I'm saying that I do not believe in a better world. I believe in the cycle of government.
Calling for anarchy is merely the next stage and you are all premature because it sounds attractive to you, for various reasons, all of which are personal.
But we are not there, yet. And it will be ugly, when we are.
the main thing we need is a clear understanding of psychopathology
such individuals should not be granted decisionmaking power, ever, ever, ever
Especially if the statists are right in thinking that governments form naturally
You should read the sovereign individual. Technology makes it more difficult to control and coerce people. Bitcoin is the next step toward self sovereignty. I think we will get there eventually.
Putting our faith in technology will lead to us being ruled by robots.
If you’re implying that some robot terminator takeover will happen then who is more likely to implement that than psychopaths in government?
If you don’t think anarchy will work, that is one thing. But advocating to “vote” in order to fix a system that is built on violence is just silly imo. Unless you have a different solution?
I think anarchy is not a stable state because there is no stable state.
If all police departments in the country announced they were being shut down next week, what do you think would happen?
We know what would happen. Collapsing governments are common enough.
I’m asking you what you think will happen in this country.
Germany?
No.
I’m saying if the US announced they will abolish all police departments next week. What do you think would happen? I’m not saying there will be an economic collapse or hyperinflation. Just one day you go outside and notice there are no cops running around harassing people. What would this country look like?
Vigilantes would form new police departments and reinstate order, I assume, where the marriage rate is high.
Other places would become ruled by criminal gangs.
Prayer helps.
I do a lot of praying.
And I do a lot of protesting and writing.
And I attend church services and volunteer.
And I speak up, in public.
And I vote for whichever party my husband suggests. Or I don't vote, if he prefers.
And I buy Bitcoin and gold, and work on Nostr.
And I have kids and have raised them to be sceptical of government.
And I live someplace where the local population is sceptical of the federal government, largely self-sufficient, and disinclined to tattle.
I am Christian and a woman, so I believe this is my proper place.
I don't know if it is a solution, but is not nothing.
I think that is the only solution. We can't control much, so we have to cultivate virtue and holiness in our own families and communities. All else is vanity, really.
I'd scratch to party voting out completely. This is a 100% stupid thing to do as it fights against all the other changes you try to make. That's my opinion. My opting out starts with opting out of this stupid party voting spectacle..that's first step.
That's a decision above my pay grade, sir.
Strange but I accept :)
I don't like to be incoherent. Things must align.
How does voting for corrupt political order allign with your "freedom and decentralization" principles? Domestically? Outside it seems like opposite to being coherent, I'd say
My domestic life is always primary.
Explains everything. Mine is secondary. If it was primary I wouldn't be here. Too different. Too many compromises.
I'm assuming that you aren't a wife.
No. Not a husband either..but I never force my opinions on those around me. It just doesn't work.
He doesn't force me to share his opinions. Obviously. 😂 Nobody has ever managed to force me to agree.
Submission is a choice I make. Has nothing to do with my opinions, other than my opinion about who is the head of the house. I am free to disagree with the head of the house on anything and everything, but not to agitate politically against him. That's trying to get around him, by using the power of the government.
This is incongruent, IMO, as he is my government.
U keep doin u my digital fren🌅
Hi, nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl,
Your comments suggest that perhaps you don't truly understand the semantic meaning of the word anarchy. It literally means no rulers.
In the beginning, God gave mankind dominion over creation, but not at all over one another. We are all to be working together as peers. The idea of a state with "rulers" authorized to force their will upon us is utterly unbiblical.🤔🧐
In fact, God told Samuel that seeking such a governance structure was an abject rejection of God himself.
Then we shall be ruled by Christian judges or elders? How is that a lack of rulers?
Or everyone is just nice to everyone and we call it a day?
We are not in Heaven, yet.
Christian judges worked out horribly for the peasants of the dark ages. Why can’t you just rule yourself? lol arm yourself, live in a safe community, and avoid dangerous situations. These are things you are already doing but for some reason you attribute that to government instead of your judgment. These are decisions you’ve made intentionally. Why is your government so different from the government in Chicago or Los Angeles? It’s the people not the government. The reason you have good peaceful neighbors is because they are good peaceful people. It’s not because they’re afraid they will get in trouble.
Not everyone who is here is from here. Should we really put a wall around the town? How does that make me more free? That just collapses the borders inward to a walled town.
You assume too much about my neighbors. This region has one of the worst sex:ratios in Europe and the frustration is palpable.
Safe communities are safe because good men police them and create a realistic threat.
Splitting hairs here but there were no "dark ages". The Medieval period was complicated period but full of such light and glory it would be blinding to our modern, darkened eyes.
True Christian judges are the most equipped people on the planet to administer justice since they know the Source of all justice.
You can believe that if you want but the historical evidence suggests otherwise.
You can believe the "evidence" if you want but actual history suggests otherwise.
The church being extremely corrupt is actual history but maybe you’d need to actually study history first to know that. Priests and church members are fallible humans. Idk why that’s hard for some people to accept.
Like I said, complicated. I'm a protestant in the reformed tradition so I am well aware of historical church corruption. But to see the entirety of the medieval period as one giant epoch of church corruption is a sad and flattened view.
I'm not looking to dunk on you, to be clear. You're not wrong that there were periods and regions where the peasantry suffered under unjust rulers and clergy. But the Church Age, built atop the Scriptures, is why we today can even have this discussion. Our freedoms, senses of justice, tools of liberty—our whole moral framework—is the fruit of Christendom, and medieval Christendom especially.
>"Then we shall be ruled by Christian judges or elders? How is that a lack of rulers?"
Sister, you (and many others) are viewing this issue through the lens of hundreds of years of barnacle-like accumulation of tradition, government propaganda, and egregiously corrupted translations of the bible, so I implore you; please to the extent possible do not prejudge what I'm about to say:
The answer is BOTH yes and no. To you, as one who I know to be fluently bilingual, my first observation about language issues should make a great deal of sense. The root word "rule" is an egregiously bad translation from Greek to English. I believe it to be INTENTIONALLY bad because of the corrupting influence of nation-states (which scripture teaches us are under the control of satan, "ruler" of this world [John 16:11, et.al.]). The Greek root most often mistranslated as "rule" is ἄρχων (archon), and its core meaning in Greek is "first." This is where we get the political title "Premier." The biblical idea is far more that of a "leader" than a "ruler," and PARTICULARLY does NOT include the connotation that said "leader" has some inherently legitimate right to compel us by force to do anything.
And so, YES, "we shall be ruled by Christian judges or elders" that WE VOLUNTARILY look to as "leaders," or "first" among us BECAUSE we (individually, NOT as a "collective") have respect for their wisdom and guidance.
And also, NO, because we are NOT obligated to submit to the diktats of whatever thug who HAPPENS to be "in power" at the moment is attempting to compel us to do.
Jesus is King; he is the only one with an authentic RIGHT to "RULE" us (in the English sense of the term), and the absolutely GOOD NEWS is that Jesus is a BENEVOLENT King who truly has our individual and corporate best interests at heart.
Summarizing; the only legitimate human governance structures are 100% voluntary. Jesus/God'/Scripture's long-obscured teaching on that matter is that it is the individual, independent assemblies of believers who are VOLUNTARILY participating and who answer ONLY to King Jesus who should be governing us.
For a more comprehensive discussion of this, please see:
https://peakd.com/politics/@creatr/a-sola-the-reformers-missed-sola-ecclesia
I don't think this is the anarchy the others are aiming for.
This is just a church without a nation state ruling over the same territory, and allowing people to join or leave the area voluntarily, which sounds fine to me.
Let's make it a Catholic Church.
The Catholic church got it wrong from the start... Did it just like the world in a hierarchical fashion. Scripture shows us a decentralized model, much like bitcoin, with no centralized authority or King but Jesus himself.
the catholic church was just an attempt to maintain the power relation while selling the PR campaign that they had turned into christians, all started off by Constantine with his so-called vision
they selected a small set of books to declare as the "word of god" and nearly destroyed dozens of other texts, of which for sure Enoch was very familiar to the contemporaries of the time of Jesus - indeed much of what Jesus said was literally straight out of enoch, and you can validate the existence of enoch even in the catholic bible in the book of genesis
but the rules of what texts they did adopt, was still better than what happened after the 1200s or so when the third bethlehem star cycle passed and we started into the modern liberal democratic socialist state
replacing the king with false principles, teaching people to worship the government... we are in the late stages of this now, it won't last much longer, because stuff is about to happen that will break down their power
Anarchy brings us back to the Law of the Jungle. Might sound good compared to what we have now, but reality is that unless you are skilled in violence, you’ll get torn to bits. Even if you are skilled, numbers are not on your side when SHTF
Men will inevitably collaborate and begin governing again, to protect their women and children.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy is a vacuum.
I agree but nature still abides by incentives. The incentive to collaborate and coerce people shrinks when theft and violence are more difficult to conduct. This is what the sovereign individual talks about. Idk if we will ever see a world free from government violence, but the overall trend is less violence and sovereignty. It’s a little hard to see now but if we zoom out the pattern is clear.
All any of us can believe in is a better self (and even then, we're likely to disappoint ourselves).
A better world only results when enough of us take responsibility for making ourselves better people.
I agree.
Not an easy problem to solve. On one end if you say a 3rd party has the moral right to prevent the free actions of another then it's a slippery slope to tyranny. On the other end if you say no one has the right to do that then you open people to be subject to all acts of violence. And I thought the Byzantine generals problem was hard lol.
Like many things the answer lies somewhere in the balance of these two opposing forces. Where the center lies is a matter of debate.
