Some time ago I wrote a post that quoted from Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason”. The post was centered on the obvious notion that tax is theft. I concluded the post with a disclaimer stating that while Spooner was an anarchist, I was not. There have, in fact, been many occasions in the past where I have found myself trying to distance myself from the anarchist label and all that it is perceived to mean.
Well people change, their worldviews evolve, their philosophies become more defined, and I am writing this to declare myself an anarchist. I know it’s a label that evokes a pretty strong, and often negative reaction from so many people. I also know it’s a movement that has been largely dominated by Luddites and those who use violence to get what they want. I fall under neither of these categories. If an adjective needs to be added to it, I’d call myself a Private Property Anarchist; one who sees natural law and private property rights as sufficient for society to run itself, without the presence of an organization that is nothing more than a parasite known as the State.
Comment and criticize as you see fit, but at the same time I’m curious how and why your political views have changed over the past year or so, if at all. Declare for yourself what you are, politically. I’m not talking about how you vote every 2-4 years, but rather what political philosophy you hold as truth more than any other.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts on cereal, music, and the meaning of life
16 comments:
Nothing wrong with a bit of Anarchy... [grin].
You moved over to The Left then? I'd have put you firmly on the Right myself.................
I used to describe myself as a 'philosophical anarchist' rather than the bomb throwing kind... I still have a lot of interest and sympathy for that side of the political spectrum. It's an interesting philosophical standpoint.
Here is an interesting article about a fellow Anarchist J.R.R Tolkien.
Here is a little part of it that I liked....
"Bearing in mind Tolkien's peaceful anarchist political stance (Curry 48), the Ring solidifies his theory that absolute power corrupts. Whether the person wearing the Ring intends to use it for good or not, they are still advocating the suppression of others' rights in favor of their own. In his Foreword, Tolkien likens himself to Frodo and Bilbo as "a simple-minded hobbit" (Fellowship 12). While merely a passing reference, the fact that he envisions himself to be of the same mind as Frodo and Bilbo dictates the action he advocates. Frodo set out on his journey to destroy the Ring, a representation of the corruption brought on by absolute, totalitarian power. The Ring needed to be destroyed to keep anyone from gaining that power. The act of destroying this Ring is Tolkien's advocacy of non-violent revolt against oppression, a message understood by the painters of "Frodo Lives!""
I am a Libertarian (I don't see much of a difference from what you are).
"What is a Libertarian?
Let's start with Webster's definition:
Libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.
Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.
Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."
CK:
I've given up trying to figure out the left/right spectrum. For example I am for private property rights, and therefore pro-free markets as a mode of production. Traditionally the right has been the side that is supposedly in favor of free markets, however any mention of the "far right" no doubt brings thoughts of police state type military rule and extreme racism. Obviously these are ideas that clash with private property rights so I have no idea how they can be classified as "right wing".
I don't know. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that we label things different on different sides of the Atlantic.
At any rate, there are distinct differences between private property anarchy and say, a decidedly left movement like anarcho-syndicalism. Though, in my opinion they can co-exist as long as neither uses coercion.
The Right/Left thing is confusing - especially as it started in a government with (literally) two sides of a bulding (the Right & the Left).
When you have a circular building though... if you go Left or Right far enough you end up coming around the other side... which is why if you go Left far enough you end up being Right wing!
I'm definitely of the Left. I too believe in the inviability of the individual but not at the ultimate expense of society. When push comes to final shove the Community is more important than the individual - which is why I can't be a Libertarian (though I understand their reasoning). I will never trust a Government but I trust individual self-interest even less.
I've been meaning to right a post on my political stance - but haven't managed to get my thoughts into a coherent whole yet... I shall muse on it a little more.
Oh... I'm *really* confused with you both being Libertarian *and* Christians....
I don't think that you could be an Anarcho-Christian!
I guess there's a vital different in the ideology there!
I'd have to say that my political views have not changed over the last year (or last 10 years for that matter). That doesn't mean that I can't be persuaded or that I can't change my mind on individual things.
As for general philosophy, modern liberalism or social liberalism comes closest to describing me. Like you, I believe in individual liberties. But where I diverge is that I believe that unbridled capitalism can infringe on those liberties. Government has a role in making sure that doesn't happen.
Because the beginnings of both or our philosphies begin in classic liberalism, we frequently can agree on some things. As a rule, I have a lot more respect for libertarians than for true conservatives because of their beliefs on personal liberties.
CK:
I too believe in the inviability of the individual but not at the ultimate expense of society. When push comes to final shove the Community is more important than the individual - which is why I can't be a Libertarian (though I understand their reasoning). I will never trust a Government but I trust individual self-interest even less.
Yeah, I might believe in things like "society" and the common good too if they existed, but they don't. There are only individuals. Even the governments we trust to preserve the rights of the people are only made of of individuals who act in their own "individual self-interest" as you put it.
Well that's a long post in itself.
Oh... I'm *really* confused with you both being Libertarian *and* Christians....
I don't think that you could be an Anarcho-Christian!
Why is that? There is a long line of classical liberal Christians like Martin Luther or Lord Acton for instance. Acton coined the phrase "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" that was quoted in the Tolkien article above.
Lance:
Yeah, I like the idea that government has a role in protecting personal liberties, but in my view it just hasn't happened. Quite the opposite actually.
scott said: Yeah, I might believe in things like "society" and the common good too if they existed, but they don't. There are only individuals. Even the governments we trust to preserve the rights of the people are only made of of individuals who act in their own "individual self-interest" as you put it.
Ah... That's where we fundamentally disagree.
Scott said: Why is that? There is a long line of classical liberal Christians like Martin Luther or Lord Acton for instance. Acton coined the phrase "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" that was quoted in the Tolkien article above.
It's just that I thought Libertarians had a deep distrust of all authorities (just like Anarchists) and that God was the *ultimate* Authority. It just kinda confused me that you could hold both beliefs simultaneously.
Yeah, I have deep distrust in *human* authorities.
scott said: Yeah, I have deep distrust in *human* authorities.
Still seems to be (at least to me) a rather strange compartmentalisation of the issue. I wouldn't be able to separate the two.
Personally I am highly suspicious and distrustful of *any* Authority human or otherwise - not forgetting that I believe that God is a human fabrication anyway.
Scott said...
Yeah, I have deep distrust in *human* authorities.
I agree but I have trouble with the scriptures that say to submit to our authorities. I suppose we can submit and still distrust? And I suppose we can submit as long as those authorities never try to require us to break God's laws. Yes?
Well it's not that I'm flat out anti-authority, for instance I have no problem with organizational hierarchies, like a job or a church even. I just have a problem with monopolized authority. In other words, when you get a job or become a member of a church there is nothing binding you to that job other than your own volunteer association. You put yourself under the authority of others by your own choice, and by your own choice you can break that relationship off at any time.
This is unlike our relationship with the State organization because not only did we NOT put ourselves under the authority of the State voluntarily, we have no recourse to get out from under that authority.
And to what end are we to submit to authority? Is it, as you might say, until they do not require us to break God's law? But what if they themselves break God's law? Would you think it right to submit to Hitler as long as he didn't ask you, personally, to kill a Jew? Obviously an extreme, but what of our own government that robs at gunpoint and calls it "tax", institutes slavery and calls it "military draft", or performs mass murder and calls it "war"?
Furthermore, who put these men in authoritarian positions? Surely it wasn’t God, but rather fellow men or even those men themselves.
So the short answer to your question is, “I don’t know.” But I do appreciate you reading this and not calling me a nut. :)
scott said: You put yourself under the authority of others by your own choice, and by your own choice you can break that relationship off at any time.
But aren't we supposedly under God's authority merely by being born? What choice do we have in the matter? If we reject the authority of God aren't we condemed to Hell? At least with a human created State we can do something about it. How can we possibly overthrow God?
scott said: This is unlike our relationship with the State organization because not only did we NOT put ourselves under the authority of the State voluntarily, we have no recourse to get out from under that authority.
Yes we do. It's called a Revolution... [grin].
scott said: Furthermore, who put these men in authoritarian positions? Surely it wasn’t God, but rather fellow men or even those men themselves.
I understand that there are those in the theist community who do indeed believe that our leaders are in fact elected by God rather than their respective populations and there are leaders who apparently believe that too....
scott said: So the short answer to your question is, “I don’t know.” But I do appreciate you reading this and not calling me a nut. :)
If you *are* a nut at least you're an interesting nut... [chuckle].
But aren't we supposedly under God's authority merely by being born?
Well we’re under his authority upon death, as we will be held accountable for what we’ve done, but our time on earth is spent under someone else’s jurisdiction. I mean God has a plethora of laws and you’re forced to follow exactly none of them by his own works.
If we reject the authority of God aren't we condemed to Hell?
No, not at all. We’re condemned for what we do, not what we believe. We’re condemned for violating our own conscience, indeed our own nature.
At least with a human created State we can do something about it. How can we possibly overthrow God?
Obviously you can’t. But then, God has kind of earned his authority by creating the entire universe and the idea of authority itself. I understand I’m using a logical fallacy here to make my point, but if we’re going to discuss the idea of God (whether or not you believe in him) we have to use the general accepted definition of what he is, namely the creator of the Universe.
Yes we do. It's called a Revolution... [grin].
Well sure, but I guess I was thinking of a less drastic measure. After all, we Americans have gone that route peacefully twice and both times were met with violent resistance. And only one time did we actually win.
I understand that there are those in the theist community who do indeed believe that our leaders are in fact elected by God rather than their respective populations and there are leaders who apparently believe that too....
Yeah, I think there are. I’m not familiar with their names, as I don’t follow politics as much as one might think. There are also those leaders who, in times past, led their subjects to believe that they WERE Gods. A particularly detestable bunch they both are.
If you *are* a nut at least you're an interesting nut... [chuckle].
Well better that than sane and boring, I guess.
scott said: our time on earth is spent under someone else’s jurisdiction.
You mean that God does not have superior jurisdiction over the human State? I thought that everything was part of Gods Plan? Doesn't that alone mean that we are under His jurisdiction?
scott said: We’re condemned for what we do.
You mean breaking God's Laws?
scott said... not what we believe
So none Christians are still OK then? Will the good ones go to the Christian Heaven or one of their own? What about the First Commanment - Isn't that someone about only having one God - the Christian one?
scott said: We’re condemned for violating our own conscience, indeed our own nature.
So being a good, honest atheist is ok then? [phew].
scott said: And only one time did we actually win.
It's certainly not an easy option - but it can be sucessfully accomplished.
scott said: Well better that than sane and boring, I guess.
Everytime...... [grin].
I thought that everything was part of Gods Plan?
I've certainly never claimed such a thing.
You mean breaking God's Laws?
No, I mean doing the things we know we're not suppose to.
So none Christians are still OK then? Will the good ones go to the Christian Heaven or one of their own? What about the First Commanment - Isn't that someone about only having one God - the Christian one?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the first part but as far as the commandments go, those are part of Jewish Law, so claiming they command us to worship the "Christian" God doesn't make much sense. Indeed, the very notion of a "Christian" God is almost silly seeing as God was certainly around long before Christianity.
So being a good, honest atheist is ok then? [phew]
Sure, seeing as you never once go against what you know you ought to do and live your life patiently seeking to do right, yes you will be "okay". In fact you'll be perfect and unlike the rest of us who failed in that prospect you will not be in any need of grace and you will be awarded eternal life based on what you did.
It's certainly not an easy option - but it can be successfully accomplished.
It can and has been, but to what end? Just to replace that government with another government of individuals who serve their own self interests? If this were 1776 I might go along with that, but 200 and some odd years later I've seen the limits of checks and balances and written constitution on protecting individual rights from tyrannical rule.
I believe those of us who believe in individual rights need to try something new.
Post a Comment