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?
Discussion
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.