Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Convince Me: anarchy is a legitimate political position for a Christian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Convince Me: anarchy is a legitimate political position for a Christian

    DISCLAIMER

    1. this is not to even remotely suggest Christians who hold to a political position of anarchy are not Christians
    2. This is not a discussion about Left/Right Liberal/Conservative Republican/Democrat. I'm really not interested in American politics, especially not in this thread. People dragging the conversation in those directions will be asked to leave.
    3. Although asking about Christians and Anarchy, this thread is open to non-Christians to participate in.



    Now to start with, I am a Monarchist. I support the type of government New Zealand currently enjoys, namely a constitutional monarchy. I am not asking you to convince me that Anarchy is a better/worse political position than mine (or better/worse system than democracy etc.).

    What I would like is for you to convince me that Anarchy is a legitimate political position for a Christian to take. (at least some of your reasoning needs to be tied to the Bible in some manner)
    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  • #2
    I feel like 'anarchy' is one of the most misunderstood and ill-defined terms in politics. Can you explain what you are referring to by 'anarchy' here?

    e.g. Professor Noam Chomsky, one of today's most-famous self-described anarchists describes it as:
    "Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."


    But the dictionary offers some definitions synonymous with chaos, e.g. "noun: anarchy 1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority".

    Wiki offers:
    Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations


    I see some quite big differences in those definitions. For example, a democracy isn't 'stateless' but it is anarchic in the sense of non-hierarchical.

    I'm also a tad curious as to why you see the monarchy as being so relevant to New Zealand...? If the monarchy vanished tomorrow it would make a negligible difference to us - the monarchy has zero effect in practice on the operations of our democratic government. (I would describe the function of the monarchy in NZ as 'a convenient legal fiction' - we could equally make a giraffe at the zoo the head of state, and it could perform all the same functions.)

    In the bible as far as political structures go... In the OT God seems to prefer working through divinely appointed "judges" and the switch to monarchy only occurs because the populace demands it and God reluctantly goes along with it. In the NT there's tepid endorsement of Caesar. Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God involve a lot of hierarchy-reversals (e.g. "first shall be last and the last shall be first", "the greatest among you will be the servant of all") which looks pretty anarchic (in the sense of undoing hierarchies) on its face. In Acts the early Christians form a Commune, which seems to endorse that understanding of Jesus's language as being at least somewhat about political and economic equality. So overall, I would say the bible would seem to endorse human anarchic political structures, certainly as compared to monarchy which it's not always the biggest fan of.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      chomsky's view is obviously incompatible with virtually all known forms of theism. God is (accurately) described as authoritarian by most atheists, Starlight's delusions that God was a liberal, built on whackjob liberal theology notwithstanding.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am a government skeptic. I believe most governments make choices that violate the spirit of Scripture, so I don't think it is possible to have a "Christian" government. Thus, anarchism would be no more or less permissible than any other form of government--so long as it doesn't violate key spiritual concepts. The problem I have with limited government (if we're using anarchism=some form of Libertarianism) is that fit more easily allows certain abuses to flourish that are anathema to God--abuse of the poor, violations of proper treatment of the land, etc. The problem I have with egalitarian schemes (if we're using anarchism=collectivism) is that they usually are egalitarian is name only, and again, depending on the most powerful and charismatic members of the collective for righteous conduct leads to abuse.

        The variety of political systems in the Bible indicates to me that God cares less about human governance than he does about proper human conduct. One can no doubt be a righteous anarchist, a righteous monarchist, a righteous citizen in an authoritarian society...whatever. The only system that I think the Bible would take issue with is Non-Biblical religious authoritarianism.

        fwiw,
        guacamole
        "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
        Hear my cry, hear my shout,
        Save me, save me"

        Comment


        • #5
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe the role of government is to administer justice, enact laws, and provide defense fpr our rights. I do npt think we should or really can have government control everything in our lives, nor do I believe that humans have no use for society or heirarchy.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I feel like 'anarchy' is one of the most misunderstood and ill-defined terms in politics. Can you explain what you are referring to by 'anarchy' here?
              Probably the closest to the term I'm meaning is that used by former TWeb owner Dizzle who is a member of the Libertarian party in the US who is also an anarchist.

              for the purposes of this discussion we will go with the rather broad definition from here:
              Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

              Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

              While opposition to the state is central, anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations. Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism or participatory economics.

              Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              e.g. Professor Noam Chomsky, one of today's most-famous self-described anarchists describes it as:
              "Anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."


              But the dictionary offers some definitions synonymous with chaos, e.g. "noun: anarchy 1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority".

              Wiki offers:
              Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations


              I see some quite big differences in those definitions.
              Anarchism is a "broad church" and I do find it amusing that the wind ranging definitions are somewhat anarchic in themselves.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              For example, a democracy isn't 'stateless' but it is anarchic in the sense of non-hierarchical.
              I think that often democracy is a term used to the point where it looses a lot of meaning

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I'm also a tad curious as to why you see the monarchy as being so relevant to New Zealand...? If the monarchy vanished tomorrow it would make a negligible difference to us - the monarchy has zero effect in practice on the operations of our democratic government. (I would describe the function of the monarchy in NZ as 'a convenient legal fiction' - we could equally make a giraffe at the zoo the head of state, and it could perform all the same functions.)
              I will start a new thread discussing that at some point in the future (don't have time at the moment for a separate topic, and I don't want this thread cluttered with it)

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              In the bible as far as political structures go... In the OT God seems to prefer working through divinely appointed "judges" and the switch to monarchy only occurs because the populace demands it and God reluctantly goes along with it. In the NT there's tepid endorsement of Caesar. Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God involve a lot of hierarchy-reversals (e.g. "first shall be last and the last shall be first", "the greatest among you will be the servant of all") which looks pretty anarchic (in the sense of undoing hierarchies) on its face. In Acts the early Christians form a Commune, which seems to endorse that understanding of Jesus's language as being at least somewhat about political and economic equality. So overall, I would say the bible would seem to endorse human anarchic political structures, certainly as compared to monarchy which it's not always the biggest fan of.
              thank-you for this, I will work on my reply to it.
              Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
              1 Corinthians 16:13

              "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
              -Ben Witherington III

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                I think that often democracy is a term used to the point where it looses a lot of meaning
                Especially when it is used to refer to a representative Republic.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  chomsky's view is obviously incompatible with virtually all known forms of theism. God is (accurately) described as authoritarian by most atheists,
                  Chomsky's view is accepting of any authority that can be rationally justified. He simply views hierarchies and authorities as needing to be justified and as not self justifying. Are you asserting God's authority is unjustifiable?
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Government of the people by the people is a popular myth. First, you have to notice when you are being taken advantage of. The governing classes through ownership of the media and other institutions control your thoughts – to make you think all is well, or at least, the politicians are on the case to fix things. In fact, it’s not all well, and they're not on the case. What they are doing is stuffing their own pockets as fast as they can before they get kicked out. Public service is for wimps, they say.

                    The only answer is rebellion on a grand scale. Take your country back. Nationalise everything. Pay no compensation.

                    If Jesus were alive now, he would lead the charge against the White House and cut off Trump’s ridiculous hairdo.

                    Is that convincing enough?
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      Government of the people by the people is a popular myth. First, you have to notice when you are being taken advantage of. The governing classes through ownership of the media and other institutions control your thoughts – to make you think all is well, or at least, the politicians are on the case to fix things. In fact, it’s not all well, and they're not on the case. What they are doing is stuffing their own pockets as fast as they can before they get kicked out. Public service is for wimps, they say.

                      The only answer is rebellion on a grand scale. Take your country back. Nationalise everything. Pay no compensation.

                      If Jesus were alive now, he would lead the charge against the White House and cut off Trump’s ridiculous hairdo.

                      Is that convincing enough?
                      No, this is just a vaguely coherent rant, and I specifically asked that current American politics be kept out of this thread.
                      Strike 1.
                      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                      1 Corinthians 16:13

                      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                      -Ben Witherington III

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I tend to think that it is not as the Bible indicates that rulers are ordained by God to maintain order, "God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer".

                        I think there's one decent argument one could make in favor of Christian anarchy: 1 Samuel 8, where the Israelites ask for a king and God warns them (through Samuel) what a king would do. I don't think this argument succeeds, though, because the system of government in question wasn't anarchy, but rather theocracy (literally). Verse 7 suggests God actively leading the country. No modern day country would be a theocracy with a covenant such as that which Israel had, so the situation could not be identical today.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                          Probably the closest to the term I'm meaning is that used by former TWeb owner Dizzle who is a member of the Libertarian party in the US who is also an anarchist.
                          Hmm, okay. Personally I am quite sympathetic to Chomsky's anarchy, but regard Dizzle's US Libertarian anarchy as a bad joke (as does Chomsky).

                          Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism or participatory economics.
                          I note that very much reflects Chomsky's views, not Dizzle's.

                          for the purposes of this discussion we will go with the rather broad definition from here:
                          [hypercite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism]Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.
                          Okay, if you're going to define anarchism in this anti-state sense, it would seem to me pretty hard to interpret the bible as anti-anarchy. Throughout the Torah, the Israelite tribal society could be described as anarchic - there was no formal state, no taxes, to the extent that law codes were given and enforced at various times they were religious in nature rather than governmental. The move to a governmental system only comes with the institution of the monarchy in the books of Samuel/Kings beginning with the appointment of King Saul. Prior to that there's a mishmash of different systems that are pretty anarchic and localized. (And this becomes especially true if you accept the critical scholarly reading that the "Mosaic" law codes reported in the Torah are actually a reflection of law codes written ~800bc through to ~500bc during the monarchy period rather than actually at the time of Moses)

                          I think that often democracy is a term used to the point where it looses a lot of meaning
                          Wow, really? I would have thought democracy was one of the simplest and most straight-forward terms in politics. People vote, people get elected.

                          I mean, you can have somewhat weird forms, like the very first 'democratic' practices in Greece that worked by random selection, like we do with jury service today, but most people wouldn't think of that as being "democracy" because it doesn't involve voting.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Especially when it is used to refer to a representative Republic.
                            I was listening to some youtube videos of Chomsky talking about anarchy and democracy this week, and one of his comments that stuck with me about democracy, was that Aristotle and Madison had opposite views. Both thinkers acknowledged that democracy was about participation of the populace, and Aristotle's view was that this was great and more of it was to be encouraged, while Madison thought it was bad because it would upset existing class hierarchies (the average [white male] person would demand the right to buy properly and vote for politicians to pass such laws and the existing wealthy land-owners wouldn't be able to continue to hoard it all for themselves and continue to reap the benefits associated with their monopolies over land ownership).

                            In Chomsky's explanation, Madison hoped that by having a Senate where the senators we appointed by the powerful and not by the people, that the Senate would be able to act on behalf on the class interests of the rich and powerful and block the will of the people that was represented by the congress. Obviously the 17th amendment in the early 20th century which changed Senators to be elected by popular vote undid this.

                            In that sense, Chomsky would Aristotle as an anarchist (in this area of thought at least) in that Aristotle wanted a greater distribution of power to the populace, and he sees Madison as representing the opposite (that power should be kept away from the populace in order to maintain existing hierarchies).

                            Of course, this once again raises the question of "is 'democracy' 'anarchic'?" and how you define those terms matters. In Dizzle's US Libertarian view, democracy is not anarchic because it is about how you elect the State and the US Libertarian goal is a Stateless society. In a more traditional anarchic view, democracy is anarchic because it gives power to the masses and removed the hierarchy of rulers (monarchs, emperors, aristocracy, etc) having great power over the ruled masses (serfs, plebs, etc).
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was thinking about Dizzle's Stateless type of anarchy a bit more. Obviously if you remove the State you've got to either replace the things the State does with other institutions that do them, or you don't have those things.

                              I was thinking we can break down the things the state does into two general categories:
                              1. Laws
                              2. Spending

                              Passing laws that set out The Rules is a major function of the State, and those laws range from obvious things like Don't Murder and Don't Steal, to more complex things like processes and certification procedures to ensure food safety, to commercial compliance laws designed to ensure a functioning and free market, etc. Because >99% of people will obey >99% of the laws the State passes, the State is able to have large effects on the behavior of the population while only spending a relatively small proportion of its budget (~5% in NZ) on compliance costs (police, courts, prisons etc). In other words the State is able to get a lot done just by announcing that things are law, and in response the populace will do them.

                              In a Stateless society you've got to somehow replace the State's position as a declarer of laws with some other institution that has some sort of enforcement power, or not have laws (which seems problematic if you don't even have "No Murder", but is also problematic if you can't have rules that prevent people dying of food poisoning due to poor preparation processes etc). Obviously a big question is, if such institutions exist in a Stateless society, who has power over them and who gets to decide what they do? A lot of the US Libertarian descriptions I've seen appear to me to revert to Feudalism where it boils down in practice to having a number of super-rich effective-Lords who rule the area around them and set the laws for the people in their domain.

                              The other main function of the State is spending money on things, that are understood to be for the public good. In NZ, the big-ticket items of government spending, which constitute ~15% of the budget each are:
                              1. Healthcare for all
                              2. Education for ~16 years per person
                              3. Superannuation payments to support elderly people
                              4. Various benefit schemes to support the poor, sick, unemployed, disabled etc.

                              So ignoring for a moment the thousands of little things the government spends tidbits of money on (ranging from building roads, to maintaining national parks, to preserving cultural and heritage sites, to national defense, to advertising NZ internationally as a tourist destination etc), those are the big ticket items that would disappear or need replacing somehow if you removed the State from the picture. So you get things like US Libertarians cheering letting people who don't have healthcare die. As you and I have discussed previously, Raphael, we both support extending the current NZ government's healthcare budget to include some things it currently doesn't happen to cover for historical reasons (e.g. dental care for adults). But if we were to look at moving to a Stateless society, we're no longer talking about some nuanced discussion where we weigh pros and cons of slightly increased or slightly decreased government spending, we're talking about throwing out both babies and their bathwater and abolishing the entire government-funded healthcare system for everyone that the country has had for 76 years. We're also talking about getting rid of the education system that the country has had for a century, leaving the old people who don't have family to look after them or money to support themselves to starve/go homeless, leaving the disabled people who can't fend for themselves to die etc.

                              I don't think that the US Libertarian crowd that you're calling anarchists, have any answers to those issues that a reasonable or kind person could take seriously. But I don't necessarily understand your question of how being a Christian would impact on this view. It doesn't take being a Christian to not want to live in a feudal society where a few rich lords dictate the rules for those around them and the old and the sick die on the sides of the roads (if any roads exist because the State isn't there to create them). Obviously Christians are supposed to be loving and compassionate and so wouldn't want a political system like that, but by exactly the same token I would say that Christian love and compassion should motivate Christians to take economically left-wing positions in politics, and I don't see you agreeing with that, so I'm confused as to why you would think to draw the line against the US Libertarians.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              112 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              361 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X