Political Theory

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Bert — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:32:49 GMT

Of course I hate the game. It's like chess, but no matter if you actually win or lose, you always lose.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

cab21 — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:01:44 GMT

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

are these ancap?

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Phi est aureum — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:47:31 GMT

North American politics are full of opinions which are subjective and prone to misinformation. So I guess you hate the game.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

cab21 — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:52:48 GMT

do the christian ancap parents believe in corporal punishment for children? is corporal punishment ancap?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin8.htm/

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Bert — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 03:01:59 GMT

Opinions are subjective and prone to misinformation.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Minarchist — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 01:04:45 GMT

Not sure why quoting 2,000 + year old Jewish myth and folklore would be relevant to modern to North American political systems.

Religion is relevant to politics because religion influences the opinions of individuals, and the opinions of individuals are relevant to politics.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

rwiedeman — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:51:15 GMT

Theists are free to believe. Atheists are free to not believe. Freedom is what libertarians are all about, not agreement on everything. (If I'm wrong, I'm leaving.)

It is correct that a believer is restricted in his thinking, in the sense that if you accept the idea of a creator who gives his rules in a certain book, where that conflicts with other books, you should give the guidance of your book preference, or abandon the idea that your book is right, which is essentially to leave the religion in favor of some combination of reason + faith, which is where I usually find myself.

Religions were made by people, not the other way around. Both theists and atheists can agree on that.

Practicing religion should be free as long as it is voluntary. If I am free to believe or not, I am free. Anything less is some form of statism.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

cab21 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 20:47:22 GMT

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/03/can-a-christian-be-an-anarchist.html here is a post by robert p murphy where he says he is not a christian anarchist as he thinks anarchist is not a accurate discription of his worldview

http://cog-ff.com/Library/html/STUDY%20GODS%20LAW.html this claims a monopoly of truth and law. the source of all law and authority is go here. it says god created contracts with people to carry out his law with a monopoly

some quotes

Obedience to God's Law is encouraged by blessings and enforced by curse.

The Commandments apply to individual conduct, the statutes to national administration, and the judgments to decisions rendered under the Commandments and the statutes.

God's Law contains statutes for regulating all the activities of modern life — sickness, disease, commerce, labor relations, legislation, farming, land tenure, international affairs, finance, sex and marriage, warfare, state and religious ceremonies, politics and government.

When God gave this perfect system of law to His nation Israel, He came "down also upon mount Sinai, and spake with them from heaven, and gave them RIGHT judgments, and TRUE laws, GOOD statutes and commandments. And made known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant"

No system of law can be effective without proper administration. The happiness of the people depends both on the system of law and those who administer it. A good system of law may be made very burdensome by bad administration. Along with the knowledge of the right system of law, there is a need for an effective instrument or organization through which the law may be administered for the benefit of all men.

God's Law will be kept in the spirit as magnified by Christ, rather than the mere letter. It will be administered with love, compassion and mercy. Those who show real repentance and change their wicked ways will be forgiven and allowed to live — rather than stoned to death.

But, we, whom God now calls to salvation, are to teach God's laws then, and enforce them. Our life now is the training ground to educate and prepare us for that grave responsibility and wonderful opportunity.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Kelvin Silva — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:26:18 GMT

Was God a democrat?

Was God a conservative?

Did God prefer apple products over microsoft pc's?

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Minarchist — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:54:31 GMT

@acft

There is no a priori reason to believe that religious and non-religious people cannot coexist peacefully, nor that they can. In some cases they will, in some cases they won't, depending on the circumstances. But, again, there are any number of other sorts of disagreements (e.g. political disagreement between atheists) which could be just as damaging to the peace of society. Religion is not unique in having the potential to cause social strife.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

cab21 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 10:03:00 GMT

say sure ancaps coexist great. say it's same conclusions different methodology perhaps.

so right now i'm looking at the Christian ancaps compatibility with the rest of Christianity and looking at how ancap god really was, and how to get non ancap Christians to become ancap Christians. out of the three sources in the thread of god as ancap, one of them was from a agnostic

the Jewish god is the Christian god, so the ot teaching ought to be ancap as well to be consistent if nt teachings were ancap. maybe it's god working in mysterious ways,

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Aristippus — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:02:41 GMT

It was brought up many posts back about Jews and the Golden Rule. However, as far as I know, Jesus commanded the Golden Rule. Jews are not Christian.

Sorry Phi, what are you getting at here? The Golden Rule exists in Judaism.

On the topic as a whole, it must be realised that the purpose of the Torah -from which all of the so-called Abrahamic religions stem - is essentially to institute a monopoly law code, and that therefore statism is at the heart of monotheism. The major branches of Christianity and Islam developed monopolistic law codes also, which were enormous influences on non-religious statist law. The struggles within the Church were mostly disputes about taking control of this monopoly on force - thus the doctrines at the heart of these disputes are political in nature. Abrahamic monotheism began as an instrument of state control, and it was used for this purpose ever after.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Phi est aureum — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:37:08 GMT

To address a few things:

It was brought up many posts back about Jews and the Golden Rule. However, as far as I know, Jesus commanded the Golden Rule. Jews are not Christian.

Anarchy is best defined as without a man or group of men ruling over you. I only say this because to say a Christian could peaceably live in an ancap society. Or that is, to the atheist, since he doesn't believe in God, anarchy is without any ruler, and a Christian saying they are ruled by God is actually without a ruler. A Christian would only say anarchy is without man as a ruler, but God still rules over him, and the atheist just an atheist and can still be an anachist.

God is best viewed to be a personal relationship. That is, it doesn't matter what I think about God to you, especially so long as I do not aggress against you or your property.

As far as God killing humans, or God ruling over someone goes: this really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to atheists since they do not believe in God. To an atheist, those people died of some natural (not supernatural) cause. To an atheist, people aren't ruled by God, they are acting by their own free will, and just saying they are ruled by, what an atheist believes, is a nonexistent entity. This is akin to: if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth, this doesn't matter to someone that believes the earth revolves around the sun, as no harm has been done unto the other, and the heliocentric believer just thinks the geocentric believer is wrong.

Hell is best defined as without God. To a believer in God, this would be bad, and would be considered a punishment. The believer thinks the atheist is in or is going to be in hell. To the atheist, they can either say: yes, by that definition, I'm in hell, but I don't see it as bad or as a punishment; or the atheist can say I do not believe in God, and therefore don't believe in a hell. No one has harmed the other.

Is it harassment to try to persuade someone of the virtues or benefits of a free society or a free market over a government or a centrally planned economy? No one can force you to listen. As far as the church bell ringing at 9am while others are sleeping: there are people sleeping at all times of the day. By that reasoning, there should be no bells or loud parties or yelling at any time in a society. Don't like people knocking on your door? If the norm happens to be that knocking is acceptable, then what? You don't have to answer. You could tell them that it is private property and they will be trespassing to remain on the property any longer. You could put up a sign saying "do not enter. Private property. Violators will be viewed as trespassers. No knocking either!" Offensive signs on a sidewalk near an abortion clinic? This has to do with government, as the sidewalk is "public." wouldn't necessarily exist in an ancap society. Don't like junk mail? Again, the blame lies at the doorstep of government, who has granted a monopoly on first class mail, and has decreed all mailboxes are property of the USPS. In a free society, this wouldn't necessarily be the case, and then only people you accepted mail from could actually be deposited in you mailbox. Don't want a phone call? Same as previous. And as far as tv, radio, or newspapers go: you don't have to watch, listen, or read it. You dont have to subscribe to channels, stations, or newspapers that has religious ads or pieces. But these companies have every right to put them in their publication or broadcast. They are (and should be) free to distribute it to anyone that is willing to tune in.

In regard to an Christian stealing from an atheist and refusing to go to court: what does the religious belief have to do with this? What happens when an atheist steals from an atheist and refuses to go to court? Rothbard (and many other libertarian/anarchist writers have) addressed this question, so I see no reaon that I need to explain it.

The further this discussion has went, it just seems like atheists trying to persuade religious folks that they're wrong. Again, if you're an atheist anarchist, and you live in an ancap society with a Christian that follows every belief in property and natural rights that you do, what does it matter to you that they also happen to believe in God (which you think is a nonexistent entity anyway) and do not aggress against you? There has been no rational reason yet brought up here as to why an atheist ancap cannot exist with what I call a Christian ancap. The more and more you seem to just be trying to persuade these Christian ancaps that atheism is the correct way and that they can't peaceably exist with you, the more it seems that you are the one trying to shovel an ideology down someone's throat. In this way, these "fundamentalist" atheists are as ridiculous as the fundamentalist religious people.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

cab21 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:11:49 GMT

if god was a ancap, why did god not use ancap solutions?

why not "thou shall be ancap?

i can accept fluffy kittens ( or fictional characters) as my ruler, but i can deny the rule of Men over other men.

self government does not mean giving authority to govern to other beings voluntarily. men would be able to accept the rule of Men or fluffy kittens if we can consent for anyone to govern us.

back in those times, what changed that god would now in ancap in these times? was that kind of murder ancap back in those times and the free market has taken a shift? back in those times, parents were not offered a contract, and their children were murdered/killed because the parent was in violation of a law the parent had no previous exposure to?

i do love some of the ideas presented as gods ideas, it still seems they are mans ideas as each person i talk to about god has different ideas about what gods ideas are.

Re: theism, athiesm, and a stateless society.

Kelvin Silva — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:52:01 GMT

The link i provided you does not hold an anarchist viewpoint.

A christian can still deny the legitimacy of the state while holding love and allegiance towards God.

While God is loving, God isnt fluffy kittens/pillow/holding your hand singing kumbaya.

Back in those times, if a certain people did a great evil, then it would be done justice to the whole family or group of people.

If a parent suffers a consequence, so will their children. For example, lets say if the parent went to jail, tis would affect the child as well (has to move houses, or custody/child services whatever etc).

Ill repeat it again

I can still accept God as my ruler, but i can deny the rule of Men over other men.