The Christian Basis for Anarcho-Capitalism

[Donnadogsoth]

I believe an alliance with Christianity is necessary to achieve a capitalist anarchy, and shall show here why. In short, it comes down to the existence of natural law, the human ability to discover natural law, and the human inclination towards applying that law in a beneficial manner. Right now anarcho-capitalists tend to view Christianity as an obstacle if not an enemy. This is wrong-minded. Christianity--the religion of 2.2 billion people, most of whom live in the West and participate in Western culture—contains the principles and the people needed for anarcho-capitalism's success both in the West and globally.

 

Christianity believes three things which, if true, are maximally relevant to the anarcho-capitalist project.

 

First, it believes in a God who has created a rational world ruled by natural law. Without this, there is no knowledge to be had, just chaotic, phenomenal bases for bets on statistical probabilities.

 

Second, it believes man is made in the mental image of this God and therefore capable of knowing and exploiting natural law for his benefit. Without this, knowledge may exist, but man can never find it, and so again is reduced to being a gambler focussed on the mean things rather than the constellations above. 

 

Third, it believes that love is the fundamental emotion of man, putting within him a conscience which is a desire to live according to the natural law. Without this, man's depravities have no check. Nothing is true, man must merely live according to Pufendorf (1632-94):

 

“In common with all living things which have a sense of themselves, man holds nothing more dear than himself, he studies in every way to preserve himself, he strives to acquire what seems good to him and to repel what seems bad to him. This passion is usually so strong that all other passions give way before it. And if anyone attempts to attack a man’s safety, he canot fail to repel him, and to repel him so vigorously that hatred and desire for revenge usually last long after he has beaten off the attack.”

 

If anarcho-capitalism is to be achieved, it cannot merely rely on man's self-interest as a “brutish, nasty, and short” Hobbesian animal, holding up with sheer moral fevour the nonaggression principle like a magic sword that will bring to heel all foes and gather together all men into a new culture of principle.

 

This is naïve. Such a culture to function would have to include a principle of ligamentation or loving alliance between humans, and between human families, neighbourhoods, and organisations and societies of all types. Such things do not easily grow in a climate of selfishness, even enlightened selfishness. At the end of the day there is no reason to sacrifice one's life for others if the nonaggression principle is the final word on morality.

 

Christian love shines past this. It takes the human freedom offered and demanded by the nonaggression principle and lifts it up into the realms of the glowing nebulæ of the highest expressions of the human spirit.

 

And this spirit is inseparable from the desire to discover, create, and build to last that defines human intellectual mentation in contradistinction with the mere at best logical-rational or more typically sensory-instinctual apparatuses of the subhuman beasts. Children don't merely want the “book of the law” in the form of the nonaggression principle, they want to create, hypothesise, and understand, they want a world of natural law, not a world of chaos and probabilities. They want a world that they can understand the laws of. And they want a world in which man is, if not always good, then fundamentally worthwhile.

 

Christians already have these things embedded, often sleeping, within their individual and collective souls. They have the ligamental principle, they have creative mentation, and they have the nonaggression principle itself buried in kernel within the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 (NIV)

 

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

 

Without this, I fear the nonaggression principle is simply too spare a nail to hang anything worthwhile on.  It sidesteps natural law and leaves the treasures of Western culture to gather dust.  A warrior needs more than a sword, no matter how gleaming it may be.

 

Cf.

‘Man Measures His Intellect Through the Power of His Works’

 

The perfectly sovereign nation-state and the human individual are one

[dsayers]

I believe an alliance with Christianity is necessary to achieve a capitalist anarchy

Your body is your capital. Humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. These are facts and neither are predicated on a deity. Your claim cannot be true.

 

This is wrong-minded. Christianity--the religion of 2.2 billion people

Appeal to popularity.

 

contains the principles and the people needed for anarcho-capitalism's success both in the West and globally.

Since I've established above that anarchy and capitalism are the default, by success, you would have to mean people no longer forcibly trying to alter these truths. No specific people are needed for that. Your claim cannot be true.

 

Christianity believes three things which, if true, are maximally relevant to the anarcho-capitalist project.

What do you gain by calling it a project? Didn't you already at this point reference "natural law"? Is gravity a "project"? Or is it the observation of nature, as is anarcho-capitalism?

I stopped reading at that point.

[Tyler H]

Anarchism means no rulers, how can Christians be anarchists?

[Donnadogsoth]

Anarchism means no rulers, how can Christians be anarchists?

 

Christians are ruled ultimately by natural law, not by Cæsar.

I stopped reading at that point.

 

If you're not going to read what I wrote, why respond to any of it?  And why expect I'll respond to your responses?

[Tyler H]

Christians are ruled ultimately by natural law, not by Cæsar.

Sorry, I meant to imply God, not Cæsar. Are you not ruled by your God? Do you not need to submit to his commandments and pay a portion of your income to Him?

[Donnadogsoth]

Sorry, I meant to imply God, not Cæsar. Are you not ruled by your God? Do you not need to submit to his commandments and pay a portion of your income to Him?

 

Ruled by God, yes, in the form of natural law.  The highest law is to love God and love one's neighbour.  Everything else is derivable from that, using reason.  His commandments are not taken at face value as such (e.g., the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, etc.) but are subject to reason using the principles I just mentioned.  Paying a portion of one's income to the Church is not mandatory.

[Tyler H]

Ruled by God, yes, in the form of natural law.  The highest law is to love God and love one's neighbour.  Everything else is derivable from that, using reason.  His commandments are not taken at face value as such (e.g., the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, etc.) but are subject to reason using the principles I just mentioned.  Paying a portion of one's income to the Church is not mandatory.

I guess I'm not understanding how you can have a ruler and be an anarchist at the same time, it's logically inconsistent.

[D-Light]

I guess I'm not understanding how you can have a ruler and be an anarchist at the same time, it's logically inconsistent.

Yep.  The Biblical Christian is a Monarchist, who believes in a supernatural ruler over everything to whom they are indentured bond servants who are "free" but only from a different monarch (Satan), not an anarchist.

[Donnadogsoth]

I guess I'm not understanding how you can have a ruler and be an anarchist at the same time, it's logically inconsistent.

 

Anarcho-capitalists are ruled by the non-aggression principle, aren't they?  That which governs or guides your behaviour rules you.

[Tyler H]

Anarcho-capitalists are ruled by the non-aggression principle, aren't they?  That which governs or guides your behaviour rules you.

At first glance I disagree that we are ruled by the non-aggression principle, but I will have to think on it - you may be right. Aside from that, it is often differentiated that anarchism means no rulers, not no rules. Rulers being another sentient being to whom you must subjugate yourself.

[D-Light]

At first glance I disagree that we are ruled by the non-aggression principle, but I will have to think on it - you may be right. Aside from that, it is often differentiated that anarchism means no rulers, not no rules. Rulers being another sentient being to whom you must subjugate yourself.

It is why I prefer the term "self-government" or "self-sovereign" or something like that.

[dsayers]

Anarcho-capitalists are ruled by the non-aggression principle, aren't they?  That which governs or guides your behaviour rules you.

The etymology of the word anarchy refers to rulers/leaders.

 

NAP is shorthand for people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is either naturally occurring or a man made concept. If it is naturally occurring, then it is akin to gravity, and anarchy would be unattainable as we are all bound by the laws of physics. This would be disingenuous on your part as your initial premise is predicated on anarchy being attainable.

 

If it is a man made concept, then those who choose to observe and abide it do so voluntarily. Meanwhile, the definition of the verb rule is "to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern." It is inherently an involuntary process. Thus your point here is invalid as it would describes a voluntary process if it is a man made concept.

 

Furthermore, if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a man made concept, and we also assume that the verb rule does not denote an involuntary process, then people who chose to abide by the NAP would rule it, not the other way around. In the ruler-ruled relationship, it is the ruler that is free to walk away, not the ruled.

 

Any way you slice it, just as with your initial premise, you are engaging in mental gymnastics to unsuccessfully made a conclusion fit. So what is your null hypothesis that Christians are a requisite for humans to own themselves (capitalism) and not exist in different, opposing moral categories (anarchy)? Both of which I've already successfully argued are naturally occurring

[Donnadogsoth]

The etymology of the word anarchy refers to rulers/leaders.

 

NAP is shorthand for people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is either naturally occurring or a man made concept. If it is naturally occurring, then it is akin to gravity, and anarchy would be unattainable as we are all bound by the laws of physics. This would be disingenuous on your part as your initial premise is predicated on anarchy being attainable.

 

If it is a man made concept, then those who choose to observe and abide it do so voluntarily. Meanwhile, the definition of the verb rule is "to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern." It is inherently an involuntary process. Thus your point here is invalid as it would describes a voluntary process if it is a man made concept.

 

Furthermore, if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a man made concept, and we also assume that the verb rule does not denote an involuntary process, then people who chose to abide by the NAP would rule it, not the other way around. In the ruler-ruled relationship, it is the ruler that is free to walk away, not the ruled.

 

Any way you slice it, just as with your initial premise, you are engaging in mental gymnastics to unsuccessfully made a conclusion fit. So what is your null hypothesis that Christians are a requisite for humans to own themselves (capitalism) and not exist in different, opposing moral categories (anarchy)? Both of which I've already successfully argued are naturally occurring

 

My premise is that anarcho-capitalism will be impossible to popularise unless additional principles are added to it.

 

This first demands the recognition that God has loaned man his soul and body, from which capital man owns his fruits, good or ill.

 

Once God is recognised, natural law is recognised, which leads into the wealth of principles, including specifically, at probably least, 

 

(1) the principle of ligaments or agapic love, and

(2) the principle of creative mentation or man's mind made in the image of God.

 

Together, man with imago viva Dei, and man subject to agape, we have Christ crucified as the essential motivating idea behind Christianity.

 

Anarcho-capitalism by itself is not inevitable, it is just a dyad of interesting principles that require other principles in order to bring about its condition into the world.  Can a farmer dig a well with only a cow and an axe?

 

Thus, anarcho-capitalism is, as I have said, a project, as much as would be raising a dam or curing a disease.  You can't do it alone, through your sheer ideological zeal and logical intensity.

[dsayers]

You can't do it alone, through your sheer ideological zeal

This is just for other people though, right? 

 

What you are referring to as natural law is already present. This breaks your initial claim that Christianity is a requisite.

 

You have yet to establish that there is a deity, let alone that it's necessary.

 

I've already pointed out that anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default.

[Tyler H]

It is why I prefer the term "self-government" or "self-sovereign" or something like that.

I've always been partial to voluntarist. It hasn't yet attracted the stigma that has been attributed to anarchist, sovereign citizen, etc.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is just for other people though, right? 

 

What you are referring to as natural law is already present. This breaks your initial claim that Christianity is a requisite.

 

You have yet to establish that there is a deity, let alone that it's necessary.

 

I've already pointed out that anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default.

 

If "anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default" why are you spending your valuable time talking about them?  They'll just slide into place on their own, regardless of what anyone says.  It's the inexorable destiny of history!  Right?

[Tyler H]

If "anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default" why are you spending your valuable time talking about them?  They'll just slide into place on their own, regardless of what anyone says.  It's the inexorable destiny of history!  Right?

I interpret the default as the starting point, not the inevitable end. The naturally occurring default (in general) is to be born with two hands, if you cut one off it isn't inevitable you'll return to that state. In fact it will take a great deal of effort to return to the default state.

[Donnadogsoth]

I interpret the default as the starting point, not the inevitable end. The naturally occurring default (in general) is to be born with two hands, if you cut one off it isn't inevitable you'll return to that state. In fact it will take a great deal of effort to return to the default state.

 

Indeed, achieving a capitalist anarchy without Christianity is about as likely as surgically reattaching a severed hand without a surgeon.

[dsayers]

If "anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default" why are you spending your valuable time talking about them?  They'll just slide into place on their own, regardless of what anyone says.  It's the inexorable destiny of history!  Right?

You're asking me why I'm peaceably using my capital to try and help somebody who is my equal understand the truth as if my efforts to do so contradict these observation when in fact they embody them.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're asking me why I'm peaceably using my capital to try and help somebody who is my equal understand the truth as if my efforts to do so contradict these observation when in fact they embody them.

 

Would you agree essentially with the principle of agape, that you should do these things out of love of man?  Or do you have another motive?

[dsayers]

Would you agree essentially with the principle of agape, that you should do these things out of love of man?  Or do you have another motive?

I should make use of my body because of the love of man? What does that even mean? I don't know how one could choose not to use their body. Especially when you consider they'd have to use their body to make such a decision. Hence my claim that it is the default. Something your question continues to deflect from.

[Donnadogsoth]

I should make use of my body because of the love of man? What does that even mean? I don't know how one could choose not to use their body. Especially when you consider they'd have to use their body to make such a decision. Hence my claim that it is the default. Something your question continues to deflect from.

 

One more try:  You are activating for anarcho-capitalism.  Never mind how you arrange your personal life, if your presence on this board is any indication, you participate in  the project to spread anarcho-capitalism worldwide, to "break the spell" as we have agreed in another thread.  But you wreathe yourself in language that seems to deny that you are doing this, that says you are simply existing.  You are not simply existing, you are activating for ancap, trying to persuade me, him, and the others here that you are right.  I'm asking why are you doing this.  Why waste your time trying to spread ancap (4300 posts) when you could be, I don't know, playing mini-putt or singing in a band or writing poetry or something?  Why are you on this board?

[dsayers]

I guess it's easier to peddle bullshit and get away with deflection when there isn't somebody around to point it out to others, eh?