Christianity and Anarchism: Compatible?

[UntoCaesar]

First of all, I'm sorry my first post is such a long one.

I know that there are some very smart people who contribute on this site - much smarter than myself. And as iron sharpens iron, I wanted to get a few shaves of iron against my political views of late.

I have been a Republican, then just a “conservative,” then I looked into the Constitution Party, then moved on to Libertarianism. Lately, I’ve been flirting with anarchism, and I have found it politically and philosophically sound, but I want to know if it is theologically sound. First a brief overview of the kind of anarchism I’m talking about:

I have found myself in agreement with certain schools of individualist anarchism, namely some tenets of mutualism and anarcho-capitalism (see Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner). Simply put, the State is an unnecessary hinderance to a free and productive society and true free market principles. I believe that a stateless society would bring about the fullest expressions of lifestyle, labor, productivity, creativity and value of production, for which one is compensated based on the dictates of a truly free market. Not everyone has equal rights, but rights and influence are afforded, again via a free market strategy, through one’s value in society, thus incentivizing people to be smarter, more creative, more productive, etc. Although I believe in total depravity, I also believe that the majority of self-governed people would choose to live relatively prudent lives, and those who transgress objectively discerned laws will be subject to the penalty of consequence, which I will discuss later (point #3).

I am anti-Authoritarian (and if you are against totalitarianism, despotism, and the absolute reach of government into your lives, so are you as this is what Authoritarianism is), but I am not anti-authority. I believe that the authority we have has been decreed and ordained by God and that we as Christians are called to submit to it -- and even pray for it. But I cannot think of any passage where Scripture mandates that we have rulers over us. I don’t think Christ ever said, “Render unto Caesar -- and if you don’t have a Caesar, you better go out and get one!” I don’t want to revolt or overthrow the government. But I believe that our nation should start gradually moving toward an anarchist state (state as in plane of being) of their own volition.

I don’t want this to be incredibly long (though it already is - sorry), but I do want to touch on a few ways in which I think anarchism agrees with Christianity.

1 -- I believe in the separation of church and state. If you remove “State” from that equation, what do you have left? This separation means that we have the right to “practice” (I always cringe when I think of the term ‘practice’ for Christianity) our religion in the way we deem appropriate. And we need the State’s permission to do that?! The State is completely unnecessary in the religious arena.

2 -- A society of self-governance would provide a great evangelistic atmosphere. If we as Christians decide to live a lifestyle free of homosexuality, drug use, promiscuity and the like, not only would we be free to publically state what we think is wrong with those things, but there would be numerous opportunities to engage our neighbors who may practice such things openly and freely. It may also force Christians to concentrate on why Christianity is true rather than how it makes them feel, in order to not only explain such things to their freely-sinful neighbors, but also to their children that they may know why we choose to live differently. Christians and the gospel itself would stand out starkly in an anarchistic society.

3 -- An anarchistic society truly forces people to be responsible for their own actions. It is the only means by which we may truly have the penalty of consequence, which is inherently a Christian principle. With individuals, families, and/or small societies determining their own courses of justice, if one chooses to commit a crime against any of these people, they must suffer whatever consequences may come their way, which are determined not by federal authority, but individually. These individually discerned consequences will almost always be more harsh than what any State-run judicial system or policing force would do. Remember, a humane and peaceful death is the ultimate action, the last resort of the State-run justice system.

I imagine that in most anarchistic structures a would-be robber would always have to think, “I just may have to survive a gun fight to pull off this heist,” or, “If I do this and get caught, they may just pour hot sauce in my eyes. I don’t know.” Many may say that we have these consequences now. But (1) the State is completely unnecessary for these consequences, and (2) these situations are far too uncommon primarily because of the interference of the State and reliance on it’s judicial and jurisprudence systems.

4 -- Anarchism forces people think. It forces people to truly reflect on why they live the way they do, on what they would do if they could do practically anything, and why. They might not be Christian and may govern themselves and/or their immediate circle contrary to Christianity. But they will not be able to do so passively or ignorantly, and must always be ready to give a defense as to why they believe the way they believe.

5 -- If our society were anarchistic, the Christian family could be truly free to be it’s own individual theocracy. We could discipline our children in public without having them taken away. We could teach our children what we wish. We could send them to a school run by someone we know, and who agrees with our worldview, who does not have to follow a state curriculum. But so could everyone else. There would be competing world views in society that would necessarily clash with each other, forcing the research of truth wherever it leads. We Christians absolutely welcome this.

My biggest aversions to anarchism are some of it’s adherents. Those who simply hate authority, want to do whatever they want, and just have a generally rebellious spirit (such as Max Stirner or the French Illegalists). I wholeheartedly reject their sentiments. I simply see the federalized State as unnecessary, and think that people do have the ability to govern themselves, for good or ill.

This is not Enlightenment autonomy nor egalitarian populism, for it is not what goes into a man that defiles him. These things are sinful because of the spirit from which they proceed: man being the measure of all things thus determining his own way with no one over him in authority; believing that he is as good at anything as anyone else, thus has the right to do it whenever he deems. I have stated above my belief on unequal rights and privileges, and I believe that relationships of authority are appropriate in certain situations. This is simply knowing what you believe, why you believe it, living that way, and facing the consequences. And the State is unnecessary to all of that.

I suppose there is more to be said, but I’ll let it come out in questions and defense. I am looking for people to tell me where I am wrong theologically. I’m not looking for political or philosophical refutations - those may be saved for another discussion. I’m looking for Scriptural refutations, if any. I’m not challenging you, it’s just that I’m certain I’ve overlooked or underlooked something. If I am to be corrected, I must be corrected with Scripture. If there is an indisputable Biblical mandate that we have a governing State over us I will reverse my conclusions and conform my political philosophies to Scripture.

Thanks.

 

[UntoCaesar]

If you've scrolled down to gauge the length of this post, look here.

I just read through this thing again and realized, it is ridiculously long. It can be summed up in two questions:

1 - Is it a sin to see the federal government as unnecessary?

2 - Is there Biblical mandate for a centralized government?

And I apologize to those of you who have already read it.

 

[Montanablue]

Josh, in my experience, I've found that many people define anarchy very differently - which may lead to some confusion when its discussed. In general though, I think most philosophy scholars would define it the way that you do.

 

[UntoCaesar]

Thanks for responding Joshua. Very helpful stuff.

You are not mistaken. Anarchism wants no federal state in any sense. But that's not say that it wants no law, authority, rulers, policing, private armies, and the like. It just wonders why these things have to be handed down from the State, which can just as easily rescind them again. It's individualistic even within it's own philosophy. I didn't label myself as purely anarcho-capitalistic (Rothbard rejected the term anarchist in favor of non-archist). I said that I've agreed with some tenets of mutualism and anarcho-capitalism. I've even agreed with some tenets of egoism and social anarchism, though I would reject the philosophies as a whole.

You stated,

"God uses "the State" (both evil and righteous) to accomplish His good purpose. Our only means of redress, as Christians, should be lawful means."

I agree with both statements, and I think I said as much above, though maybe not clearly. I have that problem.

However, God also uses the Federal Reserve Bank to accomplish His good purpose, or a globalistic corporation, terrorist groups, dictatorships and the like. God uses everything to accomplish His good purposes, and we are free to disagree with the existence of some things. I am not arguing. I really may be wrong, but I've thought through these things and have come to these conclusions.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

Also, my reasons for these conclusions are not that men have screwed it up. I'm sure that men would screw up an anarchistic society as well. You said it best, "Men are depraved." I just don't see the need for law, etc. to be federally mandated. One may submit themselves, respect, pray for, and even aid when necessary a governing body, all the while disagreeing with its existence.

It can also be said that,

"...men need to better understand those means, ruling in the fear of God, etc."

is also a pipe dream due to the depravity of man.

 

[LawrenceU]

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

 

[Parker234]

I am aware of the type of anarchism you are referring to, Sean. In fact, I've read Rothbard's book on the Great Depression as well as his Libertarian Manifesto, and I am a big fan of his approach to government. While I have mostly adopted Rothbardian Libertarianism as my governmental outlook, I am not completely in with his ideas. I feel like I'm in the same boat as you. I often wonder if the sort of voluntary anarcho-capitalism that Rothbard advocates can match up with a Reformed Christian worldview. I often feel 'rebellious' in some sense for my political leanings, which may indicate that my attitudes toward government are not health. Given the 2K approach, I am tempted to argue, however, Why not? You aren't advocating anarchism in the sense that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but that men will govern themselves. Societies like this existed before in the old West and in primitive Iceland.

However, I am not a complete anarcho-capitalist primarily because of the inevitability of political reorganization. I believe that taken to its logical conclusion, if we all govern ourselves voluntarily as Rothbard suggests, then guess what we will end up with... a government! We cannot shake the fact that from the Divine perspective, there should be (and will be) magistrates, as you said - for better or for worse.

Gary North is the only Christian I can think of who holds to a Misesian libertarianism, though I'm sure there are more. North is simply the biggest name, and he writes a lot for Mises.org.

As you can see, my opinions on this are somewhat scattered. My biggest theological challenge has been forming a coherent political outlook that removes government from the picture as much as possible, and yet recognizing the legitimacy of the magistrate.

 

[UntoCaesar]

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

If you want to see anarchism done wrong, look no further than the French Revolution. That was anarcho-communism (if it was anarchy at all). Not only that, but after that revolution took place, who was left in the position of self-governance? Revolutionaries. Peaceful withdrawal of federal government (though I am under no delusions it will happen in my lifetime, if ever) is the only way it should be done. Anarchism has been done successfully in the past, though it is usually in small communities (like upland southeast Asia) which eventually get swallowed by the larger governments surrounding. It doesn't have to lead to chaos. It depends on what kind of anarchism is instituted.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Jacques Ellul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Stringfellow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UntoCaesar]

I am aware of the type of anarchism you are referring to, Sean. In fact, I've read Rothbard's book on the Great Depression as well as his Libertarian Manifesto, and I am a big fan of his approach to government. While I have mostly adopted Rothbardian Libertarianism as my governmental outlook, I am not completely in with his ideas. I feel like I'm in the same boat as you. I often wonder if the sort of voluntary anarcho-capitalism that Rothbard advocates can match up with a Reformed Christian worldview. I often feel 'rebellious' in some sense for my political leanings, which may indicate that my attitudes toward government are not health. Given the 2K approach, I am tempted to argue, however, Why not? You aren't advocating anarchism in the sense that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but that men will govern themselves. Societies like this existed before in the old West and in primitive Iceland.

However, I am not a complete anarcho-capitalist primarily because of the inevitability of political reorganization. I believe that taken to its logical conclusion, if we all govern ourselves voluntarily as Rothbard suggests, then guess what we will end up with... a government! We cannot shake the fact that from the Divine perspective, there should be (and will be) magistrates, as you said - for better or for worse.

Gary North is the only Christian I can think of who holds to a Misesian libertarianism, though I'm sure there are more. North is simply the biggest name, and he writes a lot for Mises.org.

As you can see, my opinions on this are somewhat scattered. My biggest theological challenge has been forming a coherent political outlook that removes government from the picture as much as possible, and yet recognizing the legitimacy of the magistrate.

Thanks for the reply, Adam. Ron Paul is also economically Misesian and claims Christianity. I'm sure there are others.

I know in what sense you may feel "rebellious," but does the Bible really mandate that we have a centralized state? Joshua and others will rightly point out that it has pleased the Lord to establish the governments. This is where I find my only point of contention. Are we therefore to support the existence of such an entity? Does the Lord's establishing it, but saying nothing (if He indeed says nothing) of the saint's response to it's presence mean that we are free to agree or disagree with it?

And you're probably right about political reorganization. But there's something to be said about that initial mire from which a new government may or may not emerge. For if that government so emerges, it will do so from the free decisions of free men.

Indeed, I do not mean "anarchism" in some kind of licentious "whatever you wanna do" type attitude. But rather in a Galatians 5:13 attitude:

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."

Yes, men are depraved and most will not see it that way, but what else is new?

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 AM ----------

Jacques Ellul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Stringfellow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am very wary of, and differ greatly from the so-called "Christian Anarchist" school. I think that they have an incorrect view that Scripture teaches us that human law is to be rejected in favor of God's law. Indeed, God's law requires that we submit to human law as even it is ordained by God.

 

[Skyler]

1. The state's purpose is to punish evildoers and reward those who do good. (cf. Romans 13:1-7)
2. There will always be evildoers up until the return of Christ.

So. If there were no state, then who would punish evildoers? Each individual person, as he sees fit?

 

[LawrenceU]

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

If you want to see anarchism done wrong, look no further than the French Revolution. That was anarcho-communism (if it was anarchy at all). Not only that, but after that revolution took place, who was left in the position of self-governance? Revolutionaries. Peaceful withdrawal of federal government (though I am under no delusions it will happen in my lifetime, if ever) is the only way it should be done. Anarchism has been done successfully in the past, though it is usually in small communities (like upland southeast Asia) which eventually get swallowed by the larger governments surrounding. It doesn't have to lead to chaos. It depends on what kind of anarchism is instituted.

The problem with the type of anarchism which you are proposing is the same problem that exists with all anarchism: It assumes that unregenerate man is capable of beneficial self government. That is impossible. To believe that is is possible is to deny the truth to Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that governments are established by God for a certain purpose: the punishment of lawbreakers and the protection of those who do good. ALL anarchy leads to chaos. It may not be violent, but chaos is the result. An anarchic culture cannot protect itself, is composed of those who are motivated by self interest (another unbiblical tenet), and is a failed utopian outlook.

I am aware of the different 'strains' of anarchism. The ones that may appear palatable are merely bad ideas covered in syrupy philosophy. They deny the reality of the fallen nature of man.

The founders of the united States of America understood the nature of man and the role of government in fulfilling its mandate from God. The Constitution in its original form followed by original intent is an amazingly well crafted document. If it were followed in that manner today the law abiding citizen would have virtually no contact with the Federal government unless it was self initiated.

 

[jwright82]

Anarchism is not absolutly in accord with Scripture when the Bible clearly shows God instituting hiarchical authoritative institutions: church, family, and even nations. I will admit that I know of no verse that commands the existance of the state but only our obediance to it if it does not command us to violate God's will. So I would say that a strong case would need to be made as to why anarchy could best acheive the responsebilities that the state excersizes.

Also there is a very strong empirical problem to anarchy. Every where in the world and history, practically speaking of course, that a society has been or is closer to anarchy the result was more suffering and an untamed sinful enviroment. There is/was no way to curb sin in these societies. The Congo is a practically anarchist society because the goverment lacks the ability to enforce its laws and the Congo is the rape capital of the world. That is hardly a enviroment condusive to law and order.

Also we must learn from the systematic and historical failure of the most populer form of Anarchy: Communism. You might say wait a minute Communism was and is totalitarian in form. Yes thats true but the ending utopia in traditional Marxist theory was a pure anarchy type community. A place with no goverment and where evryone just did there job and got along with eachother. Stalin rightfully said that the dictatorship of the working class could never be dissolved (the dissolving of the state was the second to last phase of Marxists theory before the anarchist state). I know the OP had mention of a different economic enviroment than Communism but I just thought it should be pointed out that the closest any form of anarchy ever came to working failed miserably.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

Not to get off track but the French Revolutions worst phase of brutality was at the hands the Jocobian group which was an Atheist group. Also the brutalities of Communists regimes show what an Atheist state might look like as well.

 

[UntoCaesar]

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

If you want to see anarchism done wrong, look no further than the French Revolution. That was anarcho-communism (if it was anarchy at all). Not only that, but after that revolution took place, who was left in the position of self-governance? Revolutionaries. Peaceful withdrawal of federal government (though I am under no delusions it will happen in my lifetime, if ever) is the only way it should be done. Anarchism has been done successfully in the past, though it is usually in small communities (like upland southeast Asia) which eventually get swallowed by the larger governments surrounding. It doesn't have to lead to chaos. It depends on what kind of anarchism is instituted.

The problem with the type of anarchism which you are proposing is the same problem that exists with all anarchism: It assumes that unregenerate man is capable of beneficial self government. That is impossible. To believe that is is possible is to deny the truth to Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that governments are established by God for a certain purpose: the punishment of lawbreakers and the protection of those who do good. ALL anarchy leads to chaos. It may not be violent, but chaos is the result. An anarchic culture cannot protect itself, is composed of those who are motivated by self interest (another unbiblical tenet), and is a failed utopian outlook.

I am aware of the different 'strains' of anarchism. The ones that may appear palatable are merely bad ideas covered in syrupy philosophy. They deny the reality of the fallen nature of man.

The founders of the united States of America understood the nature of man and the role of government in fulfilling its mandate from God. The Constitution in its original form followed by original intent is an amazingly well crafted document. If it were followed in that manner today the law abiding citizen would have virtually no contact with the Federal government unless it was self initiated.

Thank you for your wisdom, pastor.

And I think that I agree with more of your post than I disagree with. But I do not believe that all anarchy leads to chaos, at least not anymore than we have now in America. I do agree, however, that to assert that unregenerate men will govern themselves the way they ought is to deny Scripture.

Is man totally depraved? Absolutely. To the extreme of what he could be? By God's common grace, no. I think that by God's grace, most people want to raise their families, practice their professions, indulge their hobbies, build their relationships, and so on in relative peace. This does not mean that they are basically good, but simply that most do not want malice and disorder. If those who do wish for disorder and malice become too prominent, I'll give depraved pagans enough credit to have the wherewithal, the cooperation, and organization (not to mention the weapons) to work together to stop such things from happening, as that would be mutually beneficial to all.

Take my community here in Charlotte. There are people from all kinds of religions, philosophies and lifestyles. They have families, jobs, are students, etc. I believe that if this were an anarchistic society, most of them would choose to live just the way they do now. I do not think that if the federal hand were removed, they would take off running naked down the street, looting and having orgies. The evil their wicked hearts would conceive, and their wicked hands would carry out in an anarchistic society is for the most part the very same evil their wicked hearts conceive and their wicked hands carry out today. For the majority of their sins (all forms of idolatry, all forms of self-worship, licentiousness, etc), are not against the law, and thus already freely practiced.

God has established rulers and those in authority to punish evil and reward good. In an anarchistic society, we would have those, installed as we see fit. Paul says "higher powers," and "rulers." But where does it say "centralized government?" In America and all around the world, in God's providence, these "higher powers" have been made manifest as centralized governments, so we are to submit to, respect, and pray for them. But agree with the existence of the office? Are we mandated that?

One last thing:

You stated,

[Anarchism] assumes that unregenerate man is capable of beneficial self government. That is impossible.

Then,

If [the original American Constitution] were followed in that manner today the law abiding citizen would have virtually no contact with the Federal government unless it was self initiated.

I may be missing something (I'm most likely missing something), but I'm not sure I understand the difference. When it boils down to it, isn't the latter self-government? One may live their entire life according to their own mandates. The federal laws that are in place are things they would never transgress anyway, even if they weren't in place. In the former, a transgressor of laws (yes, in an anarchistic society there would be laws, they just wouldn't be federally discerned) who would usually be handed over to federal authority would simply be handed over to private authority.

Also, the founding fathers, while creating this nation very good, did not understand the true nature of man at all. They were students of the Enlightenment and founded our nation upon such principles (citizenship, inalienable rights, etc.) While we as Christians would agree with these things, we do so because of our view of imago dei, whereas they agreed because of Enlightenment autonomy -- which anarchism can be, and is often, based upon depending on how it's espoused.

Thanks again, and God bless!

 

[jwright82]

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

If you want to see anarchism done wrong, look no further than the French Revolution. That was anarcho-communism (if it was anarchy at all). Not only that, but after that revolution took place, who was left in the position of self-governance? Revolutionaries. Peaceful withdrawal of federal government (though I am under no delusions it will happen in my lifetime, if ever) is the only way it should be done. Anarchism has been done successfully in the past, though it is usually in small communities (like upland southeast Asia) which eventually get swallowed by the larger governments surrounding. It doesn't have to lead to chaos. It depends on what kind of anarchism is instituted.

The problem with the type of anarchism which you are proposing is the same problem that exists with all anarchism: It assumes that unregenerate man is capable of beneficial self government. That is impossible. To believe that is is possible is to deny the truth to Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that governments are established by God for a certain purpose: the punishment of lawbreakers and the protection of those who do good. ALL anarchy leads to chaos. It may not be violent, but chaos is the result. An anarchic culture cannot protect itself, is composed of those who are motivated by self interest (another unbiblical tenet), and is a failed utopian outlook.

I am aware of the different 'strains' of anarchism. The ones that may appear palatable are merely bad ideas covered in syrupy philosophy. They deny the reality of the fallen nature of man.

The founders of the united States of America understood the nature of man and the role of government in fulfilling its mandate from God. The Constitution in its original form followed by original intent is an amazingly well crafted document. If it were followed in that manner today the law abiding citizen would have virtually no contact with the Federal government unless it was self initiated.

Thank you for your wisdom, pastor.

And I think that I agree with more of your post than I disagree with. But I do not believe that all anarchy leads to chaos, at least not anymore than we have now in America. I do agree, however, that to assert that unregenerate men will govern themselves the way they ought is to deny Scripture.

Is man totally depraved? Absolutely. To the extreme of what he could be? By God's common grace, no. I think that by God's grace, most people want to raise their families, practice their professions, indulge their hobbies, build their relationships, and so on in relative peace. This does not mean that they are basically good, but simply that most do not want malice and disorder. If those who do wish for disorder and malice become too prominent, I'll give depraved pagans enough credit to have the wherewithal, the cooperation, and organization (not to mention the weapons) to work together to stop such things from happening, as that would be mutually beneficial to all.

Take my community here in Charlotte. There are people from all kinds of religions, philosophies and lifestyles. They have families, jobs, are students, etc. I believe that if this were an anarchistic society, most of them would choose to live just the way they do now. I do not think that if the federal hand were removed, they would take off running naked down the street, looting and having orgies. The evil their wicked hearts would conceive, and their wicked hands would carry out in an anarchistic society is for the most part the very same evil their wicked hearts conceive and their wicked hands carry out today. For the majority of their sins (all forms of idolatry, all forms of self-worship, licentiousness, etc), are not against the law, and thus already freely practiced.

God has established rulers and those in authority to punish evil and reward good. In an anarchistic society, we would have those, installed as we see fit. Paul says "higher powers," and "rulers." But where does it say "centralized government?" In America and all around the world, in God's providence, these "higher powers" have been made manifest as centralized governments, so we are to submit to, respect, and pray for them. But agree with the existence of the office? Are we mandated that?

One last thing:

You stated,

[Anarchism] assumes that unregenerate man is capable of beneficial self government. That is impossible.

Then,

If [the original American Constitution] were followed in that manner today the law abiding citizen would have virtually no contact with the Federal government unless it was self initiated.

I may be missing something (I'm most likely missing something), but I'm not sure I understand the difference. When it boils down to it, isn't the latter self-government? One may live their entire life according to their own mandates. The federal laws that are in place are things they would never transgress anyway, even if they weren't in place. In the former, a transgressor of laws (yes, in an anarchistic society there would be laws, they just wouldn't be federally discerned) who would usually be handed over to federal authority would simply be handed over to private authority.

Also, the founding fathers, while creating this nation very good, did not understand the true nature of man at all. They were students of the Enlightenment and founded our nation upon such principles (citizenship, inalienable rights, etc.) While we as Christians would agree with these things, we do so because of our view of imago dei, whereas they agreed because of Enlightenment autonomy -- which anarchism can be, and is often, based upon depending on how it's espoused.

Thanks again, and God bless!

How would the Noahic covenant establishment of the death penalty play into your view?

 

[UntoCaesar]

Anarchism is not absolutly in accord with Scripture when the Bible clearly shows God instituting hiarchical authoritative institutions: church, family, and even nations. I will admit that I know of no verse that commands the existance of the state but only our obediance to it if it does not command us to violate God's will. So I would say that a strong case would need to be made as to why anarchy could best acheive the responsebilities that the state excersizes.

Also there is a very strong empirical problem to anarchy. Every where in the world and history, practically speaking of course, that a society has been or is closer to anarchy the result was more suffering and an untamed sinful enviroment. There is/was no way to curb sin in these societies. The Congo is a practically anarchist society because the goverment lacks the ability to enforce its laws and the Congo is the rape capital of the world. That is hardly a enviroment condusive to law and order.

Also we must learn from the systematic and historical failure of the most populer form of Anarchy: Communism. You might say wait a minute Communism was and is totalitarian in form. Yes thats true but the ending utopia in traditional Marxist theory was a pure anarchy type community. A place with no goverment and where evryone just did there job and got along with eachother. Stalin rightfully said that the dictatorship of the working class could never be dissolved (the dissolving of the state was the second to last phase of Marxists theory before the anarchist state). I know the OP had mention of a different economic enviroment than Communism but I just thought it should be pointed out that the closest any form of anarchy ever came to working failed miserably.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

If you want to see Anarchism in action you have to look no further than the French Revolution. Anarchy in this fallen world always leads to chaos which leads to totalitarianism.

Not to get off track but the French Revolutions worst phase of brutality was at the hands the Jocobian group which was an Atheist group. Also the brutalities of Communists regimes show what an Atheist state might look like as well.

Thanks for the post, James. And you're right: most anarchistic endeavors in history failed miserably. But one could also argue that every form of centralized government has at one point or another failed miserably. You could say that the American government is heading toward failing miserably. The anarchistic endeavors that failed were usually overthrow-and-install type actions, which usually come about rather quickly with no appropriate preparation, then revolutionaries are allowed self-government (YIKES!) Also, the kinds of governments which were overthrown were totalitarian, despotist, or otherwise Authoritarian, thus the people really had no way to protect themselves, or to establish self-governance, basically didn't know anything but tyranny. It's like dropping an Amish person off in New York City -- it'll fail miserably. I don't know if there has been a situation where a centralized government has peacefully withdrawn itself and left an anarchist plane of being to a relatively free and largely already self-governed people like America.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks for the post, James. And you're right: most anarchistic endeavors in history failed miserably. But one could also argue that every form of centralized government has at one point or another failed miserably. You could say that the American government is heading toward failing miserably. The anarchistic endeavors that failed were usually overthrow-and-install type actions, which usually come about rather quickly with no appropriate preparation, then revolutionaries are allowed self-government (YIKES!) Also, the kinds of governments which were overthrown were totalitarian, despotist, or otherwise Authoritarian, thus the people really had no way to protect themselves, or to establish self-governance, basically didn't know anything but tyranny. It's like dropping an Amish person off in New York City -- it'll fail miserably. I don't know if there has been a situation where a centralized government has peacefully withdrawn itself and left an anarchist plane of being to a relatively free and largely already self-governed people like America.

Excellant point about centralized goverments track record. If I understand you right you have a problem with centralized goverment or goverment in principle?

 

[UntoCaesar]

I see the centralized government as unnecessary to matters of life and liberty, matters of law and order, matters of religion, economy, industry, and so on. And more often than not, it is a hinderance to these things.

 

[jwright82]

I see the centralized government as unnecessary to matters of life and liberty, matters of law and order, matters of religion, economy, industry, and so on. And more often than not, it is a hinderance to these things.

To avoid unneccessary semantical arguments here, what sort of goverment do you see as good in a given society? Also who has the right to administer the death penalty in your view of societies? Since revenge is forbidden in the law of God someone other than me must be a governing authority to rightly administer the death penalty on say someone who murdered a family member of mine. I guess I am curious about what a society would be like in your ideal view?

 

[UntoCaesar]

James,

I see a society with laws prudent to individualistic communities administering punishments the way they see fit, even installing ruling authorities and police forces if they see fit. Maybe it is agreed upon that murder be met with murder, or that robbery be met with dismemberment. Whatever is decided, I'll wager anything that it would be harsher than any federal justice system would dish out. Not only that, but there would be the penalty of consequence to consider before committing the act. One would always have to think twice before harming someone else.

Josh,

Much of my response to James could go for you as well. Though I will say that I absolutely agree that we should work through godly means to approach problems peacefully. If I were in the position to, I would work with a senator, or the president to try and resolve a problem together. But does that mean that I must agree with the existence of his/her office? Also, I think that before it's conception, it could have been said that "in an undepraved world, democracy would work great." It took pagan students of the Enlightenment to finally try it out.

And as an aside, if this were an anarchistic society, you and your family could go find or found your own Christian totalitarian theocracy, which I agree would be the best thing to have

 

[jwright82]

James,

I see a society with laws prudent to individualistic communities administering punishments the way they see fit, even installing ruling authorities and police forces if they see fit. Maybe it is agreed upon that murder be met with murder, or that robbery be met with dismemberment. Whatever is decided, I'll wager anything that it would be harsher than any federal justice system would dish out. Not only that, but there would be the penalty of consequence to consider before committing the act. One would always have to think twice before harming someone else.

Josh,

Much of my response to James could go for you as well. Though I will say that I absolutely agree that we should work through godly means to approach problems peacefully. If I were in the position to, I would work with a senator, or the president to try and resolve a problem together. But does that mean that I must agree with the existence of his/her office? Also, I think that before it's conception, it could have been said that "in an undepraved world, democracy would work great." It took pagan students of the Enlightenment to finally try it out.

And as an aside, if this were an anarchistic society, you and your family could go find or found your own Christian totalitarian theocracy, which I agree would be the best thing to have

Okay I think I see where you are coming from. I think what you mean is more along the lines of an absolute democracy. Anarchy is no goverment, no authority at all. I am my own goverment/authority. What you seem to be more in line with would be a very individualistic democracy. Where like a community got together and decided what was best for themselves in democratic proccess, if someone didn't like it they would be free to go. In an anarchistic society you would have no authorities or police at all because that would be goverment of somekind. Unless the definition has changed since I studied it. I still think your society wouldn't work out all that well practically but if what you mean is an absolute democracy than I do not disagree in principle. Nice conversation you brought up. I would argue that goverment of some kind is a creational aspect of reality and therefore are authoritative to all people but the particuler forms that societies have developed of goverments may or may not be good things. So you are well withen your christian right to criticize the existance of some political office or goverment without rejecting all goverment in anyform.