Twenty One Reasons Why Statism Is A Radical And Radically Incoherent T

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1274498391' post='2115083']
If I don't have a piece of plastic that says I have had training in the operation of a vehicle, and I am safely driving without it, harm no one, and in the course of my safe driving, you pull me over for having tint that is "too dark," using colorful blinky lights which signify a threat of death if I do [i]not[/i] stop, and you arrest me for not having a piece of plastic that [i]says[/i] I am capable of being a safe driver, then [i]you, [/i]sir, [i]are[/i] an aggressor, as skeptical as you may be.[/quote]
This assumes that society does not have a right to create laws to which the people in that society are subject. If someone pulled you over arbitrarily, with no legal basis to do so, then that might perhaps be an act of aggression. But if you are going to take part in a society of laws (e.g., by driving on its roads), then I would say that you are putting yourself under that society's laws.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1274497209' post='2115074']
In the "ideal" voluntaryist society,(I know you know what I mean by anarchy, but for the sake of others, I'll use that term) insofar as it is a true society and thus devoid of anti-social behavior such as murder or rape, there is no place for the death penalty. It is a void that has not been given space.

In a mostly voluntaryist society, on the other hand, I believe there is a role for the death penalty. It has a place not so the wrath of man can worketh the justice of God, but it has a place as a last resort to protect other individuals from a violent individual.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Right, I suppose I have to differentiate between the "ideal" utopia, and the "pretty good" possibility.

So how would the death penalty be carried out in the mostly voluntaryist society, where nobody in theory holds any form of coercive power? How is it prevented from descending into mob rule?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1274498694' post='2115086']
This assumes that society does not have a right to create laws to which the people in that society are subject. If someone pulled you over arbitrarily, with no legal basis to do so, then that might perhaps be an act of aggression. But if you are going to take part in a society of laws (e.g., by driving on its roads), then I would say that you are putting yourself under that society's laws.
[/quote]

A law is not merely a decree passed by a majority. "It" doesn't "have" roads. I am harming no one by my actions. Violence may only be used to stop real aggression that actually harms another person. If you think otherwise, I haven't got much else to say.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1274498999' post='2115090']Violence may only be used to stop real aggression that actually harms another person.[/quote]
You are assuming that a cop pulling you over is "violence." That's a questionable assumption.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Era Might

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1274498939' post='2115089']
So how would the death penalty be carried out in the mostly voluntaryist society, where nobody in theory holds any form of coercive power? How is it prevented from descending into mob rule?
[/quote]

How do we prevent Mob rule? You mean what we have now? There is no way to prevent it except by a virtuous population, comprised of sober, calm and rationally-thinking men. No way whatsoever. I will be the first person to tell you that. I will also be the first to tell you that an unvirtuous population giving [i]anyone[/i] an artificially large amount of "legitimized" power over their fellow man by is [i]far[/i] more dangerous than a society in which no one has a "legitimate" claim to artificially large amounts of power. The mafia doesn't claim a [i]right[/i] to threaten and rob people.

I don't know how the death penalty would be carried out in a mostly voluntaryist society. I've never seen one.

But I know it is the society one gets when men refrain from initiating aggression against each other. It is the most moral way men can interact with each other. The death penalty cannot be more poorly implemented than it is now. And given the milieu of virtuous men required for a mostly voluntaryist society, it would be infinitely more seldom and wisely implemented.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='21 May 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1274499791' post='2115102']
How do we prevent Mob rule? You mean what we have now? There is no way to prevent it except by a virtuous population, comprised of sober, calm and rationally-thinking men. No way whatsoever. I will be the first person to tell you that. I will also be the first to tell you that an unvirtuous population giving [i]anyone[/i] an artificially large amount of "legitimized" power over their fellow man by is [i]far[/i] more dangerous than a society in which no one has a "legitimate" claim to artificially large amounts of power. The mafia doesn't claim a [i]right[/i] to threaten and rob people.

I don't know how the death penalty would be carried out in a mostly voluntaryist society. I've never seen one.

But I know it is the society one gets when men refrain from initiating aggression against each other. It is the most moral way men can interact with each other. The death penalty cannot be more poorly implemented than it is now. And given the milieu of virtuous men required for a mostly voluntaryist society, it would be infinitely more seldom and wisely implemented.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Your points, as always, are consistent and compelling. Thanks.

I do agree that the democracy we see today is comparable to mob rule.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='21 May 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1274499194' post='2115094']
You are assuming that a cop pulling you over is "violence." That's a questionable assumption.
[/quote]

He flashes lights at me. If I do not pull over, he will chase my car down and [i]force[/i] me to stop, with the help of other people like him. If I do pull over, he will give me a citation, a threat that I [i]must [/i]pay $200 and remove the tinting, [i]or else[/i]. Is his flashing lights at me merely a polite[i] suggestion[/i] that just happens to be backed up with the threat of initiating severe physical violence, and therefore, not a violent act itself?

Question away, Era. Begin now.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 May 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1274499894' post='2115103']
Your points, as always, are consistent and compelling. Thanks.

I do agree that the democracy we see today is comparable to mob rule.
[/quote]

Yet in error, voluntaryism is just an off shoot of anarchy. And anarchy is a condemned heresy of Mother Church.


Anarchy is an evil, and the occasion of many calamities, and the source of disorder and confusion. For as, if you take away the leader from a chorus, the chorus will not be in tune and in order; and if from a phalanx of an army thou remove the commander, the evolutions will no longer be made in time and order, and if from a ship thou take away the helmsman, you will sink the vessel; so too if from a flock thou remove the shepherd, you have overthrown and destroyed all.

Anarchy then is an evil, and a cause of ruin. But no less an evil also is the disobedience to rulers. For it comes again to the same. For a people not obeying a ruler, is like one which has none; and perhaps even worse. For in the former case they have at least an excuse for disorder, but no longer in the latter, but are punished.

Homily 34 on Hebrews - Chrysostom, Church Father.


For anarchy, be where it may, is an evil, and a cause of confusion. After having said then whence governments come, he proceeds, "Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God." See what he has led the subject on to, and how fearful he makes it, and how he shows this to be a matter of debt. For lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that he makes them subject in doing this. For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient.

Homily 23 on Romans - Chrysostom, Church Father.

Also in earlier discussions with Sternhauser on voluntarism and the the parts of the CCC that spoke of the State, he stated something to the effect that the CCC was not binding.

[Sternhauser]

Knight, there's nothing to be said to counter anything you copy and paste. So in light of the fact that there are people who might be gulled into your warped understanding of voluntaryism, I'll just say that your logical leaps, false assumptions and misrepresentations are smileful. And if that wasn't a word, it is now.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 May 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1274504148' post='2115134']
Knight, your logical leaps and misrepresentations are smileful. And if that wasn't a word, it is now.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I can only pray that you one day cease your promotion and love for the heresy and evils of voluntaristic anarchy. I shall also pray that you will come to understand that the CCC is binding on the matters of the State.

Edited May 22, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 May 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1274504261' post='2115138']
I can only pray that you one day cease your promotion and love for the heresy and evils of voluntaristic anarchy.
[/quote]

May God's will be done on this matter, Knight.

[quote]I shall also pray that you will come to understand that the CCC is binding on the matters of the State.[/quote]

The teaching of the Church is binding on matters of Faith and Morals. Show me where the Church supports the initiation of aggression and mandates the support of and belief in the superiority of an aggressive entity with a monopoly on violence, and I'll abandon voluntaryism forever. Or, as I always ask for, and you never deliver a straight answer: what is the Church's definition of the State? It's defined marriage. It's defined lust. It's defined sin. It's defined adultery. It's defined transsubstantiation. It's defined original sin. It's defined what a sacrament is. Where is the definition of the State? I liked Fr. Fagothey's definition of the state: "The state is a perfect and self-sufficing natural society, consisting of many individuals and families, united under a common authority, for the attainment of the temporal welfare of the community." I can get on board with that one. But you haven't extended the Church's "official" definition yet.

~Sternhauser

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 May 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1274503698' post='2115129']
Yet in error, voluntaryism is just an off shoot of anarchy. And anarchy is a condemned heresy of Mother Church.


Anarchy is an evil, and the occasion of many calamities, and the source of disorder and confusion. For as, if you take away the leader from a chorus, the chorus will not be in tune and in order; and if from a phalanx of an army thou remove the commander, the evolutions will no longer be made in time and order, and if from a ship thou take away the helmsman, you will sink the vessel; so too if from a flock thou remove the shepherd, you have overthrown and destroyed all.

Anarchy then is an evil, and a cause of ruin. But no less an evil also is the disobedience to rulers. For it comes again to the same. For a people not obeying a ruler, is like one which has none; and perhaps even worse. For in the former case they have at least an excuse for disorder, but no longer in the latter, but are punished.

Homily 34 on Hebrews - Chrysostom, Church Father.


For anarchy, be where it may, is an evil, and a cause of confusion. After having said then whence governments come, he proceeds, "Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God." See what he has led the subject on to, and how fearful he makes it, and how he shows this to be a matter of debt. For lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that he makes them subject in doing this. For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient.

Homily 23 on Romans - Chrysostom, Church Father.

Also in earlier discussions with Sternhauser on voluntarism and the the parts of the CCC that spoke of the State, he stated something to the effect that the CCC was not binding.
[/quote]
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.
Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.
Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?
[/quote]

Nihil,

Indeed. We must all submit ourselves to legitimate authorities. There is no doubt of that.

~Sternhauser

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1274503698' post='2115129']
Yet in error, voluntaryism is just an off shoot of anarchy. And anarchy is a condemned heresy of Mother Church.


Anarchy is an evil, and the occasion of many calamities, and the source of disorder and confusion. For as, if you take away the leader from a chorus, the chorus will not be in tune and in order; and if from a phalanx of an army thou remove the commander, the evolutions will no longer be made in time and order, and if from a ship thou take away the helmsman, you will sink the vessel; so too if from a flock thou remove the shepherd, you have overthrown and destroyed all.

Anarchy then is an evil, and a cause of ruin. But no less an evil also is the disobedience to rulers. For it comes again to the same. For a people not obeying a ruler, is like one which has none; and perhaps even worse. For in the former case they have at least an excuse for disorder, but no longer in the latter, but are punished.

Homily 34 on Hebrews - Chrysostom, Church Father.


For anarchy, be where it may, is an evil, and a cause of confusion. After having said then whence governments come, he proceeds, "Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God." See what he has led the subject on to, and how fearful he makes it, and how he shows this to be a matter of debt. For lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that he makes them subject in doing this. For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient.

Homily 23 on Romans - Chrysostom, Church Father.

Also in earlier discussions with Sternhauser on voluntarism and the the parts of the CCC that spoke of the State, he stated something to the effect that the CCC was not binding.
[/quote]

I was waiting for Knight to come into this discussion.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='22 May 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1274505521' post='2115159']
I was waiting for Knight to come into this discussion.


[/quote]
Name a successful Anarchy

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 May 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1274506506' post='2115177']
Name a successful Anarchy
[/quote]

How could I, when anarchy or an anarchist society, is such a thing that has no formation in which to truely label itself?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']
Just a couple comments.
First, I know that St. Chrysostom wasn't writing in English. I'd like to hear a commentary on the translation.[/quote]

A commentary on commentary. I'm sure it exist somewhere I shall try to find it. But since I sourced that from the Catholic Encyclopedia which carries both a Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur, what you read is very likely very close to the original tongue.


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']Second, does anything change if the rule is illegitimate, [/quote]

Yes, of course if the ruler is illegitimate or truly a tyrant such as Stalin.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 May 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1274504576' post='2115147']if so how, and what does it take for a ruling regime to be an illegitimate one?
[/quote]

Grave matters and the people can remove him from power. One only need to apply the Just War theory

[quote]The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. [/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='22 May 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1274506730' post='2115183']
How could I, when anarchy or an anarchist society, is such a thing that has no formation in which to truely label itself?
[/quote]
That's what I thought.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 May 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1274507321' post='2115196']
A commentary on commentary. I'm sure it exist somewhere I shall try to find it. But since I sourced that from the Catholic Encyclopedia which carries both a Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur, what you read is very likely very close to the original tongue.




Yes, of course if the ruler is illegitimate or truly a tyrant such as Stalin.



Grave matters and the people can remove him from power. One only need to apply the Just War theory
[/quote]
In my opinion Sternhauser has a valid point, or at least a point that deserves further study, when he claims that all modern governments are illegitimate through tyranny.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 May 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1274507489' post='2115200']
That's what I thought.
[/quote]

Hey bro, please allow me to pat you on the back if that's all you wanted.