically violated by the states.

God does not impose His will upon us nor force us to love Him. What gives men the right band together to subjugate lower classes through the state? Nor is it the duty of the Christian to force and control.

The state is not the same thing as government. Read “Our Enemy The State” by Albert Jay Nock.

Anarchism is not the absence of government or order, anarchism is voluntarism. It is the notions of subsidiarity and solidarity taken to their most radical extremes. The modern state is a moral abomination that no Catholic should support. True, the Church gives directives on what states should do, and insofar as they exist their actions should be directed towards promoting the common good (which usually means leaving things alone or returning stolen money) and no interference otherwise.

Every function we consider a state function can be reproduced in a free market setting, read Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. These things do not even have to have a “capitalistic” character to them, many things can be done in a “socialistic” way if people want to, indeed, most anarchists are socialists and communists but I prefer a market based approach given the scarcity of resources and the natural right to property.

The crux of the argument is recognizing the dignity of every human person and the fact that no other person has the right to subjugate persons as means to ends, which is what states do.

To make my point clear, again: Government, social institutions that promote the common good, must exist in some way because of human nature. All the necessary tasks of government can be performed without coercion or compulsion, except of course, for purposes such as defense of people and property, and imprisonment. States, anti-social institutions that absorb and warp government into a coercive, monopolistic creature, cannot be supported by anyone with a conscience.

I avoided reading this for awhile. Now I see why. lol

Men must be governed however badly. Otherwise you end up with Somalia.

ATB

 

[mikekle]

Also a good point. State punishments are outlandishly disproportionate.

I agree with this. I see it all the time on the news, just yesterday police ended up chasing a car after a store reported them for shoplifting (of all things lol) a girl ended up getting killed, they did eventually catch the 2 people accused of shoplifting though.

I was amazed, I did not even know shoplifting was an arrestable offense, I assumed it was a ticket and citation to appear in court, but apparently the cops thought it was worth chasing a car down…??

Our law enforcement community is out of control imo, they are too ‘gung ho’ about nailing anyone for anything they can. So it appears they need someone at a higher rank to tell them what is important and what is not…this is sad

Shoplifting, imo, and from professional experience is not that big a deal, in fact the large chain store company I work for changed their rules on this about 5 yrs ago, it is now company policy to not do anything if someone is caught stealing in the store, all that can be done is to ask them to leave, the same thing applies to people caught stealing fuel. My company looked at the numbers and found it did not effect the bottom line/profit enough to warrant possibly harassing a customer, in other words, the company would rather the people get away with stealing versus loosing them as an overall customer, in the times they do pay for items. About a year ago, they actually demoted a store manager for calling police on someone that drove off without paying for fuel!!

 

[Reep]

I avoided reading this for awhile. Now I see why. lol

Men must be governed however badly. Otherwise you end up with Somalia.

ATB

Actually, you don’t end up with Somalia. Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos is what happens when the west comes in and disrupts the traditional legal and social systems. Here, here and here.

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry I can’t respond to everything that was said, there’s just too many replies. If I have failed to answer something that was intended to refute me, someone please say it again.



Also a good point. State punishments are outlandishly disproportionate.

I think that it has been clear throughout this thread that we all agree there are problems with the US government nowadays.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Actually, you don’t end up with Somalia. Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos is what happens when the west comes in and disrupts the traditional legal and social systems. Here, here and here.

Well thought-out theories aside. In the real world Somalia is what happens in the absence of government. Sorry, but that’s reality.

ATB

 

[sent_by_God]

mikekle:

I was amazed, I did not even know shoplifting was an arrestable offense, I assumed it was a ticket and citation to appear in court, but apparently the cops thought it was worth chasing a car down…??

Our law enforcement community is out of control imo, they are too ‘gung ho’ about nailing anyone for anything they can. So it appears they need someone at a higher rank to tell them what is important and what is not…this is sad

Yeah, my dad once got a ticket for “speeding” 68 mph on a limit of 65!

Reep:

Actually, you don’t end up with Somalia. Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos is what happens when the west comes in and disrupts the traditional legal and social systems. Here, here and here.

Thank you! Sorry I’m too lazy to read your links.

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, you don’t end up with Somalia. Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos is what happens when the west comes in and disrupts the traditional legal and social systems. Here, here and here.

I think these articles show what is the main problem in definition. At least two of the articles mention the traditional legal system. *This is government. *It may not be what we are familiar with as government: imposing buildings and all that, but it is the system of organizing the society.

By defining government as “the bad things we don’t like about government in the nations we are familiar with,” and defining anarchy as “peaceful situations that don’t have the type of government we don’t like,” well, yeah, that makes it easy to be all for “anarchy.”

 

[mikekle]

Well thought-out theories aside. In the real world Somalia is what happens in the absence of government. Sorry, but that’s reality.

ATB

And in Somalia, the pirates do what they do, in order to keep their people alive, I was surprised after see where all the money from ship hijacking actually went. I assumed it all went to the pirates and probably a large percentage went to someone higher up, who organized the operation, but I found out the pirates themselves only get about $5000. each, and the majority of the money goes to the community, shop keepers, teachers, for food, books, etc. Those people have no other way, and I completely changed my view on Somalia pirates after learning more about them, so even in a country with no govt for many years, they have found a way to survive, and its not all complete chaos, if it were the pirates would just take all of the ransom money for themselves.

Furthermore, I think if the US was suddenly in the same situation as Somalia, most US citizens would be out for themselves and no one else, they would want to keep it all for themselves and think nothing of anyone else.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Well thought-out theories aside. In the real world Somalia is what happens in the absence of government. Sorry, but that’s reality.

ATB

And where in my post did I advocate for the absence of government?

“Move to Somalia” is the weakest argument besides “who will build the roads?”. It’s dodging the real question.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

And in Somalia, the pirates do what they do, in order to keep their people alive, I was surprised after see where all the money from ship hijacking actually went. I assumed it all went to the pirates and probably a large percentage went to someone higher up, who organized the operation, but I found out the pirates themselves only get about $5000. each, and the majority of the money goes to the community, shop keepers, teachers, for food, books, etc. Those people have no other way, and I completely changed my view on Somalia pirates after learning more about them, so even in a country with no govt for many years, they have found a way to survive, and its not all complete chaos, if it were the pirates would just take all of the ransom money for themselves.

Furthermore, I think if the US was suddenly in the same situation as Somalia, most US citizens would be out for themselves and no one else, they would want to keep it all for themselves and think nothing of anyone else.

It’s hard to say with any certainty (though I’m fairly certain your version does not exist) where Somali pirate swag goes. Payments are made in cash and never see the inside of a bank vault as far as the UN knows. But they have determined by interviewing a few pirates that 30% goes to the pirates themselves. 50% goes to the financiers, 10% militia in who’s territory they operate out of, 10% to local officials.

Of the 50% which goes to pirates, militia, and local war lords. It’s certain that much of the money is spent on cars, drugs, and prostitution. So in that respect money does come into some faction of the local economy. But to say that the pirates kidnap seafarers to feed and cloth their community is quite a stretch. To say that they do so because they live in an ungoverned land which provides little or no hope would be closer to the truth.

ATB

 

[sent_by_God]

Mr. Finn, what makes you trust the UN?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And in Somalia, the pirates do what they do, in order to keep their people alive, I was surprised after see where all the money from ship hijacking actually went. I assumed it all went to the pirates and probably a large percentage went to someone higher up, who organized the operation, but I found out the pirates themselves only get about $5000. each, and the majority of the money goes to the community, shop keepers, teachers, for food, books, etc. Those people have no other way, and I completely changed my view on Somalia pirates after learning more about them, so even in a country with no govt for many years, they have found a way to survive, and its not all complete chaos, if it were the pirates would just take all of the ransom money for themselves.

Furthermore, I think if the US was suddenly in the same situation as Somalia, most US citizens would be out for themselves and no one else, they would want to keep it all for themselves and think nothing of anyone else.

Even if the Somalian pirates were totally selfless and donated all their loot to their community, is this a commendable model for anarchism? Imagine and entire continent of Somalias, each with their own band of pirates raiding each other’s ships. I cannot see that being a desirable stable situation. No, the movtives of the Somali pirates are irrelevant to the discussion on whether anarchism is a good thing. And getting back to the title of the thread, it is certainly incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Reep]

Even if the Somalian pirates were totally selfless and donated all their loot to their community, is this a commendable model for anarchism? Imagine and entire continent of Somalias, each with their own band of pirates raiding each other’s ships. I cannot see that being a desirable stable situation. No, the movtives of the Somali pirates are irrelevant to the discussion on whether anarchism is a good thing. And getting back to the title of the thread, it is certainly incompatible with Catholicism.

If the Somali pirates would just call it taxes or a tariff, the government groupies would be cool with them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the Somali pirates would just call it taxes or a tariff, the government groupies would be cool with them.

Completely different things. Taxes are something a government imposes on its own people The Somali pirates are raiding outsiders. And Tariffs are something a government imposes on people who voluntarily decide to trade with your country. If someone doesn’t like the tariffs, they don’t have to trade with your country. So no, governments of neighboring countries would not be cool with Somalia calling pirate raids taxes or tariffs.

 

[Reep]

Originally Posted by Reep:
If the Somali pirates would just call it taxes or a tariff, the government groupies would be cool with them.

Completely different things. Taxes are something a government imposes on its own people The Somali pirates are raiding outsiders. And Tariffs are something a government imposes on people who voluntarily decide to trade with your country. If someone doesn’t like the tariffs, they don’t have to trade with your country. So no, governments of neighboring countries would not be cool with Somalia calling pirate raids taxes or tariffs.

It’s a joke, Leaf. A pointed one, but a joke.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Reep:
If the Somali pirates would just call it taxes or a tariff, the government groupies would be cool with them.

It’s a joke, Leaf. A pointed one, but a joke.

After reading some of the outrageous things posted in all seriousness by sentByGod in this thread, maybe you can understand how my joke recognition ability might be severly compromised. I’m glad you didn’t really mean it.

 

[Reep]

Originally Posted by Reep:
If the Somali pirates would just call it taxes or a tariff, the government groupies would be cool with them.

It’s a joke, Leaf. A pointed one, but a joke.

After reading some of the outrageous things posted in all seriousness by sentByGod in this thread, maybe you can understand how my joke recognition ability might be severly compromised. I’m glad you didn’t really mean it.

Oddly enough–and even though it was a joke–I sort of did mean it. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the qualitative difference between a pirate and a the leaders of government, as shown in St Augustine’s example of Alexander and the pirate:

Alexander and the Pirate
by St. Augustine

Remove justice, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of im-punity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”

~ St. Augustine, City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4​

.

 

[sent_by_God]

Reep:

Oddly enough–and even though it was a joke–I sort of did mean it. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the qualitative difference between a pirate and a the leaders of government, as shown in St Augustine’s example of Alexander and the pirate:

Alexander and the Pirate
by St. Augustine

Remove justice, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of im-punity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”

PS: Leaf, if you think I’ve said outrageous stuff on this thread, you should read my other threads.