NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard of it, but never looked into it. I kind of think it sounds like an oxymoron. I mean, isn't rebellion the sin of witchcraft as quoted in the OT? So how can anarchy, rebellion against institution, be considered Christian in a sense?

look at a few passages of the NT:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13:1-2

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. -- 1 Peter 2:13-14

it seems clear to me that Christian anarchy is hypocritical. Any Christian Anarchists care to explain to me?

Dude ... you are my hero right now.

Thank the sweet zombie jesus that someone else has figured out what Jews have known for centuries:

IT'S OK TO ARGUE WITH GOD!!!

Hell ... you may even win. Look at Abraham over Lot.

Awesome, man ... Awesome to the max.

Your kind of Jesus is alright with me.

considering the amount of contradictory shit in the bible and that various christian sects have believed, i don't see how anything is ruled out.

considering the amount of contradictory shit in the bible and that various christian sects have believed, i don't see how anything is ruled out.

Exactly! It's nice to see someone who has that view.

I mean, if the "God of Abraham" is real, it's obvious that the mother fucker will flip-flop in the face of a valid human argument. Jews know that, right?

I'm just so happy to meet a Christian who knows it, too.

So, again, you're my hero Zilam. :D

I have heard of it, but never looked into it. I kind of think it sounds like an oxymoron. I mean, isn't rebellion the sin of witchcraft as quoted in the OT? So how can anarchy, rebellion against institution, be considered Christian in a sense?

look at a few passages of the NT:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13:1-2

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. -- 1 Peter 2:13-14

it seems clear to me that Christian anarchy is hypocritical. Any Christian Anarchists care to explain to me?
Anarchy isn't necessarily a rebellion against authority. It simply means there are no authorities-- therefore there is nothing to rebel against. The Romans passage seems to leave open the possibility of a lack of authorities.

In my opinion, Christian anarchy is the most realistic kind, because people would still have some guiding principle, some standard/incentive/motivation to not simply be exploitative, but rather try to live in harmony.

In my opinion, Christian anarchy is the most realistic kind, because people would still have some guiding principle, some standard/incentive/motivation to not simply be exploitative, but rather try to live in harmony.

Mmhmm... and yet the number of people who would be spared from Soddom and Gemorrah was *negotiated*.

No ... clearly we have the right to rebel, argue, question, and bitch at the Almighty.

Exactly! It's nice to see someone who has that view.

I mean, if the "God of Abraham" is real, it's obvious that the mother fucker will flip-flop in the face of a valid human argument. Jews know that, right?

I'm just so happy to meet a Christian who knows it, too.

So, again, you're my hero Zilam. :D

Yes. I win in life!!! I can die happy now :D

Yes. I win in life!!! I can die happy now :D

Hooray! Oh no wait ... you and I have been left behind. That happened in 1986. Maybe we should accept that and just build an awesome new world, eh?

Awesome!

Hooray! Oh no wait ... you and I have been left behind. That happened in 1986. Maybe we should accept that and just build an awesome new world, eh?

Awesome!

Left behind..but wait..GWB is here...that must mean this is.....HELL!!! -burns-

Left behind..but wait..GWB is here...that must mean this is.....HELL!!! -burns-

FUCK! No ... ummm ... GWB is a test ...

We must ignore him to pass!

i think its important to look at the life jesus lived.
he came as a reformer ( and obviously to save us); to reform the people of israel. if we are to follow christ, what better way than to change ideas and rebel against tradition?

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. -- 1 Peter 2:13-14

Expand the context and suddenly the true meaning becomes clear (which is why people with agendas tend to quote only as small a portion of text as they can...):

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone; Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you recieve a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 'He is committed no sin, and no deciet was found in his mouth.' When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he trusted himself to him who judges justly."

1 Peter 2:13-23 (Teen Study Bible, NIV, Zondervan)

Do not submit to human authority because of human authority, but rather because God's authority is greater and will protect you from injustice caused by the hand of human authority.

The passage reminds me of a scene from the film "Gandhi" where a group of men, standing against British domination, formed a line and approached a group of British soilders/guards. The guards beat the first man in line down to the ground, and the beaten man rose up, and went to the back of the line. The next man was beaten down and returned to the back of the line, so on and so forth. No man tried to defend himself, each submitted himself to the "authority" of the guards. And in doing so, each acted in supreme defiance to that very same "authority." Go ahead and beat me down, I answer to a higher authority/purpose/goal/etc.

THAT is essentially what the verse in question demands that Christians do.

Study also the life of a great Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.) who understood the true meaning of that passage, and put it into practice, with powerful results.

Actually, I've decided right here and now that me and Zilam will write the end-time prophecy.

Yes ... Jesus will be there, Mohammed will be there, all the nice secular humanist prophets will be there ..

Whatever ...

If you believe we should be good and just to each other, and you believe loving each other matters more than blowing each other up, then you've just joined our cult.

$20 at the door. ;)

No...kidding ... everyone's welcome ... whatcha say, Zilam?

Actually, I've decided right here and now that me and Zilam will write the end-time prophecy.

Yes ... Jesus will be there, Mohammed will be there, all the nice secular humanist prophets will be there ..

Whatever ...

If you believe we should be good and just to each other, and you believe loving each other matters more than blowing each other up, then you've just joined our cult.

$20 at the door. ;)

No...kidding ... everyone's welcome ... whatcha say, Zilam?


I totally like that idea, plus i have known to prophesize in the past(not kidding, ie, prophesized death of Arafat, decline of Sharon, and various other things..in 2000) plus i am trying to learn how Kriss Angel walked on water..I wanna be like the Jesus Lizard!

And then with all the religious head figures, it can be like off of south park, the super best friends (http://www.churchofreality.org/images/super-best-friends.jpg)!

I totally like that idea, plus i have known to prophesize in the past(not kidding, ie, prophesized death of Arafat, decline of Sharon, and various other things..in 2000) plus i am trying to learn how Kriss Angel walked on water..I wanna be like the Jesus Lizard!

Ah but unfortunately you're dealing with Jews who feel that a Jew who calls someone a "racist kike" will get them banned.


I know .. and, belive me, I'm happy with Palastinians taking whatever they like.

Unfortunalty, that makes me a bad Jew. Oops.

Believe me ... not being a Zionist will get me banned. Just like I called fuck-face a "racist-Kike" got me banned.

Heaven forbid a Jew know about Jews.

I have heard of it, but never looked into it. I kind of think it sounds like an oxymoron. I mean, isn't rebellion the sin of witchcraft as quoted in the OT? So how can anarchy, rebellion against institution, be considered Christian in a sense?

look at a few passages of the NT:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13:1-2

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. -- 1 Peter 2:13-14

it seems clear to me that Christian anarchy is hypocritical. Any Christian Anarchists care to explain to me?

It's people again refusing to look at the whole of Scripture. They use parts to justify their own ideas, without looking to see whether they should have those ideas in the first place.

Anarchy isn't necessarily a rebellion against authority. It simply means there are no authorities-- therefore there is nothing to rebel against. The Romans passage seems to leave open the possibility of a lack of authorities.

In my opinion, Christian anarchy is the most realistic kind, because people would still have some guiding principle, some standard/incentive/motivation to not simply be exploitative, but rather try to live in harmony.

God set up a government of elders in the OT and later granted the people's request to have a king, so it's pretty clear that God wants government.

considering the amount of contradictory shit in the bible and that various christian sects have believed, i don't see how anything is ruled out.

Have you ever read it?

If so point out contradictions. If you studied like myself you will soon find that theres absolutely none.

Have you ever read it?

If so point out contradictions. If you studied like myself you will soon find that theres absolutely none.

oh come on, people have devoted entire books to the various contradictions in the books themselves and the known contradictions between translations. wasn't there just a thread here on it?

tell me, how did judas die?

I'm neither a Christian, nor an Anarchist, but I don't see why you couldn't apply Christian values to a collective, free-associative non-heirarchal government structure. Would there be elements of hypocrisy? Of course; just like every governmental or societal group in the world. And for those who don't want to freely associate with the anarcho-christians, they can do what anarchists always tell people to do; go find another plot of land and freely associate with someone else.

...you may even win. Look at Abraham over Lot.


You have the passage number for that?

I'm neither a Christian, nor an Anarchist, but I don't see why you couldn't apply Christian values to a collective, free-associative non-heirarchal government structure.

in fact, christian radicals have come up with that idea a number of times throughout history. it seems to be one of the more appealing 'heresies'.

Christs teachings are fundamentally voluntarist, after all.

Has anyone read the works of Leo_Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy)? (Tolstoy was a Christian Anarchist)I'm trying to get a copy of The Kingdom of God is Within You. His views have actually influenced many religious leaders like Gandhi and MLK. I believe that Christianity can both have a left & right side. Even though the right side is dominant right now I think in another couple years the left side will come back.

I'm trying to get a copy of The Kingdom of God is Within You.

http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html

oh come on, people have devoted entire books to the various contradictions in the books themselves and the known contradictions between translations. wasn't there just a thread here on it?

tell me, how did judas die?

So you in fact have not read it?

Judas died by hanging himself, which to us would imply a rope around the neck, however back then hanging was actually impaling oneself on a giant pike/spike in the ground through the abdomen.

That is how Judas died.

So, as I gather you have not read the bible, why, and how can you reasonably assume that you know of the "contradictions."

Most people take a look at the bible from new to old testament and look at it straight on without any regard for covenant with god, which, changes things. Throughout the bible God changes laws and decisions in dealing with mankind, in keeping with the original covenant with Abraham.

Until you read the bible, you will not understand it.

Honestly, that's like me saying I know all there is about string theory without reading any scientific journals.

Judas died by hanging himself, which to us would imply a rope around the neck, however back then hanging was actually impaling oneself on a giant pike/spike in the ground through the abdomen.

now you're just making things up.

and even that doesn't save this particular bit of contradictory nonsense, as the two accounts also differ on what judas did with the money and why there is a field allegedly called the field of blood. and even that isn't really the end of the contradiction between just this particular part.

now you're just making things up.

and even that doesn't save this particular bit of contradictory nonsense, as the two accounts also differ on what judas did with the money and why there is a field allegedly called the field of blood. and even that isn't really the end of the contradiction between just this particular part.

And the deaths are still contradictory.

And the deaths are still contradictory.

indeed.

if i were a christian i would embrace the contradiction. because in formal logic, a contradiction allows you to derive anything from it. a and not a, therefore jesus is lord!

it's not really helpful, but it's much better than what they've got currently.

If God Himself does not establish a ruling body to rule over us, what right have mere humans to do so?

Since, at least today, He has not, does it not follow that certainly no mortal has such a right?

(I am an atheist. But the question intrigues me.)

If God Himself does not establish a ruling body to rule over us, what right have mere humans to do so?

Since, at least today, He has not, does it not follow that certainly no mortal has such a right?

(I am an atheist. But the question intrigues me.)

Even if we give that mortal our consent through elections? (Through our supposed God-given free will?)

If God Himself does not establish a ruling body to rule over us, what right have mere humans to do so?

Since, at least today, He has not, does it not follow that certainly no mortal has such a right?

(I am an atheist. But the question intrigues me.)

Exactly, no mortal has the right to follow his or her own system, much less set it up over others. But they do have the right (if not the responsibility) to use the system that God gave. The system found in the Old Testament Law.

Even if we give that mortal our consent through elections? (Through our supposed God-given free will?)

Do you agree with everything the politicians supposed to represent you do? They are still rulers, they are merely rulers held to a degree of accountability.

Exactly, no mortal has the right to follow his or her own system, much less set it up over others. But they do have the right (if not the responsibility) to use the system that God gave. The system found in the Old Testament Law.

1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Makes it rather difficult, doesn't it?

But Jesus doesn't stop there:

38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

So much for property rights and law enforcement.

[QUOTE]Makes it rather difficult, doesn't it?

But Jesus doesn't stop there:

No, because He was speaking to relations between people, not to the conduct of the civil government.

So much for property rights and law enforcement.

Again relations between people, not the civil government. And the turn the other cheek means to stand up for yourself (or so I've been told): in Jewish society, if you were to be insulted, you would be slapped with the back of the hand, but by turning the cheek, you force them to slap you with their palm. And it's also about being loving to your enemies, not seeking revenge. But you can seek justice.

Do you agree with everything the politicians supposed to represent you do? They are still rulers, they are merely rulers held to a degree of accountability.

It would still be my God-given right to delegate my decision-making to someone else. The problem therefore would be making those politicians more accountable, not that we have them in the first place. Is a collective assembly that changes it's makeup based on who is available to attend any more just? I wouldn't necessarily agree with their decision, or have the time or the inclination to show up to every quorum to decide every menial issue. That's what we elect leaders to do.

No, because He was speaking to relations between people, not to the conduct of the civil government.

And is the "civil government" not composed of people?

At the very least, you would have to grant that true Christians cannot be in the civil government.

Again relations between people, not the civil government. And the turn the other cheek means to stand up for yourself (or so I've been told): in Jewish society, if you were to be insulted, you would be slapped with the back of the hand, but by turning the cheek, you force them to slap you with their palm.

Except that that interpretation makes no sense in the context of the passage.

And it's also about being loving to your enemies, not seeking revenge. But you can seek justice.

What's the difference? How can a violent form of "justice" coincide with non-resistance of evil people?

But Jesus doesn't stop there:

So much for property rights and law enforcement.

Ah, the "turn the other cheek" passage - probably one of the most misunderstood and misused passages in the Bible.

Note that this passage refers to a way to passively resist unjust authority, without breaking any laws, putting oneself in danger, or resorting to violence.

Turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, would generally have kept you from getting hit again. A person who was attempting to show disdain (especially for a slave, woman, or member of a lower class) would have to backhand that person. Slapping with a forward motion, punching, etc. would be a statement placing that person on a level with them - allowing the person to fight back without retribution. In addition, just about any use of the left hand was completely taboo - especially touching another person with it. You can only backhand someone with your right hand across their right cheek. Turning the left would force them to either slap you, admitting that you are equal to them, or stop hitting you.

Another thing to note is that nudity, at that time, was a shame to all who saw it, but not to the person who was nude. The tunic/cloak reference is often translated as outer and inner garment. This is because, if you could not repay a debt, it was legal at the time for someone to sue you for everything you owned - right down to your outer garment (but not your inner). Imagine, however, the person who was sued for their outer garment, and the court granted the suit. They then remove not only the outer garment, but the inner as well, shaming the person who sued as well as the court who awarded it.

And the "walk a mile" thing most likely refers to a Roman law which allowed a Roman soldier to have any person along the road carry his pack for him - but only for one mile. Asking them to carry it further could result in harsh punishment for the soldier. Imagine someone getting to the end of the mile, but then refusing to give the pack back, "No, I'll carry it a little further." The soldier may not have asked you to, but if word gets out that someone carried his pack further...

Have you ever read it?

If so point out contradictions. If you studied like myself you will soon find that theres absolutely none.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

It would still be my God-given right to delegate my decision-making to someone else.

But we do not delegate our decision-making to the politicians; they take it from us.

If, right now, I wanted to secede from this "social contract" and regain my autonomy from the state, I would be incapable of doing so.

Ah, the "turn the other cheek" passage - probably one of the most misunderstood and misused passages in the Bible.

Note that this passage refers to a way to passively resist unjust authority, without breaking any laws, putting oneself in danger, or resorting to violence.

Turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, would generally have kept you from getting hit again. A person who was attempting to show disdain (especially for a slave, woman, or member of a lower class) would have to backhand that person. Slapping with a forward motion, punching, etc. would be a statement placing that person on a level with them - allowing the person to fight back without retribution. In addition, just about any use of the left hand was completely taboo - especially touching another person with it. You can only backhand someone with your right hand across their right cheek. Turning the left would force them to either slap you, admitting that you are equal to them, or stop hitting you.

Okay. Does this change the clear words of Jesus:

But I tell you not to resist an evil person.

Another thing to note is that nudity, at that time, was a shame to all who saw it, but not to the person who was nude. The tunic/cloak reference is often translated as outer and inner garment. This is because, if you could not repay a debt, it was legal at the time for someone to sue you for everything you owned - right down to your outer garment (but not your inner). Imagine, however, the person who was sued for their outer garment, and the court granted the suit. They then remove not only the outer garment, but the inner as well, shaming the person who sued as well as the court who awarded it.

And the "walk a mile" thing most likely refers to a Roman law which allowed a Roman soldier to have any person along the road carry his pack for him - but only for one mile. Asking them to carry it further could result in harsh punishment for the soldier. Imagine someone getting to the end of the mile, but then refusing to give the pack back, "No, I'll carry it a little further." The soldier may not have asked you to, but if word gets out that someone carried his pack further...

I'm skeptical. None of these interpretations fit at all with the tone of the passage; they are indicative of vengeance, not of love for one's enemies. And they do not correspond to the last line I quoted:

Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

And is the "civil government" not composed of people?

At the very least, you would have to grant that true Christians cannot be in the civil government.

No, I think the exact opposite: Christians are the only ones competent enough to be in government. Should every Christian? No. But the ones that should would be much better leaders than those in service now.

Except that that interpretation makes no sense in the context of the passage.

Interpret Scripture with the whole of Scripture

What's the difference? How can a violent form of "justice" coincide with non-resistance of evil people?

Because it is not saying to be a passive person. Be loving, but if the man puts a gun to your head, beat him up before he shoots!

And I have to run. I have a class in ten minutes and it'll take me 15 to walk there. If you feel like waiting to continue this tomorrow, feel free to wait. Or you can TG me. Or we can kill the conversation. I would prefer TG, but whatever you want.

But we do not delegate our decision-making to the politicians; they take it from us.

If, right now, I wanted to secede from this "social contract" and regain my autonomy from the state, I would be incapable of doing so.

I don't know what country you live in, but I'm fairly certain we elect ours here. Nobody is taking my decision making power away from me. As for the seceding from the 'social contract', you could always leave the territory claimed by the state. You would have to do the same in an anarchist commune if you disagreed with the way they run things.

I don't know what country you live in, but I'm fairly certain we elect ours here. Nobody is taking my decision making power away from me.

Nonsense. Electing representatives has little to do with your autonomy. You have decision-making power, but you are not sovereign; you are constrained to do as the state wills.

As for the seceding from the 'social contract', you could always leave the territory claimed by the state.

Ah, exile. As punishment for rejecting rule I never consented to?

And states have pretty consistently monopolized all the land on the planet; I can leave, but only to serve another master.

You would have to do the same in an anarchist commune if you disagreed with the way they run things.

Only the "rule" of a truly anarchist free association would be consigned to the terms of the association and collective self-defense, and non-members would be permitted territory to live as they pleased.

Okay. Does this change the clear words of Jesus:

Depends on what type of "resistance" he was talking about. Remember how much can get lost in translation. I would say that the statement is not to physically resist an evil person. Don't hit back. Don't sink to their level or return their aggressions.

Martin Luther King, Jr. came up with quite a few perfect examples of passive resistance. And when those particpating were hauled off to jail, assaulted, etc. for peaceful demonstrations, it got attention - and results. But it did so without harming another human being, without showing hate for another human being. It was a way to reveal the injustices of oppression without violence and hate.

I'm skeptical. None of these interpretations fit at all with the tone of the passage; they are indicative of vengeance, not of love for one's enemies.

They don't refer to vengeance at all. How does keeping someone from hitting you again get vengeance? The second simply demonstrates the injustice of taking someone's clothing away because they are impoverished and cannot repay a debt. The third, again, isn't vengeance, but demonstrates the injustice in being forced to do the will of an oppressive government. Hate, in these cases, would lead to violence or active disobedience of the law (endangering oneself). Jesus instructs us, instead, to steer clear of both.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," refers to vengeance. These are all ways to deal with oppression and evil that don't involve that vengeance. These are ways to confront evil, without directly confronting the person(s) committing the evil action(s) - and to do so non-violently.

And they do not correspond to the last line I quoted:

That line doesn't correspond with the interpretation, "Stand there and take evil unconditionally," either (an interpretation that various churches have used over the years to send battered women home to their abusive husbands).

There is nothing evil about someone begging or asking to borrow from you, so the line cannot be and extension of how to respond to evildoers. It appears to be a separate instruction altogether.

It does, however, coincide with the overall feel of the instructions Christ gives, based in love. In those times, mistreating a beggar or a borrower would pretty much have been par for the course. Christ tells us that, even as others mistreat us, we should not mistreat *anyone* - not those who are mistreating us, and certainly not those who seek our aid.

*snip*

Enough, you seem to know more than I do about this.

But would you concede that it is definitely non-violence being advocated here - a mode of behavior incompatible with the violent coercion of the state?

...do you even know what anarchy is? its not "rebellion", it just means that there's no order or establishment. so no, its not an oxymoron. it just means that you dont have an order and establishment to it....

it just means that there's no order or establishment.

no it doesn't

have you ever read a dictionary...?

Enough, you seem to know more than I do about this.

But would you concede that it is definitely non-violence being advocated here - a mode of behavior incompatible with the violent coercion of the state?

Non-violence is definitely being advocated.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "violent coercion of the state."

But I'm not sure what you mean by "violent coercion of the state."

the state is merely institutionalized violence. that's its fundamental nature.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "violent coercion of the state."

The state's power depends on its capability to wield violence. Insist that it abide by non-violence, and it ceases to be a state.

the state is merely institutionalized violence. that's its fundamental nature.


The state's power depends on its capability to wield violence. Insist that it abide by non-violence, and it ceases to be a state.

I don't think I agree with this, unless "violence" is being used in a different way that I would normally use it.

I don't think I agree with this, unless "violence" is being used in a different way that I would normally use it.

How does the state enforce the law?

Nonsense. Electing representatives has little to do with your autonomy. You have decision-making power, but you are not sovereign; you are constrained to do as the state wills.

Part and Parcel of any societal grouping. If you disagree with a collective, you are constrained to do as the collective wills. At least a state can provide rulesets (i.e. a constitution) which govern the limits of a state's power. Believing that somehow an anarchist society would be any different is to not understand human nature. What if an anarchist commune starts up in the city I live in? What if I don't want my business seized or be forced to go somewhere else? Coercion would be required to make me leave, or take my property.

Electing Representatives allows most of society to go on doing the work that society needs to be doing. We don't need to be involved in every single bureaucratic decision making process. Choosing representatives is just that; a representative of your views. If there's a problem with proper representation, then it means your democracy is in need of reform. The state is run by our elected representatives; thus we are abiding by the wish of the people, through our elected representatives.

You paint this picture that every single state on the planet is full of bloodthirsty powermongers who would happily eat your children if given the chance, and that if you removed the 'state', the powermongers would somehow stop existing and everyone would revert to a state of idylic tranquility and co-operation. The world doesn't work that way, and it never will. The powermongers will then move into positions of influence amongst the collective, only instead of using the 'state' to pursue their ends, they'll influence the mob through demagoguery.

Ah, exile. As punishment for rejecting rule I never consented to?

Punishment? You chose not to live by the rules of society. You don't have to stay. An anarchist society wouldn't be any different. If you don't like the way they do things, you are free to leave. (And if you think for a second that if a majority of people will let one individual stand in the way of what the collective wants for some obscure concept of 'non-coercion', I suggest you take a look at human nature again.)

And states have pretty consistently monopolized all the land on the planet; I can leave, but only to serve another master.

Because human hierarchies are intrinsic to civilization and human nature. You could always aquire your own land the way most states did; through coercion. Or, if you find enough like-minded people, you could simply declare the territory you occupy an anarchist zone, and force out any one who doesn't agree with you (again with coercion.)

I'm guessing the government must have done some pretty awful things to you to refer to them as your 'master'. Where I live isn't really all that bad. You must have secret police busting your head with truncheons on a daily basis or something.

Only the "rule" of a truly anarchist free association would be consigned to the terms of the association and collective self-defense, and non-members would be permitted territory to live as they pleased.

I guess this must be the religious part of the thread, because it sounds like you're spewing religious text. You mean the association will 'permit' me territory to live as I please? Just so long as the association isn't using it right?

Mmhmm... and yet the number of people who would be spared from Soddom and Gemorrah was *negotiated*.

No ... clearly we have the right to rebel, argue, question, and bitch at the Almighty.


I agree we do have the God given " right " to do all of the above. By name that right is called " Freewill ". The problem is what will putting that right into practice cost you?

How does the state enforce the law?

How would a 'free association' enforce the law?

have you ever read a dictionary...?

what would that have to do with anything?

Part and Parcel of any societal grouping. If you disagree with a collective, you are constrained to do as the collective wills. At least a state can provide rulesets (i.e. a constitution) which govern the limits of a state's power. Believing that somehow an anarchist society would be any different is to not understand human nature. What if an anarchist commune starts up in the city I live in? What if I don't want my business seized or be forced to go somewhere else? Coercion would be required to make me leave, or take my property.

Forcing you to go somewhere else would be a violation of your human rights, and illegitimate coercion - something that should be prohibited in any decent anarchist society.

Taking your business is not "coercive" at all.

Electing Representatives allows most of society to go on doing the work that society needs to be doing. We don't need to be involved in every single bureaucratic decision making process. Choosing representatives is just that; a representative of your views. If there's a problem with proper representation, then it means your democracy is in need of reform. The state is run by our elected representatives; thus we are abiding by the wish of the people, through our elected representatives.

No, it means we are abiding by the wish of elected representatives from a limited number of choices, the high-level bureaucrats with whom they work, and the ruling class that gains the most access to the whole structure.

You paint this picture that every single state on the planet is full of bloodthirsty powermongers who would happily eat your children if given the chance, and that if you removed the 'state', the powermongers would somehow stop existing and everyone would revert to a state of idylic tranquility and co-operation. The world doesn't work that way, and it never will. The powermongers will then move into positions of influence amongst the collective, only instead of using the 'state' to pursue their ends, they'll influence the mob through demagoguery.

You can't eliminate all kinds of power over others, but much improvement can be made in this regard.

Punishment? You chose not to live by the rules of society.

Yes, because society does not have the right to rule me.

You don't have to stay.

But why should I be forced to leave?

An anarchist society wouldn't be any different. If you don't like the way they do things, you are free to leave.

Yes, but the authority of an anarchist society is limited to certain contexts, and it is managed on a decentralized basis.

(And if you think for a second that if a majority of people will let one individual stand in the way of what the collective wants for some obscure concept of 'non-coercion', I suggest you take a look at human nature again.)

All the more reason to eliminate the repressive machinery of the state.

Because human hierarchies are intrinsic to civilization and human nature.

"Civilization," maybe. "Human nature," I doubt it; certainly any natural "hierarchy" would be radically different from the hierarchies currently dominating us today.

You could always aquire your own land the way most states did; through coercion. Or, if you find enough like-minded people, you could simply declare the territory you occupy an anarchist zone, and force out any one who doesn't agree with you (again with coercion.)

Why would you force them out? And breaking out of the authority of the state is not "coercion."

I'm guessing the government must have done some pretty awful things to you to refer to them as your 'master'. Where I live isn't really all that bad. You must have secret police busting your head with truncheons on a daily basis or something.

The enforcement of obedience is the only necessity of masterhood.

I guess this must be the religious part of the thread, because it sounds like you're spewing religious text. You mean the association will 'permit' me territory to live as I please? Just so long as the association isn't using it right?

No, not "just so long as the association isn't using it." That would violate the terms of free association.

How does the state enforce the law?

Depends on the state, and the law, involved.

Our government certainly enforces the law through threat of punishment, but the vast majority of that punishment is not violent. It involves fines, removal of priviledges or benefits, and possibly incarceration. The worst form of punishment - capital punishment - is, of course, violent, but not all governments use that form.


Yes, because society does not have the right to rule me.

Without society, what do we do if two people both lay claim to a piece of property? Who makes the rules for determining ownership? Obviously, letting the individuals do it won't work - they'll both insist that they own it.

Depends on the state, and the law, involved.

Our government certainly enforces the law through threat of punishment, but the vast majority of that punishment is not violent. It involves fines, removal of priviledges or benefits, and possibly incarceration.

just because the violence is institutionalized doesn't mean it isn't there

just because the violence is institutionalized doesn't mean it isn't there

What violence?

What violence?

don't pay you next parking ticket. then don't go to court. then don't turn yourself into the police. you'll see it.

don't pay you next parking ticket. then don't go to court. then don't turn yourself into the police. you'll see it.

There will still only be violence if I initiate it (unless someone breaks the rules).

There will still only be violence if I initiate it (unless someone breaks the rules).

a strange sort of initiation, since all you have to do is sit there

Forcing you to go somewhere else would be a violation of your human rights, and illegitimate coercion - something that should be prohibited in any decent anarchist society.

The hypocracy of Anarchism is amusing. On one hand, they despise the state for it's 'violence';

Luigi Fabbri stresses this when he argued that, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . [is] centralised power or to put it another way the coercive authority of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military despotism that imposes laws on everyone."

yet...

For anarchists, a social revolution and free society can only be defended by anti-statist means, for example, by "arming everyone . . . and of interesting the mass of the population in the victory of the revolution." This would involve the "creation of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution." [Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 173 and p. 166]

In other words, violence is bad unless it's against someone who disagrees with your vision of how things should be run.

SOURCE: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI2.html#seci22

Taking your business is not "coercive" at all.

Oh really? You've clearly never went through the hardships involved in starting your own business. How do you suppose a revolutionary government seizes these types of assets? Hugs and Care Bear Stares?

No, it means we are abiding by the wish of elected representatives from a limited number of choices, the high-level bureaucrats with whom they work, and the ruling class that gains the most access to the whole structure.

Well not exactly. We're ruled by law. And we elect representatives to vote on our behalf on how that law should be enacted. Are you claiming that anarchist societies wouldn't have law? The difference is in how we decide those laws. We elect representatives because direct democracy is rather unwieldly. (Although I am a proponent of decentralization on many points, and direct democracy isn't out of the question on some issues.)

And the reason we elect an executive is to provide leadership. I don't contest that we could probably get by without an executive leader.

And again, if there's a 'ruling class' with more access, it's time to reform your democracy.

Yes, because society does not have the right to rule me.

Your freedom extends as far as the next person's nose. You don't like society's rules - tough luck.

But why should I be forced to leave?

Nobody's forcing you to leave. Really, just follow the rules. Anarchist societies are going to have rules too. And if you don't agree with their rules, well they're going to tell you the same thing. Go somewhere else, or at least stay out of the way.

"Civilization," maybe. "Human nature," I doubt it; certainly any natural "hierarchy" would be radically different from the hierarchies currently dominating us today.

Opression by committee; unjust and inefficient. Yipee!

Why would you force them out? And breaking out of the authority of the state is not "coercion."

Well they would be 'reactionary forces' wouldn't they? Folks who disagree with your unlawful seizure of the state. And depending on your method of revolution, coercion is a likely outcome. (Unless you think dictating terms at gunpoint isn't coercive?)

The enforcement of obedience is the only necessity of masterhood.

It's the law that's master. And it would be the same in an anarchist society.

No, not "just so long as the association isn't using it." That would violate the terms of free association.

So let's say that your anarchist society needs materials which are on the plot of a land in use by someone who doesn't agree with your anarchist commune. Do you respect his right of use, or do you force him out for the good of the commune? Would that violate the terms of free association?

What if the free society met every evening to discuss issues important to the community, and a small group of people decide to turn your board room table inot their lavatory. Would forcing them out violate the terms of free association?

The hypocracy of Anarchism is amusing.
...
In other words, violence is bad unless it's against someone who disagrees with your vision of how things should be run.

nah, that's not the distinction at all. violence by oppressors is bad, violence to stop oppressors from oppressing is sometimes necessary and acceptable.

(except to the christian anarchists, who are supposed to just take the oppressors' violence until the kingdom of heaven within them is destroyed and they go find out if the kingdom of heaven in heaven actually exists)

a strange sort of initiation, since all you have to do is sit there

Once again, I get the impression that you are using a much different definition of "violence" than I.

nah, that's not the distinction at all. violence by oppressors is bad, violence to stop oppressors from oppressing is sometimes necessary and acceptable.

(except to the christian anarchists, who are supposed to just take the oppressors' violence until the kingdom of heaven within them is destroyed and they go find out if the kingdom of heaven in heaven actually exists)

Well that depends on your viewpoint doesn't it? What classifies as an opressor? The guy who owns a small business in a capitalist system, or the workers who seize it from him by gunpoint?

Once again, I get the impression that you are using a much different definition of "violence" than I.

if you do not comply, are they just going to let you sit there? or do they break out the armed thugs with badges? what exactly are those armed thugs other than institutionalized violence?

The hypocracy of Anarchism is amusing. On one hand, they despise the state for it's 'violence';



yet...



In other words, violence is bad unless it's against someone who disagrees with your vision of how things should be run.

SOURCE: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI2.html#seci22

Yes, we all know about the evils of self-defense.

"The forces of reaction trying to reestablish themselves" does not mean a few advocates of capitalism carrying on an argument. It means armies of capitalist powers invading and trying to smash the revolution.

Oh really? You've clearly never went through the hardships involved in starting your own business.

"Unjust," maybe. "Coercive," no.

How do you suppose a revolutionary government seizes these types of assets? Hugs and Care Bear Stares?

The only reason your ownership of the asset is respected in the first place is the force of the state; the cessation of this support is not "coercive."

Well not exactly. We're ruled by law. And we elect representatives to vote on our behalf on how that law should be enacted. Are you claiming that anarchist societies wouldn't have law?

Incidentally, yes, but the distinction I would make is one you might regard as specious. Anarchist societies would only have "law" as terms of association; I associate with a commune, and the terms and benefits of that association are decided upon by the members of the association. The "terms of association" are merely the "terms of association", however - they do not apply to my life independent of the community even as a member, nor do they apply to any non-members. This is not a "law," because there is no "punishment." The only thing that can be held back from me is the willingness of others to associate with me, and since I do not rule them, I have no right to demand that they do so independently of association.

The only other kind of rule is the right of self-defense, individual and collective, and as long as it remains self-defense I do not see that as a form of rule.

The difference is in how we decide those laws. We elect representatives because direct democracy is rather unwieldly. (Although I am a proponent of decentralization on many points, and direct democracy isn't out of the question on some issues.)

I don't insist on direct democracy for all decisions, just for ratifying important ones. I see it more in terms of an ultimate reserve of the people's power rather than a constant presence in every single decision made.

What you would do is have a group of "leaders" who would indeed decide all the minutiae of the decisions, but you would make all of those decisions ultimately subject to popular ratification. If the people object, they can nullify any decision the leader makes, and they can place whatever restriction on her power that they see fit. Thus, adherence is truly voluntary; the population has ultimate sovereignty because not only can it (in a highly restricted fashion) replace the representative, but it has complete and direct control over whether the decisions she makes are actually followed and over the exact terms of her "leadership."

And again, if there's a 'ruling class' with more access, it's time to reform your democracy.

That's a problem common to statist systems; they are too centralized and distant from the people for anyone but the privileged classes to have decent access to them.

Your freedom extends as far as the next person's nose.

I agree.

You don't like society's rules - tough luck.

Wait, I thought freedom only extends as far as the next person's nose? You mean society can violate this right, and extend its rule past that point?

Nobody's forcing you to leave. Really, just follow the rules.

They're giving me a choice. Obey, or be punished. That is not "freedom."

Anarchist societies are going to have rules too. And if you don't agree with their rules, well they're going to tell you the same thing. Go somewhere else, or at least stay out of the way.

"Stay out of the way," possibly. That is their right; they do not have to associate with me.

Opression by committee; unjust and inefficient. Yipee!

What are you talking about?

Well they would be 'reactionary forces' wouldn't they? Folks who disagree with your unlawful seizure of the state.

They would be people who disagree with us. I would let them go ahead and disagree with us.

And depending on your method of revolution, coercion is a likely outcome. (Unless you think dictating terms at gunpoint isn't coercive?)

Only in defense of life or freedom, which would preclude expulsion simply for disagreement.

It's the law that's master. And it would be the same in an anarchist society.

The "law" then would not be "master," it would be free agreement.

So let's say that your anarchist society needs materials which are on the plot of a land in use by someone who doesn't agree with your anarchist commune. Do you respect his right of use, or do you force him out for the good of the commune? Would that violate the terms of free association?

If there is no other place to access the materials and he won't be swayed to move of his own accord, yes, you would force him out - not simply because the "good of the commune" outweighs his "right of use," but because his use was violating the commune's right of use by giving him exclusive control over resources. If it were the commune taking exclusive control over a resource, it would be legitimate to do the same thing to it.

If such measures were resorted to, they would be (ideally at least) accompanied by compensation and access to land just as good elsewhere; his right of use still cannot be violated, and thus he must remain capable of using the land as before.

What if the free society met every evening to discuss issues important to the community, and a small group of people decide to turn your board room table inot their lavatory. Would forcing them out violate the terms of free association?

No; their use infringes upon the use of others. Unless there are no other places where lavatories can be built, or no other resources with which to build llavatories, their usurpation is illegitimate.

if you do not comply, are they just going to let you sit there? or do they break out the armed thugs with badges? what exactly are those armed thugs other than institutionalized violence?

It is only violence if they use violence. This will only be necessary if I initiate it, by doing more than "just sitting there." If they come to put cuffs on me, I can either struggle (initiating violence) or allow it.

When it comes right down to it, having an established government does more to prevent violence than to cause it. At the very basest level, any human agreement is going to based in violence - because it is always the last resort to enforce compliance. Government, however, can add all sorts of other roads to go down before violence becomes an issue - unless the individual initiates it.

Take, for instance, this scenario:

Two people both lay claim to the same piece of property.

1) In the absence of established rules relating to the ownership of property and the enforcement of such rules, it's one guy's claim up against another's with no way to determine which is right (or enforce that determination). Each guy is his own enforcer, and they'll just have to fight over it. There are two possible outcomes. One is that one of the people backs down and gives up their claim (accomplished, most likely, through violence). The second is that one of the people gets killed, and thus only one person is now claiming the land.

2) In the presence of government, there are other avenues. They bring it to court and society figures out which guy is following the rules. At this point, with many more people backing the actual owner, the other guy may just go ahead and give in. No violence is necessary. If they guy persists in trying to lay claim to the property, he can be arrested/fined/what-have-you - again no violence is necessary (unless he initiates it). The dispute is ended, with everyone living.

It is only violence if they use violence. This will only be necessary if I initiate it, by doing more than "just sitting there." If they come to put cuffs on me, I can either struggle (initiating violence) or allow it.

except that you are just letting the institutionalized nature of the violence allow you to miss it entirely. pretend it isn't the state putting shackles on you to lead you away to a dark hole where they will keep you against your will. pretend it is me. instead of just letting me do it, you hit me. which of us 'initiated violence'?

In the absence of established rules relating to the ownership of property and the enforcement of such rules...

who proposes that?

except that you are just letting the institutionalized nature of the violence allow you to miss it entirely.

No, I'm looking at something that doesn't actually involve violence and saying, "No violence here."

The term "institutionalized" violence would suggest that the government is going around killing and beating the shit out of citizens on a regular basis - and since you said it is inherent, that it *must* do so to be a government.

pretend it isn't the state putting shackles on you to lead you away to a dark hole where they will keep you against your will. pretend it is me. instead of just letting me do it, you hit me. which of us 'initiated violence'?

If you have not yet harmed me, and I hit you, I am the one who initiated violence.

who proposes that?

Who proposes the rules and their enforcement? Ideally? The people. This hasn't been the case in all forms of government, but is the case in ours.

Or are you asking who proposes the absence of established rules? That would be anyone arguing that society should have no power over them. There can be no established rules if they don't actually apply to people.

If you have not yet harmed me, and I hit you, I am the one who initiated violence.

weird. that idea makes armed robbery out as generally non-violent.

me, i prefer to keep the standard definition in which threats of physical injury are counted as violence.

Or are you asking who proposes the absence of established rules? That would be anyone arguing that society should have no power over them. There can be no established rules if they don't actually apply to people.

and who proposes that?

Check out my sig. I'm not actually an anrachist. I'm more on the moderate left but have a lot of respect for the Catholic Worker movement.