Catholic Anarchism

[tafan]

I Call me an idealist, but I would like the human race to evolve into a civilized race where people do not do ill will to others, and if they do so by mistake they actively seek out to make reparations to those harmed. A society where everyone is honest and accountable for themselves and their neighbors out of their own choice from within their hearts and souls.

I would not say you are an idealist; I would say you are simply wrong. The whole concept of social evolution is way off-base. As far as human society reaching a better, ideal state: there is absolutely no historical evidence of positive social evolution in the last couple of thousand years. Look at what has occurred in the last 100 years. Over 100 million people killed by communists. Probably 10-15 million killed by fascists. Hundreds of million killed by abortion. All of these movements, looking for a social evolution to make us better. Societal transforming theories tend to be very dangerous, IMO.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a big believer that many (if not all) of the problems in the modern world are due to a complete abandonment of the concept of subsidiarity.

And I certainly have no trust for any government. But history would show that government on the local level can also be corrupt and evil as on a large level. And small community democracies is certainly not without great peril. Even now: look at almost any city in the United States and you will find examples of gross misuse of immenent domain laws, with the local population commonally supporting it. We need laws and rules and penalties to limit government power.

And when crimes occur in a local community: local vengence in the face of hideous crime can certainly not lead to gross miscarriages of justice.

Democracies seem to work best on a smaller scale, but certainly not too small. They don’t function well for large nations (and I would suggest we don’t need any large nations), but they function really bad at small communities without some higher level restraint placed on them. Just look at the fate of Socrates.

Disliking government is fine, I share that dislike (the older I get, the more I dislike it). But thinking we will all quit sinning if there are no goverments is just wrong, not idealist.

.

 

[Bill_7154]

Statists (which, if I am not mistaken, has a rather negative connotation attached to it when being discussed by anarchists) believe that there should be a government to protect its citizens, something an anarchist society could not provide.

So statists are of one singular mindset but anarchists are of different mindets? I find this perspective to be curious.

And I think that statists have a more negative connotation attached to anarchists, to the point where many actually falsely believe that it implies violence, chaos, evil, etc where statist to my mind simply means that it is someone who believes in centralized government or something similar ot that (and they certainly come in very different models, dont’ they? Isn’t that evidence that statists are of different mindsets as well?).

 

[Bill_7154]

I would not say you are an idealist; I would say you are simply wrong. The whole concept of social evolution is way off-base. As far as human society reaching a better, ideal state: there is absolutely no historical evidence of positive social evolution in the last couple of thousand years. Look at what has occurred in the last 100 years. Over 100 million people killed by communists. Probably 10-15 million killed by fascists. Hundreds of million killed by abortion. All of these movements, looking for a social evolution to make us better. Societal transforming theories tend to be very dangerous, IMO.

Disliking government is fine, I share that dislike (the older I get, the more I dislike it). But thinking we will all quit sinning if there are no goverments is just wrong, not idealist.

.

I could be wrong about the notion of humans having the capacity to eventually evolve into civilized beings, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong.

But I do not believe that we would all quit sinning if there are no governments, I would expect that people would need to sin less over time as government scaled down, and have to quit sinning for people to exist without government, not the other way around.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t think anyone’s mentioned it, but on at least one occasion J.R.R. Tolkien seems to have identified himself as either an anarchist or a believer in non-constitutional monarchy, positions he seemed to see as more or less equivalent. Interesting.

For myself, I believe “coercive government” is not intrinsically evil, and while it might not have been necessary without the Fall it certainly is necessary today. It seems to me the whole of Biblical and Church history, as well as Catholic social teaching, backs up this idea.

 

[tafan]

I could be wrong about the notion of humans having the capacity to eventually evolve into civilized beings, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong.

But I do not believe that we would all quit sinning if there are no governments, I would expect that people would need to sin less over time as government scaled down, and have to quit sinning for people to exist without government, not the other way around.

I believe the belief of “needing to sin” would be very close, if not outright, heresy. It is an extremely un-catholic phrase.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

So statists are of one singular mindset but anarchists are of different mindets? I find this perspective to be curious.

If you had observed any news program (be it a television program, newspaper or online article) about politics in the last 15 years, you would realize how [wrong] this comment is.

And I think that statists have a more negative connotation attached to anarchists, to the point where many actually falsely believe that it implies violence, chaos, evil, etc where statist to my mind simply means that it is someone who believes in centralized government or something similar ot that (and they certainly come in very different models, dont’ they? Isn’t that evidence that statists are of different mindsets as well?).

To the first remark here: an anarchist is someone who believes that there should be no central government, if anyone adds more to the definition then they are not defining an anarchist.
To the second remark (about the ‘different models’) see the above response about how [wrong] you are being on the subject of statism interpretation.

 

[fakename]

Imagine society before there was a state. Now they can either form a state or not. And given that there are certain costs to form a state, it may be necessary to not form one.

Therefore one can be a Catholic and an anarchist if you think the state is useless for a certain period at least.

The real question is can a society never have a state? Supposedly there are many benefits to having a state and philosophers have debated these forever. However, what are the statistics which back up these claims? It would be much more profitable for people to see the actual numbers in order to judge how useful a state is (and of course, numbers to see if anarchy is better).

 

[pnewton]

I pretty much define anarchy as a state of society with no government.

I do not see how this can be compatable with Catholic teaching. From Caritas in Veritate:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
*
*Political authority also involves a wide range of values, which must not be overlooked in the process of constructing a new order of economic productivity, socially responsible and human in scale. As well as cultivating differentiated forms of business activity on the global plane, we must also promote a dispersed political authority, effective on different levels. The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. *

---

How would an anarchist economy operate? The Church has condemned both communism and unrestricted capitalism. I just don’t see how anarchy can be Catholic. I am not saying it can’t, though I suspect it can’t. I am just saying that I do not see it. Have any of you that believe this can be done spoke with your priest about it?