Anarchists know that they can destroy civilization and set the world on fire, and then create Order out of the chaos.
Just like God did.
Discussion
I don't know a single violent anarchist.
That's good. Means that they are completely irrelevant.
How is wanting to live a live of peace irrelevant?
Heck, even God leaves people alone if they tell Him to buzz off. How now should a man rule over another by fear and intimidation? That is wrong.
So, you are a pacifist?
peaceful != harmless
I am neither.
It isn't either or. I am very capable and willing to use violence, but the standard for initiating violence is high and very limited.
Okay, so, you're harmless.
To most people at most times, yes.
Again . . . Why is that a bad thing?
It's not necessarily bad, but it's passive and doesn't effect it's environment.
You are entirely incorrectly again.
I am NOT passive. I affect everyone around me. There is a difference between being passive and doing what God calls you to do. I am trying, in earnest, to live that life. That means I am actively engaging with the world directly around me and not shrinking from it anymore, while also rejecting all of the evil and villainy.
You remind me of all the messianic separatist groups that were rising up against Rome around the time of Jesus' ministry. They were fanatical, focused, and violent. But . . . Who's ministry and sacrifice split time and is the healing balm for all? I want to be more like Him than focused on penny ante isms that or ologies that try to limit what God has in store for me.
I didn't say passivity is necessarily a bad thing. I just don't think it's necessarily a good thing.
Since when am I fanatical? You disapprove of me because I am _not fanatical enough_, after all.
You seem to cling to the state too much. I dislike that in anyone. It frustrates me, a bit, because you are smart and I think you are generally a good and righteous person! I just find that the entirety of "the state" is incompatible with being a Christ follower. I can't see any other way to read the entirety of the Biblical story and come to another conclusion.
It isn't like I dislike you any less, and I am only this chatty on this topic with you because I have a huge respect for your intelligence. And, well, I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think I am on this topic.
I don't have an antipathy to the _state_ — as a word or concept— so I can just call a state a state, without suffering cognitive dissonance and feeling the urge to rename it.
We can discuss whether larger or smaller states are better, but a state consisting of a cow village on a hill is still a state.
well, that's the point, what are you doing "defending freedom" if it's not at risk?
I think defending freedom is continuous, until Christ returns. We cannot solve for that. It is part of Nature.
nature is not above God.
also, the society of Christ is certainly not in need of reforming.
there is a lot of assumptions in your thinking you are not aware of the implications of. especially the one saying Christ the King is not a man, who has refined himself to the state of purity He was trained and guided to get to.
Then what was the point of Christ redeeming all of creation?
Christ already came. You are redeemed. You have t he mind of Christ. You have The Holy Spirit. You are a new creation. You have been born again/from above (take your pick of translation).
What are you if you are NOT supposed to be the representative of God's Will on earth by building Truth, Goodness, and Beauty into this world? (Which you DO!!!)
I have eternal life. That doesn't mean I cannot sin. It means I have access to additional Grace, through the sacraments, such as baptism.
Baptism gets rid of Original Sin. It doesn't make you permanently sinless.
yes, actually, it does. go read back.
this is a central doctrinal issue in christianity. in american christian (protestant) there is a debate between "once saved always saved" and what is perjoratively called "works doctrines" which say that you are still human.
well, i say that as a human, you can improve. we can always improve. i reject the idea that humans cannot shake off tyrants like we have on our backs now.
it's a matter of everyone taking up their own cross and doing the hard work. maybe dying.
i hate to say this but as a woman, you are supposed to be protected from that.
so you also should understand that it tends to be women who persuade young men to not be vigilant and rigteous.
i have met many many many men in my life who i considered to be righteous. the idea that you can't supersede that base state is toxic, and authoritarian.
no, who says you can't
and who gave them the authority to claim that?
i do my best. i'm not perfect. sue me. fuck you.
So just because there is sin in the world you should accept tyranny.
Right.
That makes so much sense.
The right way is to TURN FROM SIN, of which tyranny is one, and make the world more perfect.
I have yet to see a practical demonstration of non-coercive governance unless we are talking about some kind of covenant-based community, which should be entirely possible to do and even likely if all the BTC maxis have their way.
My point is that humans don't NEED a state and the coercion that goes along with it, ESPECIALLY in the context of the fact that we have a model of how to do so in the history of The Church.
I am not OK with any coercion. That is not Christ-like.
Even excommunication and banishment are a form of coercion.
that whole excommunication thing led to protestants.
Protestants also do excommunication. That is why there are so many different ones.
You can even excommunication yourself.
Protestants do so much protesting, most Protestants are not, IMO, actually Followers of Christ. But neither are most Catholics or even Orthobros.
It's a hard path because we have to continually die to ourselves. I kinda hate that, but there is no other way but to trust and obey, to quote a pithy hymn.
Sure.
But that is exactly what Jesus did with the temple booting, people doing something at an inappropriate place.
And, for the record, I don't have all the solutions, but I know Who does. And thankfully, I don't need to solve all the world's problems. I just have to be where I am supposed to be, and I am.
i have no respect for authority because of how it was abused to torment me as a child, and how it destroyed any hope of me having a... you know, wife, children.
you don't really understand but you do understand. if you hadn't been fortunate to find good people and be in a good place, you would be just like me and i already understand that you understand that.
OK, so you agree that no harm from me participating in the free market with whoever I wish, including selling my home or business to a brown person
Yup. Sure. Rock on.
I'm not particularly racist. (Except I like to make fun of the French, both Canadian and Parisian.)
I'm here
I don't know you, so . . . my point still stands. All IRL anarchists I know are not violent people by nature, and will only turn to violence if their life or property is being threatened with unwanted force.
The anarchists you know will never become a powerful force precisely because of the false principle of non-aggression.
This principle has been superseded in anarchist circles to tame the masses, just as it happens with Christians.
Can anarchists today impose order? No. Can they impose chaos? Not yet.
Because the principle of non-aggression leaves the anarchists you know like cattle in the hands of the state.
*blinks* Huh?
Naw, bro. They don't want power over other people. WTF are you even talking about? Wanting power over other people is the root of all of these issues.
Get your head straight. No man has the right to have power over me unless I cede that authority willingly.
The NAP is in line with being a Christ follower, even if its roots are more from philosophical backgrounds than The Bible.
So no thanks. Miss me with that power trip BS. Besides, there is nothing more powerful than a man with land and family to protect.
Yes, there is always something more powerful than a man with land and family.
Many have already lost land and families because of this.
Bandits don't care about your family.
You alone will not be able to face stronger bandits, like the state.
Today the state taxes your land and your vehicles, and where is the strength of the man with land and family to defend them from state theft? It doesn't exist.
Anarchists will have to find ways to destroy the enemies of anarchists.
They will have to find ways to protect themselves from the state.
Do you think Bitcoin alone will protect your land, cars, production, businesses, or family from the state? It won't.
You will need to find ways to overthrow state laws.
You will need to find ways to curb abusive state practices.
I'm tired of seeing isolated people losing everything to state actions.
You need to act, not just react.
Nope. I refuse that path. I would rather die than give in to that kind of fatalism.
My Savior conquered the world through loving sacrifice, and I shall follow His example. Even if that seems foolish to the wise. I am very OK with being a fool.
You don't need to be part of the army.
Just finance someone who will protect you in times of danger.
Think about it like this.
You finance.
In times of trouble, whoever helps and protects you gets your money.
Just like that.
Without getting your hands dirty.
Following the principles of his savior who walked alongside the Roman army.
And the right to choose which exercise to finance.
Whoa, hold on there, pardner. Jesus was willing to use violence to make a political point and He actively got up in the government's face and preached.
He didn't just go up to a mountain and commune with the deer, or something. That was St. Francis.
Uh, no.
He used violence to clear out what was supposed to be holy place, the place of His Father. He never even condemned WHAT they were doing (a point missed by most people), only WHERE they were doing it.
Yes. He wasn't passive, but He was not violent or coercive except to evil spirits. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Didn't condemn what they were doing? "You have made it a den of thieves." I don't think the word thieves is morally neutral language.
Yeah. But you're still missing the point, like most people.
Do you know significance of WHERE this incident took place? Do you know what was going on? Do you know why it offended Him so much that he literally flipped tables?
Of course I do. I still don't think I am missing any points. Your claim is that he didn't condemn what they were doing, only where they were doing it. Except he literally called them thieves.
Also you have a tendency to read scripture in novel ways and then tell the rest of us that we are doing it wrong. We well might be, but have you ever wondered if you might not be just making stuff up?
No, he did not.
And no, I am not. That is not an original or novel idea, since I got it from a dude with a PhD in a bunch of biblical stuff.
To quote the relevant passage from Matthew 21 (NASB 2020):
12 And Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds, and He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He *said to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.”
Notice the specificity: He did NOT call them thieves.
They were conducting business, but INSIDE the temple *where* they were not supposed to do that. THAT was the issue.
I am VERY unoriginal in everything Biblical. I don't know enough to claim any authority, but I can read pretty well, and have learned to not read into the text.
To wit:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/tjap/jesus-cleansing-the-temple-why-and-when
There's a Catholic source for you that seems to corroborate my reading.
So . . . Whatcha think?
I think I owe you an apology. I knew most of that, but not the den of robbers terminology.
No apology necessary. Really.
I am always open to learning and, again, I know I'm not an expert or anything like that. But, I am studying earnestly and do not wish to lead anyone astray. I take the admonition that teachers (which I do not consider myself...) Very, very seriously.
If nothing else, take this as an opportunity to reading scripture with fresh eyes. 💚🫂
Hmm. Older translations say "thieves", not "robbers", and both have the same negative connotation. A robber is a subset of thief, focused on stealing from particular places and who uses aggression to get your goods, such as bank robbers and highway robbers. And as opposed to a "burglar" who is a stealthy thief who breaks into buildings. It is rather consequently described, in all retellings of the scene.
[[book:: Bible | Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16 | KJV]]
You say that He thought _what_ they were doing was fine, but that He was only angry about _where_ they were doing it, but they were actually notoriously shady characters, at the time, and their transactions were partly illegal and completely usurious.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-jesus-opposed-the-moneychangers-in-the-temple
A. Older English translations that don't use sources corroborated by The Dead Sea scrolls are not, IMO, "good."
B. My contention is not the negative connotation of theif or robber. All translations have a negative word there.
C. I very much refuse to use The Talmud in any discussion since it is utterly, Contemptably disgusting and perverted beyond the pale. (Referring to the article you linked using the Talmud as the source of a supposition regarding what was taking place that brought Jesus to action.)
D. From the article:
Jeremiah 7:6, 9-11 . . . do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place . . . [9] Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD.
Jesus was quoting this passage. Where is the sin of usury mentioned in that passage?
Reading the sin of usury into that passage is a modern affliction. Please ask yourself "what is being robbed?" in the context of the original quote. There you will find your answers to the conundrum. Hint: in this case, it isn't about money.
So, again: no. Just plainly no.
If you want to exercise your imagination, then lets say that the money exchangers were being unlawful, and those selling doves to the poor were exploiting them. What then? Jesus could have chosen a bunch of other quotes to rebuke them as He drove them out. And yet, He didn't. So, again, we must ask ourselves why that is. And the answer (my friends, is blowing in the wind... Sorry... 🤣) revolves around the first part of the above quoted passage. What is being robbed? By whom?
I put forward that this is one of the least understood passages in the NT that I've pondered.
Let me talk about strength.
Israel invaded Iran. The United States invaded Venezuela.
Where is the strength of the anarchists? It doesn't exist.
Therefore, this old anarchist model will not protect the anarchist against the state.
The anarchist will have to find ways to defend himself.
He just has more conviction than you do, on the matter.
I sincerely doubt that.
You are an armchair quarterback in the anarchist revolution. 🤷🏻♀️
That's okay. We are both getting old.
Nope. Again: I am not an anarchist.
But yeah, I am too old to be dumb enough to take on a regime head on unless my family is directly threatened. And then, I will die trying to defend them. That's it.
i'm also peaceful, but i'm not gonna let the psychopaths intrude on the society i build. sure, it looks like right now i'm not capable of motivating people but you haven't met me. i'm very capable of motivating people.
Silly.
You have no power to stop the state.
And most likely not even tools to protect against it.
LOL! Naw, my dude. I have plenty and more willingness to use them than most, if it comes to that point.
It's sad you can't comprehend living around people who want to have your back in case of the worst things happening. That's what I am building. It might come too late, but, hey, I am OK with slow and steady.
no need to fight a thing that is dying. only to avoid the worst of its' depredations in a sanctuary.
Are you dying? It will be?
Do you think that only economic power moves state bandits?
Have you forgotten that they own your water, your electricity, your telephone and your internet?
Do you think your Bitcoins will be enough to end the state?
I'm sorry, but economic power is not the only power of the state.
cooperation and mutual aid is so much more beneficial long term
The people who are good at that will immediately form a group, include your property within the map of your borders, and then tell you who you can sell your property to.
You don't seem to get how this works.
You seem hellbent on re-establishing the flawed rule over others that got us to this point.
Why are you so obtuse on this pint, ESPECIALLY as a Christ-follower? How is coercing people into doing something Christ-like?
Because only the strong can protect the weak. If society stays atomized, the weak can simply be picked off, one by one.
Why are you equating strength with coercion?
That's high-key gross.
And, when have I ever said I would "stay atomized?" We are supposed to help our neighbors. I intend to do that, and hope that they will help me in my time of need.
You are conflating things to conform to your twisted idea of how a society should be run, which is NOT HOW GOD WANTS HUMANS TO LIVE. That's pretty implicit and explicit through the entire Bible.
Come on, Stella. Use your brain. Think about this. Where in Jesus' life does he condone anything you are proposing?
I am using my brain. I'm not the one suffering from a lack or imagination, here.
You cannot help your neighbors against any group that has banded together unless you _also_ band together. And if you band together, then you need to move in a coordinated fashion. Which leads to leadership and rules, over this use of violence, within your defined area of protection, which leads to governance.
*sighs*
Yes. Like a well-trained and organized militia?
Which:
A. Is not a permanent army.
B. A tool of the state.
C. It only called together when neccessary, then disbanded.
D. Is not a coerced duty.
Even though early on in the US, it was a coerced duty. But, again, I refuse to use coercive means. Help me or don't. Your call.
Splitting hairs. If our village names itself Cow Kingdom and we have a Cow Militia, consisting of reservists, then that is a government with an army.
If you have a government, then yes. But if you DON'T have a government, which is entirely possible, then it is not.
I don't or want need a human king/ruler/official/potentate/dictator/"representative." I already have pledged my allegiance to Jesus. The State is anathema to living as a Follower of Christ.
If a militia forms, it is to protect some piece of property, which is their territory. A multi-human entity holding a monopoly on violence over a defined territory is a government.
It does not have to be a government.
You want it to be.
I do not.
I do not agree with the premise that a temporary mutual aid agreement requires permanent authoritarian structures ruling over a particular place or group of people.
A militia, with no predefined hierarchy, without regular and required training, that people join or ignore, depending on what they had for lunch, is just a messy mob.
no, it's not. a local militia knows their own territory they must defend better than anyone, that's the whole point.
I know groups that are not a messy mob and entirely voluntary . . . So . . . I respectfully submit that you are wrong.
Also, people in a militia can have a perfectly functioning hierarchy without there being any coercion. Again, I see it. And, in some ways, it is a growing thing.
Heck, that's how the early church was with the ecclesia. (Granted, there were leaders that were appointed through apostolic succession, but I am explicitly not conflating those with any human governance, as that is a separate thing. IMO.)
And yet they wiped the floor with SEALs in Operation Red Wings. SEALs didn't even get a shot off.
You underestimate the capabilities of non-state militias, ma'am.
The trick is getting them to train often-enough and remain up to date in the absence of a clear and present danger. No, I don't have an easy solution.
yes, indeed it is. but all property needs defenders or it decays. the plumbing won't maintain itself.
nope. if its voluntary its not the government. that's the core of our whole argument and its going right over your head
she literally has no idea what she's talking about.
she think coordination requires the state.
Anarchists are no different than Communists or Socialist. They don't live in reality they like in a Utopian fantasy that when it's actually put into practice turns into the closest thing to hell on earth we have seen thus far. They all say the same thing, "everything would be better if things were done my way" when you criticize past attempts they say "that wasn't real (anarchism/communism/socialism)".
The real issue is that people can't seem to get through their heads that a perfect political system or structure of living doesn't and won't exist on earth. We live in an imperfect world. If you want perfection seek Christ and the heavens above.
I disagree with your last part.
We can live in peace on this earth and we ARE CALLED TO DO THAT. But not by war, though spreading the Gospel to all men.
We have the right to defend life, liberty, and property through self-defense. And this right does not disappear, merely because we coordinate to defend ourselves.
I am not arguing that. I am separating that from the state, which you seem to find necessary, and I am insisting that as a Christian, it is WRONG to seek to rule over other humans. Point blank. Only God has that right as Most High. In time, some of us are going to be given positions in His Kingdom, but that time has not come yet.
lol, you defend ICE and they're killing people for trying to defend themselves. open your fucking eyes...
Yes, there is no earthly utopia. Just the cycle of government or chaos.
Humans are supposed to BUILD that utopia.
Here and now. Starting with the environs of Eden. Guess who screwed that up? Instead of blaming the past, we are called to build it in the here and now.
This is one thing that The Orthodox communions get 100% correct. Their concept of Theosis is more in line with what I read in the NT, and a fullfillment of the first commandments God gave to our progenitors.
No, we cannot build utopia. That is a divine right and we are mere pilgrims.
our society is nevertheless free and just.
In what way? All human society is more or less corrupt and tyrannical, as we are prone to sin.
i see, and can you explain to me how that is happening when i am having a conversation with you, as a right-seeking person one to another?
Right-seeking is not the same thing as being sinless.
nothing in this universe is without a lack of something. it actually is key to how the whole thing operates.
outside of human society, it is war. outright war. life and death.
the whole point of this "creating man" thing was to enable life that does not exist as a zero sum.
Duh.
But the orientation of or heart should be Towards Christ. Not Man.
Doesn't stop us from regularly being wrong.
i'm not sure how much thought you have put into it but getting the right answer means having all the data.
we literally cannot have all the data. but we can use rules that don't oppress people also, reasonable rules. that's how equity jurisprudence arose. OUT OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY NO LESS.
seriously, having your heart in the right place is a real thing, you literally cannot have all the facts. the end.
i'm never going to apologize for being a limited, subjective individual.
never
ever
ever
and the reason why is that is the crack that psychopaths use to compromise your agency.
anyway, maybe you never got your agency stolen from you. good for you.
Well, that is only because we have not drawn so close to Him. He doesn't expect perfection. He just expects us to turn to Him in all things.
If we are to dedicate our entire being to be more Christlike, you cannot help but be less sinful, and thus more correct. We won't ever hit perfection until the everything is passed away and God makes everything anew, but . . .
That does no absolve us from doing what we are created to do. You do a lot of that already. I put forward that you do that IN SPITE of being hampered by the state and all its evils, and you have been blessed for doing so. (From what I know of you and your life.)
That is where we are supposed to step in, as Christ Followers, to build a better world by being more Christ-like. That is the most revolutionary, destructive act to the evil in the world.
that's my opinion. if you aren't trying to outdo Jesus of Nazareth, are you even trying?
Yup. Pretty much it. Though, I don't think any of us CAN, we sure can become more like Him and thus, shift the world towards The True, The Good, and The Beautiful, like we were created to do as reflections of The Most High.
No, the most revolutionary act would be trying to be more like Christ, even if you knew it would make the world worse.
how could that be Christ like if it makes things worse?
no, actually, the whole point, which many people deliberately ignore, is that it enables a righteous society when the society is capable of recognising mischief.
mischief is the crack that the bad guys stuff a wedge in to widen as much as they can.
Yes.
We are supposed to be fruitful and subdue the earth.
When God created the world he called it GOOD. Not perfect. He then created us to be co-creators with Him. Creators of what?
The Church Militant, I suppose, bringing the Gospel to the ends of the Earth and into our homes and communities, until He returns.
I don't mean subdue other humans militantly. That is not what Jesus charged us to do. Go forth preaching the gospel and baptizing them is not the same as forcing people to convert by the sword.
I meant that each human is a son and daughter of The Most High, and we are to rule what we are given and make it beautiful and order it to produce more than is put in, as God does. We are the heirs to his kingdom, and as such, we may not rule over each other with violence and coercion, but with love.
exactly. it's about respect. the problem we have as a society now is there isn't enough people saying "this is wrong"
Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Everyone has a different opinion.
yeah, that's the point. there is an objective level to this.
what is the problem is all this wishy washy apologising for those psychos who disagree.
yeah, fuck you victim. no, i don't accept this behaviour, no matter how normal it is.
it's not normal. it's fucking abuse.
wrong.
god put us here to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.
and that's what we're doing.
That Kingdom is in our hearts. We, the living Church, are the Kingdom. He is our King.
[[book:: bible | Luke 17:20-21 | DRB]]
Why bother doing any good thing if it is only in our hearts?
The future coming Kingdom is one thing. Living and loving God's kingdom into existence in the here and now is part of what we as Christ followers are supposed to do.
Building a world via God's love is super hard, but it is the only thing to do, IMO. I want this world to be better around me because I am learning to love as Christ did.
Our good works aren't merely external; they're the fruit of God's grace transforming us into His likeness.
Its in our hearts, so that we may be welcomed into His kingdom after our time has come.
As we love and serve, we become partakers of the divine nature. We don't build God's Kingdom, we cooperate with His will through genuine love, making heaven visible on earth, within our hearts and the hearts of those we care about.
We're supposed to try. Expecting to achieve a utopia is silly, but not trying is worse by far.
I might even try harder than anyone in this thread, but I know that I completely depend on Christ's Mercy and that I constantly fail Him.
The closer I get to the target, the more aware I am, of how much I have missed the mark. And the more sceptical I become, of people who claim that they rarely miss, or that they just need to get together with some people "on their level", to build Utopia.
Everything we do, on Earth, is merely best-effort. I hope we all get our participation trophy and I know that we are obliged to make the effort until He returns to reign as King. That is all that I know.
Just a fun fact here: The word "utopia" means "nowhere". Thomas Moore chose the name deliberately.
Both Stella and I are aware of that, I am sure. 😁
there is no earthly utopia because every 6000 years the galaxy and the sun make sure that only the fittest survive, and in that process, mutate, a lot, because of the radiation, from said galaxy and sun.
utopia actually must, and necessarily be, post-terrestrial
imperfection is what we expect and embrace.
(also there are examples in history where pure capitalism worked for centuries)
and the strong are definitely not women. they have too much to lose.
what a ridiculously naive belief.
its as if you believe people require government to communicate, organize, or collaborate for mutual aid.
its what children believe lol.
Her opinions on these matters are awful all around😏🍿🍿
The strong are currently the ones who old all the power and I don't see them protecting the weak. Quite the opposite actually.
This is where I disagree. The strong is not a monolith. Some of the strong protect the weak, and some prey on them. There are different kinds of strength and they manifest in different ways, and history can take surprising turns.
*Are we, here, not among the strong?* Have we not created this digital space, with its just protocol, to govern it? So that the weak might have some place to run to, if they need it?
anarchists are by definition not a homogeneous group.
we share some values and many tools. Decentralization, consensus and price as a synchronization mechanism.
My lady, you're an anarchist in your heart and you don't even know it 😁
Catholic anarchy is an oxymoron.
I'm not so sure about this.
On Catholicism and Anarchy, specifically on Dorothy Day:
An anecdote is not a statistic.
Dorothy Day appears to have been both Catholic and anarchist. I'm arguing these two practices aren't incompatible. What statistics would you be looking for?
Distributists aren't anarchists.
The two groups aren't mutually-exclusive, either.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/w-j-whitman-anarcho-distributism-and-anarchist-federalism
>The distributists have also set themselves apart from the anarchists. Their critique of anarchism is largely a Rawlsian critique. John Rawls justified the existence of the State on the basis of assuming that people would prefer a society with some safety net or basic welfare system to a society without such a thing. The problem with this justification of statism is that it assumes that only statism can provide such a society. In reality, a consensus-based conciliar model of governance in a stateless society could also provide a welfare system. The members of the community could voluntarily contribute money towards universal basic income, universal healthcare insurance, and other such welfare measures. In fact, it is likely that any collectivistic, communist, or mutualist anarchist society would have some sort of welfare system in place. There is no reason why Rawls’ argument would lend support to a statist liberal democracy over a voluntaryist or anarchist society with a welfare system. And as long as an anarchist society can have rules and social order and a welfare system of some sort, then there is no reason that an anarchist society could not also be a distributist society.
Sure, but...
In a hypothesis, if one thing is found to disagree with the hypothesis, it needs to be reworked.
If you think I'm lying about the anarchists I know, then that's an entirely different matter. If you believe me to be truthful about what I know, that shows that your premises are not correct and that you should revisit your logic.
rules without a ruler.
(i've never thought God as a ruler)
It is an anachronism because the RCC has pretty much BEEN the state since the big kerfuffle between the bishop of Rome and the rest of the bishops.
And that, at the very based of things, is where my issue with the RCC starts. It's really hard for most Catholics to understand how steeped they are in statist ideology.
Nothing by definition is a homogeneous group. We may be catholic in our heart and not know it. There is no absolute monopoly.
That's true, it isn't. But, you seem to have somewhat of a misunderstanding on the nature of power dynamics. The claim that we have created a just digital space as refuge for the weak presents several... problematic assumptions:
Those who believe they've created sanctuaries for the weak often fail to recognize that they remain the gatekeepers. This "just protocol" wasn't negotiated with the weak—it was designed by the strong, for the strong's conception of justice. The weak don't get to run to safety; they get to exist on terms set by others. It's the illusion of benevolence. At least, that seems to be the case with certain clients.
There's no clean division between "strong who protect" and "strong who prey." These categories blur constantly. Today's protector becomes tomorrow's enforcer of their own vision. The digital platforms initially praised as democratizing forces now engage in surveillance, algorithmic manipulation, and the extraction of user data as product. The strong who think they're building refuges are often only building more sophisticated cages.
Even if some strong individuals show restraint or benevolence, this doesn't change the fundamental power imbalance. The weak are still dependent on the strong's continued goodwill, which can be revoked at any point in time. A just protocol enforced by the strong is still their protocol, subject to their interpretation and modification. The weak have security only insofar as the strong permit it.
History's "surprising turns" usually involve one group of the strong displacing another—not the weak gaining genuine autonomy. Revolutions typically replace one elite with another. Your digital space, however well-intentioned, likely just redistributes power among different factions of the already-powerful.
So, all good works are futile.
If the assumption is that “good works” somehow make the weak strong, yes.
Nature works on a very simple principle, only the strong survive.
The weak, by definition, are not strong, and therefore don’t survive.
Only those who gain strength, survive, making them by definition, strong.
Changing the laws of nature is impossible, learning to manipulate them to one’s advantage is strength.
Christians aren't called to only do things for their own advantage. We live *in Nature*, and are limited by it, but we are eternal and therefore not *of Nature*, and focused on it.
Yes.
And no.
Yes if you want to get all ecclesiastical.
No, because God wins and all of heaven and earth will be remade.
I'm on team "create heaven on earth to bring order and peace on earth." Not catchy, but exact.
Yes and no.
My previous comment was meant as a critique of the limitations of "safe havens" like Nostr, not an attempt to get anyone to abandon their efforts. Even when imperfect, genuine benevolence still matters, as you're helping reduce the risk of potential suffering for others. But the power imbalance will never disappear. That is fact.
No, there's a fundamental difference between replacing one dictator with a supposedly benevolent new one and replacing dictatorship with robust decentralized self-governance.
There will be backlashes and regressions, but social progress is real and relativism is cynical.
I'm not arguing their differences, I'm arguing that the majority of humanity rarely seems to want to take the more responsible route of self-governance. Human laziness combined with convenience always leads to a not-so-simple transition of power rather than the granting of genuine much-needed autonomy.
I agree. It is real. And yes, relativism is somewhat cynical, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hold influence over the decisions that individuals and society, as a whole, take.
We evolved to hunt in hierarchical packs and to aggregate in larger herds with social conformity and contagions. Is it irresponsible to behave accordingly? If so, then this is because of cultural evolution. We value individual autonomy and strive for more efficient and just organizations of society. Institutions, education and technology help making such societal organizations more resilient.
How will Nostr contribute to increase efficiency and reduce oppression?
I'm not sure why you believe that when there is an abundance of history that clearly shows the strong resentlessly ABUSING the weak.
Total atomization is probably not a good goal. Just decentralization down to the lowest point possible where we can make it too expensive to coerce us.
I'm sure Musolini would agree.
I guess you don't understand the terms
god is an anarchist
God didn't come to Earth to save us from paying taxes. He came to save us from eternal death.
he is the only authority. this is the message he tried to tell israel when they cried out for a king, before he finally gave into their demands. its the message Christ came to bring. we become like the king by following his example, and become the supreme authority in our own lives, answering only to god. this is the only future for man that makes any sense. we were born in our fathers image to grow into his footsteps. anarchy is christian.
Exactly correct. Christianity is true anarchism. That necessarily includes loving our neighbors, as Jesus told us. The alternative - distrust, hate - is product of Antichrist (our own sinful nature) and the state is the Beast, the monster that is produced from combining many antichrists. The beast rises from the water (collective imagination) in the west (west symbolizes death and ignorance, synonymous with Egypt).
i think he came here to wipe our tears away and stop the criminals who cause the tears. i think it's pretty clear.
also, as a woman, you aren't qualified to comment on what hard, violent work is going to be needed to fend off the criminals. i personally would be more than happy to put bolts through the necks of trespassers and violators, like any red blooded man.
No anarchist has ever created order outside of chaos.
The basis is decentralization and generating chaos.
Decentralize the state.
Let chaos flow naturally and the natural laws of chaos act.
With the state decentralized, well, behold the demiurgic matter dissolving into space.
i don't think God had a pre-existing universe to set on fire.
He created order out of chaos.
wrong.
what existed before God? nothing.
saying that the universe existed before Him is literally saying he didn't make it.
no, it's definitely God's work. you can tell because it sprang from itself.
If you're any kind of ist you're living in an ism and you are still inside the matrix.
The energy of your rebellion will do nothing but feed the system. The lesson of anarchotyranny: tyrants feed on anarchy.
More importantly, you're not God. No matter how you try to play God, you will only enslave yourself.
God did not create order out of chaos. He is order.
Chaos doesn't even exist.
Chaos is the privation of order.
Nothing is the privation if something.
Evil is the privation of the good.
These are not objects. They are absences.
If you want to be free, just recuse yourself from the game. The system feeds on your struggle. Simply turn away. Surrender to the truth is the only alternative to living in an illusion.
Trying to assert your fiction by burning down theirs is just perpetuating fiction itself.
If you attempt to wield the ring, at best you become the very thing you wanted to destroy.
anarchy, as defined by the spanish model, ain't no longer possible except within the confines of one's own bedroom. then again, nothing else works or would work in a megalopolis, let alone in a smart city. destruction now might be symbolic, of one's own ego, and reconstruction may take place far, far away from urban centers. fugere urbem.
Like setting the Patagonia forest on fire or like Maui fires?
Heck yeah we can. God made us in his image, right? But not statists, they suck.
Nostr is aflame with Ghost today
I think actually every individual holds the same power to change order all the time. There is no need of destruction.
I am pacifist. And very certain, that you do not build a good civilization through killing and destructing.