Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I am not sure that anyone will care about this post, and there is no particular reason to. But for those who might be interested, I just wanted to put my thoughts out there. :) I have been working over the last few months to figure out political stuff, and I am confident saying that I no longer identify in any particular way as anarchist or radical libertarian. I was not calling myself anarcho-capitalist for a while now, but I did describe myself in that way in the past. I have distanced myself from those ideologies lately, but I think it is time to make a clean break. These days, politically speaking I am mainly following the lead of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, Diuturnum, and Libertas. When I have finished working through and digesting those I intend to take a detour into Rerum Novarum and related encyclicals. Based on my reading, I simply do not find it possible to reconcile some key points of Leo XIII's social teaching with the foundations of anarchism and radical libertarianism. Specifically and non-exhaustively, it is my opinion that civil authority is not simply allowed, but specifically desired by God, and that therefore the State does not ultimately derive its power based on consent of the people or a sort of social contract. "For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race." (I.D.) "4. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold pre-eminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. But, if it was not possible that political power should be removed from the midst of states, it is certain that men have used every art to take away its influence and to lessen its majesty, as was especially the case in the sixteenth century, when a fatal novelty of opinions infatuated many. Since that epoch, not only has the multitude striven after a liberty greater than is just, but it has seen fit to fashion the origin and construction of the civil society of men in accordance with its own will. 5. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle." (Diu.) As an anarchist I did not think it reasonable that a ruler could have rights or privileges beyond that of any other person - that the ruler only legitimately exercised rights delegated from others. I no longer think this to be the case. Rather, I think natural law and God's own Will, in specifically willing that a civil order exist in the form of the state, does allow for positions of authority to be used towards the common good, which have true authority over those governed. Anyway, I do not have time to say more right now. If anyone wants to discuss those encyclicals, I would be happy for the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catlick Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Monarchy is God's favorite regime. It's no coincidence His Son speaks of the Kingdom of God, not the Republic or Soviet of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Screw the monetary system completely. It has no idea how to put value on life. Resource Based economy. Go! (Google, Venus Project) Edited February 23, 2015 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Screw the monetary system completely. It has no idea how to put value on life. Resource Based economy. Go! (Google, Venus Project) Money is a tool. A powerful one, but ultimately nothing more than a tool. 'It' has no ideas, period. Systems do not have ideas. People who create and maintain systems have ideas. L_D turned me on to the idea of a post-scarcity society a while back, so that would be pretty rad. I do not think such a system is remotely feasible at least until we have some kind of effectively unlimited and effectively free form of energy. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That concept for me is more of a daydream. Does not really have any impact on what I believe should be happening here and now. Edited February 23, 2015 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The "divine right of kings" also emerged with the advent of modernity, as nation-states began to take shape out of the post-Roman West and individual nations wanted to assert their own authority apart from the internationalist medieval system. Anarchism does not have to be seen as absence of authority, but can also just be more radical separation of powers. The aristocratic assumptions of authority as Pope Leo speaks of it would look kind of absurd today, at least in America. Man today is "homo economicus" and the trend toward decentralization during the Enlightenment was, among other things, driven by the emergence of a true "public" with economic clout and identity. To project an aristocratic worldview onto modern technocratic politics would turn into an absurd spectacle ala Stalinism. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold pre-eminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. This sounds good in theory, but does not make much sense in how power actually works. It also has teleological assumptions which I think is hard to make for any modern society. Even when you have a single political ruler (e.g., Napoleon), he does not direct some pre-defined end, he too is a slave to fate, chance, politics, technology, economics, etc. I think Pope Leo was trying to preserve a sense of society as an organic whole on which most traditional societies rested. I think anarchism, really, is the only way to preserve that sense of wholeness in the modern world. I think reverting to aristocracy and monarchy would accomplish just the opposite, it would be like Stalinism, carefully orchestrated and controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 :yawn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not The Philosopher Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 This semester I'm taking a social justice class which uses papal encyclicals as its primary texts, so Rerum Novarum et al have been on my mind lately. Unfortunately, I have a takehome midterm for said class due by the end of today and need to direct my mental energies there as opposed to the interwebz. Speaking more personally, during my pre-Catholic days my politics went from apathetic, to libertarian (to the point of writing a philosophy paper arguing from anarchism). Then, the more Catholic I became, the more I moved away from that sort of individualism to my current brand of toryism (not to be confused with Canada's particular tory party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Screw the monetary system completely. It has no idea how to put value on life. Resource Based economy. Go! (Google, Venus Project) The idea of "resources" is very much bound up with modern economics. The "tragedy of the commons" was a transformation of the earth into an economic sphere of resources to be owned and utilized. Just think: today we speak casually of "human resources." Humans have become the resources. It has put "value on life" in a very literal way: your value is what the HR department calculates for your salary. I think "subsistence" is a better ideal than "resource-based." Edited February 23, 2015 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHCVyllnck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Monarchy is God's favorite regime. It's no coincidence His Son speaks of the Kingdom of God, not the Republic or Soviet of God. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/09008.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 L_D turned me on to the idea of a post-scarcity society a while back, so that would be pretty rad. I do not think such a system is remotely feasible at least until we have some kind of effectively unlimited and effectively free form of energy. I do not think it is going to happen any time soon. That concept for me is more of a daydream. Does not really have any impact on what I believe should be happening here and now. If we can overthrow the oil giants and really allow science and innovation to take hold, it could def be an option. Although...even the dude behind the idea of a resource based economy said that we are probably in for some huge drop off or crumbling of society as we know it simply because the monetary way is sooooo ingrained into our minds that we literally cant see past it. We cant imagine a world without money. I think its an extremely cool concept but I have little hope for it catching on within my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 At this point in human development, to destroy the petroleum industry would lead to a true dark age and a depression the likes of which we have never seen. I totally fail to see how that could possibly lead to a post scarcity economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 At this point in human development, to destroy the petroleum industry would lead to a true dark age and a depression the likes of which we have never seen. I totally fail to see how that could possibly lead to a post scarcity economy. Its not possible if you dont think its possible. Innovation is key. Did you know that the world through we would be covered in horse poop up to our knees because of high use of horses as transportation? Well, we solved that issued with the invention of the car. New ideas are not always linear. We shouldnt just throw our hands up because we cant see any possible way out of this. I think the fact that we are so freaking dependent on oil is a reason we need to look for alternative sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Its not possible if you dont think its possible. Innovation is key. Did you know that the world through we would be covered in horse poop up to our knees because of high use of horses as transportation? Well, we solved that issued with the invention of the car. New ideas are not always linear. We shouldnt just throw our hands up because we cant see any possible way out of this. I think the fact that we are so freaking dependent on oil is a reason we need to look for alternative sources. The problem with technology is it becomes counterproductive as it grows beyond limits. Horses as a means of transportation would necessarily limit the scale of human activity (you can only go so fast and so far). Once you conceive of a new mode of transit, like the car or the airplane, you create a new social reality, so that those who can defy gravity and speed can redefine the limits of what is possible, which results in ever-escalating needs for products, services, resources, etc. I don't think "alternatives" is enough, we have to question the entire industrial mode of production and consumption, not just find new ways to produce and consume at inhuman scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 And I fully support the development of alternative energy. But the fact that we are not there yet means in and of itself that to 'overthrow' the petroleum industry would literally be suicidal. We would be set back a century or more overnight in the vast majority of the world. Not to mention that such an overthrow would require some brutal and evil sort of confiscation and murder. It is ludicrous. Alternative energies will happen. I am perfectly convinced of that. But some kind of revolutionary destruction of the petroleum industry? Pure fantasy at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now