Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical "anarchism"?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well it would in order to have a common organization to aim at the common good. After all, the earliest men were ruled by Adam even though they were more virtuous than we are.

The earliest Christian communities were “self-governing”.

 

[St_Francis]

well then, does CST basically entail “a mess”?

It is *your *contention, not mine, that CST means anarchy. I have shown that it does not.

And also, do you think that France had anarchy during the revolution? There was a government in the revolution, just a tyrannical revolutionary government. Anarchy in the sense of no state would mean that the highest social organization is the family, not necessarily that the state would be in chaos.

Yes, I think that during the French Revolution the old government was overthown and it took time to establish a new government.

And in the absence of government, something to fill the power vacuum would spring up, people would be vying for that power, just as Mogadishu was in chaos as warlords vied for power when that government fell.

 

[fakename]

It is *your *contention, not mine, that CST means anarchy. I have shown that it does not.

Yes, I think that during the French Revolution the old government was overthown and it took time to establish a new government.

And in the absence of government, something to fill the power vacuum would spring up, people would be vying for that power, just as Mogadishu was in chaos as warlords vied for power when that government fell.

why talk about “contentions”?

Anyways the question I now pose is whether you think the CST leads to “a mess”?

As for anarchy, it is difficult for me, to see where chaos begins and government ends:is a government that has no practical effect still a government -or is there a state of anarchy? If a government tries to cause disorder, is that anarchic or is it hyper-statist? Your opinion please?

 

[St_Francis]

why talk about “contentions”?

Why not?

Anyways the question I now pose is whether you think the CST leads to “a mess”?

What have I said that would lead you to ask that?

As for anarchy, it is difficult for me, to see where chaos begins and government ends:is a government that has no practical effect still a government -or is there a state of anarchy? If a government tries to cause disorder, is that anarchic or is it hyper-statist? Your opinion please?

My opinion: A government which cannot govern would be a state of anarchy

A government which tries to cause disorder would be a hyper-statist wannbe.

 

[fakename]

Why not?

What have I said that would lead you to ask that?

My opinion: A government which cannot govern would be a state of anarchy

A government which tries to cause disorder would be a hyper-statist wannbe.

(1) I’m not sure what I said that you are now referencing with the word “contention”.

(2) you said that anarchy means more than just a mess. So then I asked if my scenario is not anarchy, then is it a mess?

(3) I’m not sure that the opinion is true though, since for instance, a state can choose to cause disorder by putting itself in a situation where it cannot govern. But this would imply that it is both hyper-statist and anarchic which is absurd. So I wonder what your further comments on this problem would be?

 

[St_Francis]

(1) I’m not sure what I said that you are now referencing with the word “contention”.

It is your contention that CST would lead to anarchy–see the title of the thread. I am arguing against your contention that CST leads to anarchy.

(2) you said that anarchy means more than just a mess. So then I asked if my scenario is not anarchy, then is it a mess?

I meant it had a meaning other than a mess, notably absence of government. Upon further reflection, I realize that the mess some people use the word anarchy to refer to is generally a mess created by lack of “government:” anarchy reigned in the teenager’s bedroom.

What I am saying is that checks on governmental power do not lead to anarchy. And I would also say that they do not lead to a mess, either. I think that checks on power are a good thing because a government with unlimited power generally leads to a hyperstatist mess.

(3) I’m not sure that the opinion is true though, since for instance, a state can choose to cause disorder by putting itself in a situation where it cannot govern. But this would imply that it is both hyper-statist and anarchic which is absurd. So I wonder what your further comments on this problem would be?

Why would a government do that?

 

[fakename]

It is your contention that CST would lead to anarchy–see the title of the thread. I am arguing against your contention that CST leads to anarchy.

I meant it had a meaning other than a mess, notably absence of government. Upon further reflection, I realize that the mess some people use the word anarchy to refer to is generally a mess created by lack of “government:” anarchy reigned in the teenager’s bedroom.

What I am saying is that checks on governmental power do not lead to anarchy. And I would also say that they do not lead to a mess, either. I think that checks on power are a good thing because a government with unlimited power generally leads to a hyperstatist mess.

Why would a government do that?

(1) so then what would you say the CST leads to? Clearly it leads to a lot of decentralization and non-linear reactions.

(2) maybe the governors are nihilistic and that’s why they want to introduce chaos.

 

[St_Francis]

-]/-]

(1) so then what would you say the CST leads to? Clearly it leads to a lot of decentralization and non-linear reactions.

Decentralization and non-linear reactions are not anarchy. In fact, I would contend that decentralization and individualization (to the appropriate level of society) is a *good *thing, not a bad thing.

(2) maybe the governors are nihilistic and that’s why they want to introduce chaos.

A government which induces chaos for the purpose of increasing control and power is behaving badly. A government which induces chaos solely for the purpose of creating chaos is also acting badly, but in addition are acting completely irrationally; therefore, one cannot have a rational opinion about it.

The whole point of government is to reduce chaos.

 

[sw85]

Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical anarchism?

For instance, Catholic political philosophy entails wanting both tolerance and justice, unchanging laws and a changeable application of those laws, subsidiary and solidarity, it is an “either or” philosophy.

But a political system that favors a thing and its opposite according to differences of circumstance and intention is basically “anarchy”. Indeed we need people in a perfect Catholic state to, IMO, be unimpeded when they both follow laws and when they break them (in the case of unjust laws). And since most laws are opinions and since opinions should not become the subject of contentions, it follows that sometimes people can be allowed to disagree about what law they want to follow or not.

So is Catholic political philosophy “anarchistic”?

This is a good example of the kind of nonsense Catholics can talk themselves into believing in the absence of robust and trustworthy catechesis.

It is OBVIOUSLY belied by the thousand-plus years of explicitly Catholic civilization which was highly authoritarian, orderly, and structured, which was in no meaningful sense “anarchistic,” and which only a few leftist hippy-dippy pseudo-Catholic free love types, or the ones who desperately want to be good little rah-rah Americanists, sincerely believe was in no way reflective of a genuinely Catholic culture.

Fakename, I’m genuinely worried about you. Every day I log on and see bizarre questions like this from you. Where are they coming from? What are you reading? What are you thinking? Frankly, your posts are so muddled, so utterly detached from what ordinary people think about anything, that I can’t even point to anything in your thought process to say “this is definitely wrong.” I don’t mean that in a tortured-genius, maybe-you’re-just-thinking-at-a-way-higher-level-than-anyone-else good way. It rather reminds of the obscene intellectual contortions that leftists put themselves through to rationalize their choice to believe the obviously meritless things they believe.

 

[fakename]

This is a good example of the kind of nonsense Catholics can talk themselves into believing in the absence of robust and trustworthy catechesis.

It is OBVIOUSLY belied by the thousand-plus years of explicitly Catholic civilization which was highly authoritarian, orderly, and structured, which was in no meaningful sense “anarchistic,” and which only a few leftist hippy-dippy pseudo-Catholic free love types, or the ones who desperately want to be good little rah-rah Americanists, sincerely believe was in no way reflective of a genuinely Catholic culture.

Fakename, I’m genuinely worried about you. Every day I log on and see bizarre questions like this from you. Where are they coming from? What are you reading? What are you thinking? Frankly, your posts are so muddled, so utterly detached from what ordinary people think about anything, that I can’t even point to anything in your thought process to say “this is definitely wrong.” I don’t mean that in a tortured-genius, maybe-you’re-just-thinking-at-a-way-higher-level-than-anyone-else good way. It rather reminds of the obscene intellectual contortions that leftists put themselves through to rationalize their choice to believe the obviously meritless things they believe.

It’s obvious enough that the former part of your post is correct and that’s why I put the word “anarchy” in quotation marks several times and used the word “practical” so as to differentiate it from formal or essential anarchy.

This may enrage you but it shouldn’t since it’s just my opinion, but the latter part of the post was rather long for the message being conveyed. I would shorten it because it may lead people to think that you were being too angry; tempers flare and thread wars commence that way.

But as to substance, I read stuff that is pretty normal from your POV: Aristotle (everything I can and as much as I can), Aquinas, and some Rothbard.

I read other things but nothing out of the ordinary: some math and logic books and of course, history.

No need to fear the guy with kooky questions: what other questions would anyone ask?

 

[fakename]

-]/-]
Decentralization and non-linear reactions are not anarchy. In fact, I would contend that decentralization and individualization (to the appropriate level of society) is a *good *thing, not a bad thing.

A government which induces chaos for the purpose of increasing control and power is behaving badly. A government which induces chaos solely for the purpose of creating chaos is also acting badly, but in addition are acting completely irrationally; therefore, one cannot have a rational opinion about it.

The whole point of government is to reduce chaos.

This still seems to be problematic. For if the conditionals that if a government causes disorder then it is hyperstatist and all disorder is anarchy, and all states that make anarchy are beyond opinion, are true, then that would imply that if a government acts to make disorder then it is hyper-statist and beyond all reason. And yet, you said it was beyond all reason and yet stated that it’s (the state) essence (hyper-statist) so there would still be a contradiction (between stating the essence and saying that what the state is, is beyond all reason)? Or am I missing something?

 

[St_Francis]

This still seems to be problematic. For if the conditionals that if a government causes disorder then it is hyperstatist and all disorder is anarchy, and all states that make anarchy are beyond opinion, are true, then that would imply that if a government acts to make disorder then it is hyper-statist and beyond all reason. And yet, you said it was beyond all reason and yet stated that it’s (the state) essence (hyper-statist) so there would still be a contradiction (between stating the essence and saying that what the state is, is beyond all reason)? Or am I missing something?

I think you are missing something.

 

[St_Francis]

This is a good example of the kind of nonsense Catholics can talk themselves into believing in the absence of robust and trustworthy catechesis.

It is OBVIOUSLY belied by the thousand-plus years of explicitly Catholic civilization which was highly authoritarian, orderly, and structured, which was in no meaningful sense “anarchistic,” and which only a few leftist hippy-dippy pseudo-Catholic free love types, or the ones who desperately want to be good little rah-rah Americanists, sincerely believe was in no way reflective of a genuinely Catholic culture.

Fakename, I’m genuinely worried about you. Every day I log on and see bizarre questions like this from you. Where are they coming from? What are you reading? What are you thinking? Frankly, your posts are so muddled, so utterly detached from what ordinary people think about anything, that I can’t even point to anything in your thought process to say “this is definitely wrong.” I don’t mean that in a tortured-genius, maybe-you’re-just-thinking-at-a-way-higher-level-than-anyone-else good way. It rather reminds of the obscene intellectual contortions that leftists put themselves through to rationalize their choice to believe the obviously meritless things they believe.

I thought he was just young.

 

[tarboy]

No, Catholic political philosophy is not “anarchistic”

Your premise is faulty - tolerance is not the opposite of Justice. In fact, they go hand in hand, in a well crafted environment. They prevent anarchy.

Tolerance teaches us to allow legal views outside our own (right to free speech)
Catholic tolerance does not require us to allow illegal activities (pedophelia)

The US system of justice by design hastolerance built into the system.

• Prosecutors have flexibility in what charges to pursue, based on past behavior
• Juries introduce compassion and justice into the process
• Judges are allowed a range of sentences

 

[fakename]

No, Catholic political philosophy is not “anarchistic”

Your premise is faulty - tolerance is not the opposite of Justice. In fact, they go hand in hand, in a well crafted environment. They prevent anarchy.

Tolerance teaches us to allow legal views outside our own (right to free speech)
Catholic tolerance does not require us to allow illegal activities (pedophelia)

The US system of justice by design hastolerance built into the system.

• Prosecutors have flexibility in what charges to pursue, based on past behavior
• Juries introduce compassion and justice into the process
• Judges are allowed a range of sentences

What I meant was that tolerance is the opposite action from justice a lot of the time and enough so, that a system desiring both can be called “anarchistic”. This is because justice (most of the time IMO) entails punishment but tolerance entails not punishing if the reason is good enough. These are two different acts which are equally defensible by the same ethical system. So that system is what I call (improperly from one POV) “anarchistic” or what comes to the same “flexible”.

 

[St_Francis]

Fakename,
What is your definition of anarchy? because sometimes the way you use it doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

 

[St_Francis]

What I meant was that tolerance is the opposite action from justice a lot of the time and enough so, that a system desiring both can be called “anarchistic”. This is because justice (most of the time IMO) entails punishment but tolerance entails not punishing if the reason is good enough. These are two different acts which are equally defensible by the same ethical system. So that system is what I call (improperly from one POV) “anarchistic” or what comes to the same “flexible”.

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn’t seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either–the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn’t seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either–the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

The proper definition of anarchy is “without a ruler”. The early Christian communes were “anarchic”. Yes, the people followed the lead of the apostles, voluntarily. Part of the requirements of a ruler (some form of -archic system, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, etc…) is power to impose upon the unconforming. The Native American Great Plains tribes were anarchic. Every man was his own man. Anarchic doesn’t mean that there are no cultural rules that determine what is acceptable behavior in that group.

 

[St_Francis]

The proper definition of anarchy is “without a ruler”. The early Christian communes were “anarchic”. Yes, the people followed the lead of the apostles, voluntarily. Part of the requirements of a ruler (some form of -archic system, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, etc…) is power to impose upon the unconforming. The Native American Great Plains tribes were anarchic. Every man was his own man. Anarchic doesn’t mean that there are no cultural rules that determine what is acceptable behavior in that group.

The Apostles did have the authority to do something about those who did not “conform,” as you call it, altho I shall call it misbehaving, as we see in the Epistles, they kicked out people who did not behave. Those who misbehaved in Acts were killed by God.

Moreover, I find it very difficult to believe that Native American communities had no way to impose some sort of power over those who misbehaved. What would the point be of the Iroquois governmental system if it had no power?

 

[fakename]

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn’t seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either–the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

“Anarchy” for me, is what you would call “a mess”.

This is due to the Hobbesian definition of “anarchy” being a state of war of all versus all.

I don’t actually believe that all “anarchy” entails literal war, but by simile a mess or chaotic jumble is like a war of all against all and so even a peaceful "mess’ I call “anarchy”.

However this definition is not the true definition of anarchy and it certainly is consistent with government, that is, a form of state (monarchy, aristocracy, etc.). And that is why I put " " around the word anarchy.

And to reiterate, I call justice the opposite of tolerance only inasmuch as they sometimes require opposite actions. Justice requires punishment many times, and tolerance requires that we don’t punish. However again, I am only speaking of justice and tolerance from the point of view of the actions they sometimes entail. It is from the interaction of these contrary actions that I call morality a principle of “anarchy”.