0
0

How many atheists here are also anarchists/voluntaryists? (self.atheism)

mirth181degrees が 投稿

Pretty much the title. For me part of my big problem with the way god was portrayed/described was his immorality, which is also my main objection to the state.

I'm curious if others have lost "faith", or never had it, in these two institutions that are so dogmatically portrayed as good; but whose actions are often not?

全 68 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]SatanistRetrikaethan 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

no one in their right mind wants anarchy. no idea what the fuck a voluntaryist is.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're obviously responding to the first definition of anarchy,

an·ar·chy ˈanərkē/Submit noun

  1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy" synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"

  2. absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

I'm referring to the second. Anarchist simply adhere to the N.A.P., the Non-Agression principal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

If you agree with the principles set forth in the video below, and apply them consistently, then you'll find that you're an anarchist too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[–]SatanistRetrikaethan 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

even with that awkward goalpost shifting, no one in their right mind wants anarchy.

[–]AtheistW00ster 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

What could possibly go wrong?

Not like Reddit is full of subreds showing the result of the freedom we currently have, some of it is funny, some of it stupid and some of it is... just weird and you want to give people unlimited freedom to do basically what the fuck they want?

Call me crazy but that is a recipe for complete and utter total disaster not even Hollywood could dream up!

[–]SkepticY2KNW 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, uh; who pays for road maintenance? And keeps the water running?

[–]mirth181degrees[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

no idea what the fuck a voluntaryist is.

It's a word for anarchism that hasn't been co opted to mean disorder. Some anarchist prefer to use it so they're not misunderstood to be referring to utter chaos.

[–]SatanistRetrikaethan 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

pretty sure anarchy meant disorder before you weirdos showed up. also, if yer just putting a different word out to mean the same thing, why even bother? yer still anarchists and anarchy is frankly insane, even by your apparently chosen definition. there are too many damn people, too many of which would happily do as they like in all horrible manners without some kind of policing force. if you say "well we'll police them!" then surprise, you're not anarchists anymore.

[–]AtheistRawnblade12 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

..When has anarchy ever been a good thing?

[–]SkepticParatoxical 3ポイント4ポイント  (40子コメント)

Anarchy does not work in large populations and is just a bad idea. Have no idea what that other thing is.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (39子コメント)

It's a word for anarchism that hasn't been co opted to mean disorder. Some anarchist prefer to use it so they're not misunderstood to be referring to utter chaos.

Why would not resorting to violence to solve complex social problems work in small populations; but not in large.

[–]SkepticParatoxical 5ポイント6ポイント  (21子コメント)

Anarchy does not simply mean "not resorting to violence" it is a position that government is bad. Some form of government is required for larger populations.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

The state has a supposed "legitimate" monopoly on the use of force, and government is the means by which the state is controlled. So yes, anarchy is a position that government is bad, since it is by definition an act of violence that violates the N.A.P.

Why is some form of government needed, couldn't all the good that government attempts to do be as easily achieved through voluntary cooperation?

[–]SkepticParatoxical 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

Try having infrastructure and emergency services without government. In an ideal world maybe it could all be done voluntarily everyone pitching in to pay for, operate and maintain fire engines, roads and bridges and peace enforcement...but we do not live in such a world and even then it is far from easy. (Even if it is all voluntary...it just becomes a voluntary government, which is terrible because if you don't have the volunteers...you don't have infrastructure)

I certainly don't think government is the "definition of violence".

[–]mirth181degrees[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (18子コメント)

There is no reason those couldn't be paid for without the threat of violence/extortion.

Government isn't the definition of violence, it is the means by which the violence of the state is controlled.

It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state. In his lecture “ Politics as a Vocation ” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

[–]kzielinski 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

There is no reason those couldn't be paid for without the threat of violence/extortion.

Yes there is. Its called human nature. This has been tried before, and it did lead to violence and extortion. I believe several US cities ended up with competing prviate firefighting forces, that would only put out fires at premises that paid their dues.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Lead to violence and extortion? That's our current system. You pay or you're jailed, you resist you die. Government has the legal right to use violence, while you are a criminal if you resist. We can't have freedom/anarchy because it would lead to violence. We need to keep our violent system to avoid violence. Topsey turvy 1984 world we live in.

[–]kzielinski 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

What you are desribing is a state that is already in the process of failing. Most modern states also have notions of due process, and the agreement that we won't use violence unless we have to. We won't jail you without a trial, and we will prevent others from using violence against you.

The thing is that humans naturally form hiarchies. And this will still happen even in an anarchy. Somone will still end up leading and others will still end up following. Accept that in an Anarchy this is not stable, and without something like elections being imposed, the way to gain power is to kill the person who is currently in charge. Sure maybe you and I won't do that, but somebody will.

The thing about an impersonal state is that, when it is running well, it does not hold personal grudges and it is realativly easy to remain unnoticed.

The big benefit I get from this is that I personally don't have to use violence. I don't own a gun, I don't need a gun, I don't have to be on guard to protect my family 24/7 because part of the social contract is that the government will protect my family for me. Again the social contact only works while the government mostly succceds at doing this. WHen the governmetn can't do so, again you have the beginings of a failed state.

[–]AtheistW00ster 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

There is no reason those couldn't be paid for without the threat of violence/extortion.

Then put forth a viable alternative showing how including cost and resources necessary, how to pay, how to collect pay, how to finance up front etc.

When I was younger, I had an anarchist friend, the leftist type and we had many evenings debating politics over some good wine but I also never got a realistic and viable alternative defined and shown to be possible from him either so I'm really not expecting any from you either.

There is a wide and very deep ravine between political theory and real life. But only time will actually show you this.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your request is akin to a religious person asking me to prove god doesn't exist. Just because I can't imagine all of the ways that people could possible come together to solve complex social problems without the use of violence, doesn't excuse the fact that our current system uses violence. Still, there are countless examples of toll roads, private security (hell most of our military is private contractors), private hospitals/ambulances, large companies with there own fire engines, etc. Seriously, there is nothing (good) the government does that the private sector couldn't also achieve. If the people want it they'll pay for it. Force isn't necessary.

[–]AtheistW00ster 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Force will always be necessary as I will always want to steal your stuff and money.

And I will use force on you to get what I want, overwhelming force. Have you seen the Godfather movies? Do you remember the Sicilian mobster boss killing off everyone in the family who could later grow up and be a threat? That is the society you'd end up with! You would be a slave under some mob boss who controlled your life to a much larger extent than the government and with a lot more liberal use of force and on top of that, will take more of your money and valuables than the government ever has!

You sound like a hippie singing Kumbaya!

[–]SkepticParatoxical 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't consider taxes to be a threat of violence or extortion. More like rent or a bill. If I don't want to pay I can leave.

"Violence of the state"? I don't see the state as violent.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence by definition. https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

Leave to where? Rent for what? Does the government own you/me. Kids born in the U.S. are born into debt which they had no responsibility for incurring.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/01/washington-spending-still-rising-kids-born-in-2016-hold-42000-in-public-debt/

Can I rob you, spend some of the funds on things you want, would otherwise purchase, and then call it a tax? Then why can government?

If you don't pay your taxes what happens? You're arrested/jailed, if you resist your killed, how is that not a threat of violence or extortion?

[–]SkepticParatoxical 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not only does the government not own people or peoples property, it also does not have a monopoly on legal violence. One obvious example is I can be violent in defense of myself or my property.

Kids may be born in a country with debt, but they can leave it and the debt does not follow them. The kids are not in debt nor are they held accountable for it, the government is.

Robbery is taking another's property without consent, taxes are not robbery as I fully consent to pay them. I do consent to pay my rent to live, work and support the country I reside in.

Not paying taxes however, and still reaping the benefits of what you would be paying for (infrastructure, emergency services, etc...) is robbery. If you don't like taxes go to a country without them, like the UAE, Bermuda, Monaco, etc...(no income tax).

[–]kzielinski 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That or just go live off the grid. there are a number of people in the USA doing this. Granted from what I've seen the way they live does not look at all appealing. Political anarchists are a strange breed they seem to think they can somehow have all the benefits of modern society without any of the costs.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I just came across this today.

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/perry-willis/libertarian-worldview-questions/

What do you think of it?

[–]spaceghoti 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

Why would not resorting to violence to solve complex social problems work in small populations; but not in large.

Because humans are variable. The larger the sample size the larger the potential for variation. Just because you see the advantage in voluntarily cooperating with everyone else doesn't mean others won't find benefit in taking advantage of it. Game theory predicts that anarchism will ultimately devolve into chaos as no one can be sure who they can or can't trust.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

I'm not all that familiar with game theory. I read some of the linked wiki; but don't see how it predicts anarchism would devolve into chaos. I am familiar with this assertion, and will link to a video later that addresses it. I can't access youtube from work. As too people taking advantage, of course there will still be criminals; but our current system does too, and I would argue, legalizes criminality.

So whether or not game theory is correct in predicting chaos will result from anarchy isn't really the point. You don't seem to be disputing my point that our system is based on violence, only indicating that the violence is necessary due to the population size.

[–]spaceghoti 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

will link to a video later that addresses it.

If you link Stefan Molyneux I will downvote you so hard your teeth will ache.

As too people taking advantage, of course there will still be criminals; but our current system does too, and I would argue, legalizes criminality.

In order to enforce that you need some kind of order. You need people to come together to agree on what should be considered criminal and what isn't. You need to standardize it so those rules are applied equally and fairly and provide safeguards against human mistakes.

Whatever you choose to call this body, it ultimately becomes a government.

You don't seem to be disputing my point that our system is based on violence, only indicating that the violence is necessary due to the population size.

I didn't address the issue of violence because it's a non sequitur. It's because of ridiculous claims like this that your movement is treated like a religion.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Actually it's a schoolsuckspodcast video.

It's only government if you can't opt out, and it has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force to penalize you.

Statism is the religion. Anarchism would be akin to Atheism, hence my inquiry. How can the institutional violence of the state be a non sequitur. It's the core issue.

[–]spaceghoti 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

Actually it's a schoolsuckspodcast video.

Well, that certainly inspires confidence. You should probably save us both the time and energy and skip it.

It's only government if you can't opt out, and it has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force to penalize you.

Of course you can opt out. If you don't like the government you live under you can go find another or form your own. That's a ridiculous claim.

Statism is the religion. Anarchism would be akin to Atheism, hence my inquiry. How can the institutional violence of the state be a non sequitur. It's the core issue.

This right here is why no one takes you seriously. First of all, "statism" isn't a thing, let alone a religion. That's a straw man argument that "voluntarists" have constructed to argue for their cause that bears no relationship to what human governments are or do. And secondly you're engaging in equivocation on the definition of "religion" which further disqualifies your argument.

Any questions?

[–]AtheistW00ster 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Statism is the religion.

You sound just like the communist robots that came out of the old Soviet Union, prepped to pimp the superiority of the Soviets - sounds just as brainwashed!

Anarchism would be akin to Atheism

No, atheism rejects a supernatural claim - governments are not supernatural but consist of people!

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I reject the legitimacy of government's monopoly on the use of violence. I believe violence is only justified in self defense.

For me it's a moral issue. As was in large part my rejection of god. Obviously I'm in the minority here.

[–]AtheistW00ster 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I reject the legitimacy of government's monopoly on the use of violence. I believe violence is only justified in self defense.

That is quite frankly a nonsensical idea.

You want to give Tom, Dick and Harry the right to use violenece beyond what is allowed today? For what reason and /r/Whatcouldgowrong when some /r/holdmybeer guy is too drunk or when /r/amibeingdetained is upset about something?

How about the anti-abortion terrorists? Who should deal with them? Who would handle you being taken for a protection racket? You yourself would do the investigation and then what? Kill them? You have no legal system nor a police that can enforce any laws - what the fuck would you do?

I'm sure your noble moral ideas sounds fine in your brain but here in the real world they do not work!

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can have law without government.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

I don't want more violence in society, I want less. I want to remove the institutional violence that is an integral part of government.

[–]spaceghoti 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I don't follow any religion.

[–]kzielinski 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

My big problem with how god was portrayed is that he dosn't actualy exist. I mean if god actually was there rewarding good actions and punishing bad actions, the world would be a very different place. We would have one religeon because its realtiy woudl be self evidence and the workings of moral law would be as predictable as gravity.

The difference is that the state actually does exist, and I derive mesurable benefits from being a part of it. In a state of anarchy my life would be measurably wrose in many ways. I'm Australian, all I have to do is look north to Papua New Guinea and I can see what a country with no effective government looks like.

[–]Anti-Theistdarkcalling 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I toyed with the idea, explored anarchism a bit, found certain ideas interesting and potentially useful, but ultimately found the whole to be lacking. The problem is it is an individualist's pipe dream, it isn't practical in the real world for humans. Ultimately any anarchist state would devolve into factions and camps, might makes right and you'd eventually I think end up with either something like a failed state with several power groups fighting one another or one strong central government that is authoritarian in nature. At best you'd end up back at a democracy or republic.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just came across this today.

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/perry-willis/libertarian-worldview-questions/

What do you think of it?

[–]Anti-Theistdarkcalling 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

All government must be voluntarily funded, and anyone can compete to provide governmental services. For instance…

This has been tried before, it ends up very quickly not paying the bills for the soldiers who defend the state. Who then, having been refused fair recompense loot and pillage to get their money or worst case scenario are rallied around a strongman within their ranks who uses them to "seize" (i.e. loot and pillage under the guise of an organized power structure with central authority) goods to repay themselves and then some, from there it is a power trip to a dictatorship with the good life for the soldiers and their beloved leader who helped them in their time of need and a bad life for the citizenry under them.

You could pay the city police to patrol your neighborhood, or you could a hire a firm to do it.

This is just a shifting of a problem, they say the government is coercing theft from individuals without consent (taxes), but in such an instance this amounts to protection money with the choices being paying off the right party or parties in your area or those parties letting criminal elements know that you're free game to poach. So it isn't really a choice at all.

Good intentions, unfortunately bad results due to far too many people who have bad intentions.

[–]Anti-TheistNuclearWalrusNetwork 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

After the election I did some research and decided to become an anarchist.

[–]MeeHungLowe 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Most of the people I see around me are ignorant jerks, so no, I'm not in favor of them being able to do whatever the hell they want. I'm OK, and I know a few other people I think are reasonable human beings, and everyone else I wouldn't trust with a sharp knife. I also wouldn't give an 8 year-old an AK-47 and a truckload of ammo, because I think that wouldn't turnout very well for anyone.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not advocating for those ignorant jerks to be able to do whatever the hell they want. Im advocating for you not to be ruled by those ignorant jerks.

I just came across this today.

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/perry-willis/libertarian-worldview-questions/

What do you think of it?

[–]MeeHungLowe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think democracy isn't perfect, but it's still the best system we have.

[–]ZeroVia 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most people here aren't religious, by definition, though we do get a few Christians and Libertarians from time to time. Don't think I've ever seen an Anarchist though. Until now, obviously.

[–]Arden_Vaul 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not I. I personally find those systems of government as idiotic and ineffective as this one.

I believe in tyranny.

[–]SobinTulll 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

After reading some of your posts, I'm pretty sure you are a libertarian (but I could be wrong). Libertarianism is based off of Ayn Rand and her philosophy objectivism which is a romanticized fantasy. This is one of my favorite quotes on the subject,

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[–]Anti-TheistHarry_Teak -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I consider myself what I call a "common sense anarchist." While the idea of no, or at least minimal, government is a great idea, it would take generations to overcome the learned helplessness that governments have inflicted upon the vast majority.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is SO true. We're all kinda sucking at the government tit, to one degree or another.

[–]Anti-TheistHarry_Teak -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

The financial aspect is just the tip of that particular iceberg.

[–]mirth181degrees[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes it is.

I just came across this today.

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/perry-willis/libertarian-worldview-questions/

What do you think of it?

[–]Anti-TheistHarry_Teak -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not bad, and some very good ideas there. Mostly common sense, really. I think some distance needs to be placed between any philosophy and the word "libertarian" though.

[–]SkepticY2KNW -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I happen to like the idea of government when it comes to things like water, sewage, power, infrastructure maintenance, healthcare... you know, all the things the west has and Somalia doesn't.