Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical "anarchism"?

[fakename]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

Consider whether this kind of anarchy could work in a pluralistic society.

It seems likely that this type of "anarchy" (which is really a liberalized aristocracy) would fit a pluralistic society especially well: the whole system is a giant parliament and one essentially needs unanimous consent in order to make constitutional changes. But in case this is too inefficient there is also a court of general appeals. That plus the private execution of the laws makes the law a very flexible and precise thing -it also limits the amount of people who could lawfully be killed in case one section of society wants to fight the other.

The fact that people voluntarily support any decision of the arbiters or parliaments also makes social reform easier to take hold once established: Christianity took tight hold after it was agreed upon by the Icelanders.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

Because to check someone's power is to conflict with someone. So if everyone checks everyone else's power, then everyone is conflicting with everyone. So there is anarchy.

Anarchy in political science means absence of government, not just a mess.

In the US government, we have 3 branches of government, each of which provides checks against the others. This is so that power cannot be concentrated in one institution to the detriment of the people.

It is the same way in what the Church envisions as a good thing in government, in general. In a monarchy, the monarch is not to become a despot or tyrant, with all the power in his hands: he is to be restrained from that by the aristocrats or nobility. That system failed in the time of King Louis XIIII (L'etat, c'est moi), leading to the French Revolution.

However, it worked in England, where the nobles limited the King's power with the Magna Carta.

Notice where anarchy ensued.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by fakename

Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical anarchism?

For instance, Catholic political philosophy entails wanting both tolerance and justice, unchanging laws and a changeable application of those laws, subsidiary and solidarity, it is an "either or" philosophy.

But a political system that favors a thing and its opposite according to differences of circumstance and intention is basically "anarchy". Indeed we need people in a perfect Catholic state to, IMO, be unimpeded when they both follow laws and when they break them (in the case of unjust laws). And since most laws are opinions and since opinions should not become the subject of contentions, it follows that sometimes people can be allowed to disagree about what law they want to follow or not.

So is Catholic political philosophy "anarchistic"?

An obedient and humble catholic community would have no need of government.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Anarchy in political science means absence of government, not just a mess.

In the US government, we have 3 branches of government, each of which provides checks against the others. This is so that power cannot be concentrated in one institution to the detriment of the people.

It is the same way in what the Church envisions as a good thing in government, in general. In a monarchy, the monarch is not to become a despot or tyrant, with all the power in his hands: he is to be restrained from that by the aristocrats or nobility. That system failed in the time of King Louis XIIII (L'etat, c'est moi), leading to the French Revolution.

However, it worked in England, where the nobles limited the King's power with the Magna Carta.

Notice where anarchy ensued.

well then, does CST basically entail "a mess"?

And also, do you think that France had anarchy during the revolution? There was a government in the revolution, just a tyrannical revolutionary government. Anarchy in the sense of no state would mean that the highest social organization is the family, not necessarily that the state would be in chaos.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

An obedient and humble catholic community would have no need of government.

Well it would in order to have a common organization to aim at the common good. After all, the earliest men were ruled by Adam even though they were more virtuous than we are.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by fakename

Well it would in order to have a common organization to aim at the common good. After all, the earliest men were ruled by Adam even though they were more virtuous than we are.

The earliest Christian communities were "self-governing".

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

well then, does CST basically entail "a mess"?

It is your contention, not mine, that CST means anarchy. I have shown that it does not.

And also, do you think that France had anarchy during the revolution? There was a government in the revolution, just a tyrannical revolutionary government. Anarchy in the sense of no state would mean that the highest social organization is the family, not necessarily that the state would be in chaos.

Yes, I think that during the French Revolution the old government was overthown and it took time to establish a new government.

And in the absence of government, something to fill the power vacuum would spring up, people would be vying for that power, just as Mogadishu was in chaos as warlords vied for power when that government fell.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

It is your contention, not mine, that CST means anarchy. I have shown that it does not.


Yes, I think that during the French Revolution the old government was overthown and it took time to establish a new government.

And in the absence of government, something to fill the power vacuum would spring up, people would be vying for that power, just as Mogadishu was in chaos as warlords vied for power when that government fell.

why talk about "contentions"?

Anyways the question I now pose is whether you think the CST leads to "a mess"?

As for anarchy, it is difficult for me, to see where chaos begins and government ends:is a government that has no practical effect still a government -or is there a state of anarchy? If a government tries to cause disorder, is that anarchic or is it hyper-statist? Your opinion please?

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

why talk about "contentions"?

Why not?

Anyways the question I now pose is whether you think the CST leads to "a mess"?

What have I said that would lead you to ask that?

As for anarchy, it is difficult for me, to see where chaos begins and government ends:is a government that has no practical effect still a government -or is there a state of anarchy? If a government tries to cause disorder, is that anarchic or is it hyper-statist? Your opinion please?

My opinion: A government which cannot govern would be a state of anarchy

A government which tries to cause disorder would be a hyper-statist wannbe.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Why not?


What have I said that would lead you to ask that?


My opinion: A government which cannot govern would be a state of anarchy

A government which tries to cause disorder would be a hyper-statist wannbe.

(1) I'm not sure what I said that you are now referencing with the word "contention".

(2) you said that anarchy means more than just a mess. So then I asked if my scenario is not anarchy, then is it a mess?

(3) I'm not sure that the opinion is true though, since for instance, a state can choose to cause disorder by putting itself in a situation where it cannot govern. But this would imply that it is both hyper-statist and anarchic which is absurd. So I wonder what your further comments on this problem would be?

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

(1) I'm not sure what I said that you are now referencing with the word "contention".

It is your contention that CST would lead to anarchy--see the title of the thread. I am arguing against your contention that CST leads to anarchy.

(2) you said that anarchy means more than just a mess. So then I asked if my scenario is not anarchy, then is it a mess?

I meant it had a meaning other than a mess, notably absence of government. Upon further reflection, I realize that the mess some people use the word anarchy to refer to is generally a mess created by lack of "government:" anarchy reigned in the teenager's bedroom.

What I am saying is that checks on governmental power do not lead to anarchy. And I would also say that they do not lead to a mess, either. I think that checks on power are a good thing because a government with unlimited power generally leads to a hyperstatist mess.

(3) I'm not sure that the opinion is true though, since for instance, a state can choose to cause disorder by putting itself in a situation where it cannot govern. But this would imply that it is both hyper-statist and anarchic which is absurd. So I wonder what your further comments on this problem would be?

Why would a government do that?

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

It is your contention that CST would lead to anarchy--see the title of the thread. I am arguing against your contention that CST leads to anarchy.


I meant it had a meaning other than a mess, notably absence of government. Upon further reflection, I realize that the mess some people use the word anarchy to refer to is generally a mess created by lack of "government:" anarchy reigned in the teenager's bedroom.

What I am saying is that checks on governmental power do not lead to anarchy. And I would also say that they do not lead to a mess, either. I think that checks on power are a good thing because a government with unlimited power generally leads to a hyperstatist mess.


Why would a government do that?

(1) so then what would you say the CST leads to? Clearly it leads to a lot of decentralization and non-linear reactions.

(2) maybe the governors are nihilistic and that's why they want to introduce chaos.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

(1) so then what would you say the CST leads to? Clearly it leads to a lot of decentralization and non-linear reactions.

Decentralization and non-linear reactions are not anarchy. In fact, I would contend that decentralization and individualization (to the appropriate level of society) is a good thing, not a bad thing.

(2) maybe the governors are nihilistic and that's why they want to introduce chaos.

A government which induces chaos for the purpose of increasing control and power is behaving badly. A government which induces chaos solely for the purpose of creating chaos is also acting badly, but in addition are acting completely irrationally; therefore, one cannot have a rational opinion about it.

The whole point of government is to reduce chaos.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by fakename

Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical anarchism?

For instance, Catholic political philosophy entails wanting both tolerance and justice, unchanging laws and a changeable application of those laws, subsidiary and solidarity, it is an "either or" philosophy.

But a political system that favors a thing and its opposite according to differences of circumstance and intention is basically "anarchy". Indeed we need people in a perfect Catholic state to, IMO, be unimpeded when they both follow laws and when they break them (in the case of unjust laws). And since most laws are opinions and since opinions should not become the subject of contentions, it follows that sometimes people can be allowed to disagree about what law they want to follow or not.

So is Catholic political philosophy "anarchistic"?

This is a good example of the kind of nonsense Catholics can talk themselves into believing in the absence of robust and trustworthy catechesis.

It is OBVIOUSLY belied by the thousand-plus years of explicitly Catholic civilization which was highly authoritarian, orderly, and structured, which was in no meaningful sense "anarchistic," and which only a few leftist hippy-dippy pseudo-Catholic free love types, or the ones who desperately want to be good little rah-rah Americanists, sincerely believe was in no way reflective of a genuinely Catholic culture.

Fakename, I'm genuinely worried about you. Every day I log on and see bizarre questions like this from you. Where are they coming from? What are you reading? What are you thinking? Frankly, your posts are so muddled, so utterly detached from what ordinary people think about anything, that I can't even point to anything in your thought process to say "this is definitely wrong." I don't mean that in a tortured-genius, maybe-you're-just-thinking-at-a-way-higher-level-than-anyone-else good way. It rather reminds of the obscene intellectual contortions that leftists put themselves through to rationalize their choice to believe the obviously meritless things they believe.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by sw85

This is a good example of the kind of nonsense Catholics can talk themselves into believing in the absence of robust and trustworthy catechesis.

It is OBVIOUSLY belied by the thousand-plus years of explicitly Catholic civilization which was highly authoritarian, orderly, and structured, which was in no meaningful sense "anarchistic," and which only a few leftist hippy-dippy pseudo-Catholic free love types, or the ones who desperately want to be good little rah-rah Americanists, sincerely believe was in no way reflective of a genuinely Catholic culture.

Fakename, I'm genuinely worried about you. Every day I log on and see bizarre questions like this from you. Where are they coming from? What are you reading? What are you thinking? Frankly, your posts are so muddled, so utterly detached from what ordinary people think about anything, that I can't even point to anything in your thought process to say "this is definitely wrong." I don't mean that in a tortured-genius, maybe-you're-just-thinking-at-a-way-higher-level-than-anyone-else good way. It rather reminds of the obscene intellectual contortions that leftists put themselves through to rationalize their choice to believe the obviously meritless things they believe.

It's obvious enough that the former part of your post is correct and that's why I put the word "anarchy" in quotation marks several times and used the word "practical" so as to differentiate it from formal or essential anarchy.


This may enrage you but it shouldn't since it's just my opinion, but the latter part of the post was rather long for the message being conveyed. I would shorten it because it may lead people to think that you were being too angry; tempers flare and thread wars commence that way.

But as to substance, I read stuff that is pretty normal from your POV: Aristotle (everything I can and as much as I can), Aquinas, and some Rothbard.

I read other things but nothing out of the ordinary: some math and logic books and of course, history.

No need to fear the guy with kooky questions: what other questions would anyone ask?