Interesting Corollary

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Recently, I responded to a thread on an athiest forum wherein the author was lanmenting how religion is being used to restrict her freedoms. She's a twenty year old student who lives at home and her mother is a fundie Christian preacher. She mentioned how happy she will be when she gets out of her mother's house and is able to live freely on her own.

So, being the smartass that I sometimes am, I warned her that once she's free from her mother's use of Christianity as a tool of control, there will be another religion people will use to control her, which has all the requisite tools of control that religion does. Of course, someone asked what I meant and another poster (whom I've debated statism with) responded that I was talking about taxation. To his credit, he went on to say that I presented a lot of sound arguments but that my position is a bit too optimistic for his tastes, but that's inconsequential.

 

My answer to him was thus:

 

I didn't become an A because I hated T. I became an A because the power of G is illegitimate, abusive and destructive.

 

Legend:

A= atheist or, anarchist

T= tithing or, taxation

G= gods or, governments

 

And then I got to thinking... has someone put together a comprehensive,  allegorical comparison between statism and religion? If so, can you share a link to it? If not, can you all help me devise a list of similarities? Stef has done a great job of this in a podcast but I think it would be nice to have a graphic with some side by sides, preferrably with the same beginning letters, as in the above.

[MarkIX]

They're both governed by Dogma. Someone should tell Sam Harris []

[RestoringGuy]

I am not sure the corollary is right.  Mental beliefs are something we seem to own innately, but external belongings require going out and capturing them in some way and proving you own them.  While I think taxing income and labor are pretty close to religious dogma, I do not think the same of taxing use of land, water, or air because those things become owned only by personal say-so.  Land still exists even when nobody claims to control it, and then (as if by magic) user #2 of land is said to be wrong without prior permission of user #1.  There is exclusive and time-dependent dogma going on in a first-claim property model.  But it is worse with labor and sales tax, the government taxes something that exists only when a person makes a choice to work or sell, so the thing being taxed is actually brought into existence by personal action and it seems mainly through aggression can it be taxed.  With land and water it seems you can just point to something and claim it is yours (as long as there is not a fight you cannot win).  So whether the goverment does just that, or we anarchocapitalists do it, I cannot seem to find much philosophy to distinguish the two groups.  To have the least amount of dogma, I feel that I have to oppose property tax but only in a somewhat weak way (we should all get to collect it, not just government).

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

I am not sure the corollary is right.  Mental beliefs are something we seem to own innately, but external belongings require going out and capturing them in some way and proving you own them.  While I think taxing income and labor are pretty close to religious dogma, I do not think the same of taxing use of land, water, or air because those things become owned only by personal say-so.  Land still exists even when nobody claims to control it, and then (as if by magic) user #2 of land is said to be wrong without prior permission of user #1.  There is exclusive and time-dependent dogma going on in a first-claim property model.  But it is worse with labor and sales tax, the government taxes something that exists only when a person makes a choice to work or sell, so the thing being taxed is actually brought into existence by personal action and it seems mainly through aggression can it be taxed.  With land and water it seems you can just point to something and claim it is yours (as long as there is not a fight you cannot win).  So whether the goverment does just that, or we anarchocapitalists do it, I cannot seem to find much philosophy to distinguish the two groups.  To have the least amount of dogma, I feel that I have to oppose property tax but only in a somewhat weak way (we should all get to collect it, not just government).

 

 

 

Thanks for that but this isn't a property rights discussion. It's a correlation between government and religion from the perspective of how people tend to view them. Specifically, how most atheists tend to view the state in the same manner they formerly viewed their god(s).

[RestoringGuy]

 

Thanks for that but this isn't a property rights discussion. It's a correlation between government and religion from the perspective of how people tend to view them. Specifically, how most atheists tend to view the state in the same manner they formerly viewed their god(s).

 

Sorry if I got on a tangent.  It just seems like religious ideas revolve around who is the rightful owner (that we owe God, or are compelled to serve, etc.)  Taxation was mentioned as part of the discussion of dogma, so I thought that was part of the correllation.  To me a discussion of taxation is impossible without discussion of property rights.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

Sorry if I got on a tangent.  It just seems like religious ideas revolve around who is the rightful owner (that we owe God, or are compelled to serve, etc.)  Taxation was mentioned as part of the discussion of dogma, so I thought that was part of the correllation.  To me a discussion of taxation is impossible without discussion of property rights.

 

 

Oh sorry, I get what you meant now. The rightful owner statement would be similar to the government owning the citizen. But the minutia of property rights kind of removes us from the metaphorical representation to an analagous comparison. For the layman, it's enough to point out that taxation mirrors tithing in that you are expected to pay it because you allegedly owe it for services rendered but not requested. To go into it any further than that would dilute the meaning of the excercise.

 

That level of comparison is the go to place when someone attempts to refute a metaphor. For instance, the atheist statist would argure that God doesn't actually provide THE ROADZ and the Christian would argue that tithing isn't compulsory. And then both would smugly claim victory. [eyeroll]

[RestoringGuy]

I don't get that part about the atheist statist and God, but I sort of understand.  My thinking is whether taxation and laws causes some guy to "go around" a plot of land as opposed to tresspassing through, or tithing and doctrine makes somebody go around it as service to God or church ideas, either way I am paying for a service I ask for, specifically my property rights.  Just the middleman is the evil beast.  Whether that dilutes the meaning, I don't know.  But when anarchy is mentioned all that is thought of by the layman is hell will break loose.  I get cautious about metaphorical representation, because religion is an optional element as is the state, but taxation and tithing are not in my mind requiring those options to exist.  It is only a matter of scale.  If you pay the King to leave you alone, it is called tax.  If you pay your neighbor to leave you alone, it is called what?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

If you pay your neighbor to leave you alone, it is called what?

 

Cooperation?

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

If you pay your neighbor to leave you alone, it is called what?

 

Cooperation?

 

So what is the difference between taxation and cooperation in the case where neighbor and state treat me the same?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

So what is the difference between taxation and cooperation in the case where neighbor and state treat me the same?

 

I threw cooperation out as a question; was not meaning to be sarcastic.

Is there a link between cooperating with one's neighbor, with one's government, with one's god?

As you stated, there is definitely a matter of scale.

Not sure this is much help towards OP's project, but it introduces a possible connection to how people internalize the state as god, or vice versa.

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

I don't get that part about the atheist statist and God, but I sort of understand.  My thinking is whether taxation and laws causes some guy to "go around" a plot of land as opposed to tresspassing through, or tithing and doctrine makes somebody go around it as service to God or church ideas, either way I am paying for a service I ask for, specifically my property rights.  Just the middleman is the evil beast.  Whether that dilutes the meaning, I don't know.  But when anarchy is mentioned all that is thought of by the layman is hell will break loose.  I get cautious about metaphorical representation, because religion is an optional element as is the state, but taxation and tithing are not in my mind requiring those options to exist.  It is only a matter of scale.  If you pay the King to leave you alone, it is called tax.  If you pay your neighbor to leave you alone, it is called what?

 

 

Well, there is one primary difference between the state and the (modern) church. Tithing is a choice, although one can suffer ostricization for not tithing. As for paying for one's property rights, the default position of statism is that you don't have any rights. Thus, you are renting your rights from the state. Absent a controlling entity like government, we don't need to be granted "rights" because noone is taking them by default. Moreover, in the absence of the state, we are free to defend our property ourselves. The state steals that "right" from us, rents a small portion of it back to us, payments due in perpetuity, and then calls itself protecting us from the bad guys.  [dazed]

[RestoringGuy]

 

Well, there is one primary differencue between the state and the (modern) church. Tithing is a choice, although one can suffer ostricization for not tithing. As for paying for one's property rights, the default position of statism is that you don't have any rights. Thus, you are renting your rights from the state. Absent a controlling entity like government, we don't need to be granted "rights" because noone is taking them by default. Moreover, in the absence of the state, we are free to defend our property ourselves. The state steals that "right" from us, rents a small portion of it back to us, payments due in perpetuity, and then calls itself protecting us from the bad guys.  /emoticons/confused.gif

 

If human soul is not left behind or something equally unprovable, the default idea that nobody takes our property evaporates when going out for lunch.  If we rely strictly on the idea that I am here and you must attack me to take my property, then consequently I am not attacked when you take it while I am gone. The church uses morality, or the state uses laws, to prevent this.  We market capitalists can only use contracts, and moral requirement to obey the contract does not exist for parties who have not signed it.  By the state stealing our right, we get an immoral method of property, but it is still one that we pay for and get protection from theft (theoretically anyway).  When this idea of paying for protection is transplanted to anarchy, we still must resort to immoral methods.  Just being free to defend our property seems worthless, since once taken we lack the ability to recover it by moral means except to patiently wait for the thief to abandon it.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

 

Well, there is one primary differencue between the state and the (modern) church. Tithing is a choice, although one can suffer ostricization for not tithing. As for paying for one's property rights, the default position of statism is that you don't have any rights. Thus, you are renting your rights from the state. Absent a controlling entity like government, we don't need to be granted "rights" because noone is taking them by default. Moreover, in the absence of the state, we are free to defend our property ourselves. The state steals that "right" from us, rents a small portion of it back to us, payments due in perpetuity, and then calls itself protecting us from the bad guys.  /emoticons/confused.gif

 

If human soul is not left behind or something equally unprovable, the default idea that nobody takes our property evaporates when going out for lunch.  If we rely strictly on the idea that I am here and you must attack me to take my property, then consequently I am not attacked when you take it while I am gone. The church uses morality, or the state uses laws, to prevent this.  We market capitalists can only use contracts, and moral requirement to obey the contract does not exist for parties who have not signed it.  By the state stealing our right, we get an immoral method of property, but it is still one that we pay for and get protection from theft (theoretically anyway).  When this idea of paying for protection is transplanted to anarchy, we still must resort to immoral methods.  Just being free to defend our property seems worthless, since once taken we lack the ability to recover it by moral means except to patiently wait for the thief to abandon it.

 

 

I don't intend to delve into an intellectual debate about the nuances of property rights but I will say this.... If you steal my bike and I find where you've hidden it. My taking it back is not immoral. My killing you for stealing it is another issue to be sure, but once you've initiated the agression, my reasonable efforts to recover it are not subject to moral critique. Other than that, I understand what your'e saying and I agree. However, this is an excecise I'm looking to present to people who don't can't grasp the fact that compulsory school attendance is force. Which is why I mentioned above that I don't want to go into the minutia of the terms. I'm only looking for general similarities between statism and religion. Anything beyond that is an interesting mental excercise but again, we have to consider the audience.

 

Thanks!

[Guest darkskyabove]

As to the original project, I'll offer an attempt:

1. Religion requires the belief in the non-existent, as does government.

2. Religion requires the belief that the individual is fallible, selfish, and evil, etc.; as does government.

3. Religion requires the belief that surrendering to a higher power will make all things better, as does government.

4. Religion requires non-questioning belief, as does government.

5. Religion requires fealty to the master, as does government.

All for now...