Does Catholic political philosophy reduce to practical "anarchism"?

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

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.


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.

This still seems to be problematic. For if the conditionals that if a government causes disorder then it is hyperstatist and all disorder is anarchy, and all states that make anarchy are beyond opinion, are true, then that would imply that if a government acts to make disorder then it is hyper-statist and beyond all reason. And yet, you said it was beyond all reason and yet stated that it's (the state) essence (hyper-statist) so there would still be a contradiction (between stating the essence and saying that what the state is, is beyond all reason)? Or am I missing something?

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

This still seems to be problematic. For if the conditionals that if a government causes disorder then it is hyperstatist and all disorder is anarchy, and all states that make anarchy are beyond opinion, are true, then that would imply that if a government acts to make disorder then it is hyper-statist and beyond all reason. And yet, you said it was beyond all reason and yet stated that it's (the state) essence (hyper-statist) so there would still be a contradiction (between stating the essence and saying that what the state is, is beyond all reason)? Or am I missing something?

I think you are missing something.

[St Francis]

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.

I thought he was just young.

[tarboy]

No, Catholic political philosophy is not "anarchistic"

Your premise is faulty - tolerance is not the opposite of Justice. In fact, they go hand in hand, in a well crafted environment. They prevent anarchy.

Tolerance teaches us to allow legal views outside our own (right to free speech)
Catholic tolerance does not require us to allow illegal activities (pedophelia)

The US system of justice by design hastolerance built into the system.
- Prosecutors have flexibility in what charges to pursue, based on past behavior
- Juries introduce compassion and justice into the process
- Judges are allowed a range of sentences

[fakename]

Originally Posted by tarboy

No, Catholic political philosophy is not "anarchistic"

Your premise is faulty - tolerance is not the opposite of Justice. In fact, they go hand in hand, in a well crafted environment. They prevent anarchy.

Tolerance teaches us to allow legal views outside our own (right to free speech)
Catholic tolerance does not require us to allow illegal activities (pedophelia)

The US system of justice by design hastolerance built into the system.
- Prosecutors have flexibility in what charges to pursue, based on past behavior
- Juries introduce compassion and justice into the process
- Judges are allowed a range of sentences

What I meant was that tolerance is the opposite action from justice a lot of the time and enough so, that a system desiring both can be called "anarchistic". This is because justice (most of the time IMO) entails punishment but tolerance entails not punishing if the reason is good enough. These are two different acts which are equally defensible by the same ethical system. So that system is what I call (improperly from one POV) "anarchistic" or what comes to the same "flexible".

[St Francis]

Fakename,
What is your definition of anarchy? because sometimes the way you use it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

What I meant was that tolerance is the opposite action from justice a lot of the time and enough so, that a system desiring both can be called "anarchistic". This is because justice (most of the time IMO) entails punishment but tolerance entails not punishing if the reason is good enough. These are two different acts which are equally defensible by the same ethical system. So that system is what I call (improperly from one POV) "anarchistic" or what comes to the same "flexible".

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn't seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either--the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by St Francis

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn't seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either--the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

The proper definition of anarchy is "without a ruler". The early Christian communes were "anarchic". Yes, the people followed the lead of the apostles, voluntarily. Part of the requirements of a ruler (some form of -archic system, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, etc...) is power to impose upon the unconforming. The Native American Great Plains tribes were anarchic. Every man was his own man. Anarchic doesn't mean that there are no cultural rules that determine what is acceptable behavior in that group.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

The proper definition of anarchy is "without a ruler". The early Christian communes were "anarchic". Yes, the people followed the lead of the apostles, voluntarily. Part of the requirements of a ruler (some form of -archic system, monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, etc...) is power to impose upon the unconforming. The Native American Great Plains tribes were anarchic. Every man was his own man. Anarchic doesn't mean that there are no cultural rules that determine what is acceptable behavior in that group.

The Apostles did have the authority to do something about those who did not "conform," as you call it, altho I shall call it misbehaving, as we see in the Epistles, they kicked out people who did not behave. Those who misbehaved in Acts were killed by God.

Moreover, I find it very difficult to believe that Native American communities had no way to impose some sort of power over those who misbehaved. What would the point be of the Iroquois governmental system if it had no power?

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

What is your definition of anachy? Sometimes the normal defintion doesn't seem to work in what you are writing. And I am not too sure of your use of the word tolerance, either--the opposite of justice would be mercy, no?

"Anarchy" for me, is what you would call "a mess".

This is due to the Hobbesian definition of "anarchy" being a state of war of all versus all.

I don't actually believe that all "anarchy" entails literal war, but by simile a mess or chaotic jumble is like a war of all against all and so even a peaceful "mess' I call "anarchy".

However this definition is not the true definition of anarchy and it certainly is consistent with government, that is, a form of state (monarchy, aristocracy, etc.). And that is why I put " " around the word anarchy.

And to reiterate, I call justice the opposite of tolerance only inasmuch as they sometimes require opposite actions. Justice requires punishment many times, and tolerance requires that we don't punish. However again, I am only speaking of justice and tolerance from the point of view of the actions they sometimes entail. It is from the interaction of these contrary actions that I call morality a principle of "anarchy".

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

"Anarchy" for me, is what you would call "a mess".

This is due to the Hobbesian definition of "anarchy" being a state of war of all versus all.

I don't actually believe that all "anarchy" entails literal war, but by simile a mess or chaotic jumble is like a war of all against all and so even a peaceful "mess' I call "anarchy".

However this definition is not the true definition of anarchy and it certainly is consistent with government, that is, a form of state (monarchy, aristocracy, etc.). And that is why I put " " around the word anarchy.

And to reiterate, I call justice the opposite of tolerance only inasmuch as they sometimes require opposite actions. Justice requires punishment many times, and tolerance requires that we don't punish. However again, I am only speaking of justice and tolerance from the point of view of the actions they sometimes entail. It is from the interaction of these contrary actions that I call morality a principle of "anarchy".

It would be really helpful if you would use words the way they are meant to be used, or be more clear when you put them in quotation marks.

Tolerance is not part of morality.



And the way to win an argument is to prove your point, not mangle everything until you reach the conclusion you were hoping for. So far, you have offered absolutely no evidence for your contention that CST leads to anarchy or a mess, unless by mess you mean a state in which authority is less centralized, according to the level of involvement needed.

For example, there are two towns. In one, they might decide to find a public library; in the other, they might decide that since the rich family in town already lends out its books to people that they do not need to find a library. No problem: different decisions for different situations. This is not a "mess." And it would be bad for the Federal government to suddenly come down and say that every town had to find a library no matter what their circumstances, wouldn't it?

OTOH, when cars first started being driven, there were different stop light set-ups for different towns. In some, the lights were horizontal, and the colors could go in either direction; in others, the lights were vertical, but also in different directions. So people would drive from town to town and get confused, esp if they were colorblind (red-green is the most common form of color-blindness). So it makes sense for this to be standardized across the state or across the nation.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

It would be really helpful if you would use words the way they are meant to be used, or be more clear when you put them in quotation marks.

Tolerance is not part of morality.



And the way to win an argument is to prove your point, not mangle everything until you reach the conclusion you were hoping for. So far, you have offered absolutely no evidence for your contention that CST leads to anarchy or a mess, unless by mess you mean a state in which authority is less centralized, according to the level of involvement needed.

For example, there are two towns. In one, they might decide to find a public library; in the other, they might decide that since the rich family in town already lends out its books to people that they do not need to find a library. No problem: different decisions for different situations. This is not a "mess." And it would be bad for the Federal government to suddenly come down and say that every town had to find a library no matter what their circumstances, wouldn't it?

OTOH, when cars first started being driven, there were different stop light set-ups for different towns. In some, the lights were horizontal, and the colors could go in either direction; in others, the lights were vertical, but also in different directions. So people would drive from town to town and get confused, esp if they were colorblind (red-green is the most common form of color-blindness). So it makes sense for this to be standardized across the state or across the nation.

I think certainly a mess is implied in the existence of equity courts, that is, courts that exist mostly to dispense from laws when they are rendered unjust by circumstances. But circumstances are constantly shifting so it seems that a CST-based state would be rather shiftier than normal ( if it were perfect).

But also, tolerance is a part of morality (I think as a part of courage).

But my use of the word anarchy was rather part of the common usage, for anarchy implies chaos and chaos is a mess and so anarchy is a mess. And my use of anarchy was none other than to imply that it was a mess.

The only difference between my use and common use is that anarchy commonly implies lack of a state. But the common use of the word state is, perhaps, incorrect according to what I've studied a state to be. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that my view of anarchy and what it entails for states and statelessness should differ from the common one.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

But also, tolerance is a part of morality (I think as a part of courage).

Can you document this? I have never seen it anywhere.

I think certainly a mess is implied in the existence of equity courts, that is, courts that exist mostly to dispense from laws when they are rendered unjust by circumstances. But circumstances are constantly shifting so it seems that a CST-based state would be rather shiftier than normal ( if it were perfect).

Life is messy. It's not messy because of CST but just because it is filled with flawed human beings.

But my use of the word anarchy was rather part of the common usage, for anarchy implies chaos and chaos is a mess and so anarchy is a mess. And my use of anarchy was none other than to imply that it was a mess.

When people use the word anarchy to imply a mess, they are referring to things other than government. When they are discussing government, the context demands the proper use of the word anarchy.

The only difference between my use and common use is that anarchy commonly implies lack of a state. But the common use of the word state is, perhaps, incorrect according to what I've studied a state to be.

What do you mean by this?

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that my view of anarchy and what it entails for states and statelessness should differ from the common one.

If you are going to use words in an uncommon way, you must be clear about that and the definitions you are using at the beginning. Using quotation marks is not sufficient.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Can you document this? I have never seen it anywhere.


Life is messy. It's not messy because of CST but just because it is filled with flawed human beings.


When people use the word anarchy to imply a mess, they are referring to things other than government. When they are discussing government, the context demands the proper use of the word anarchy.


What do you mean by this?


If you are going to use words in an uncommon way, you must be clear about that and the definitions you are using at the beginning. Using quotation marks is not sufficient.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm

Tolerance is,
"the magnanimous determination not to interfere with the evil, but to allow it to run its course without molestation."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm

As seen here, magnanimity is classified as a part of fortitude or courage.

So tolerance must be courage.

Now to the other points:

(1) That's an astute observation. So let me correct myself by asking do you think that CST is consistent with a messy world? I think it is.

(2) I've had different experiences with how I've sen others use the word,.

(3) Actually I asked a priest for some clarification and it turns out that I was wrong about this (I might ask for more though later). Basically in every definition of state I've read the state is a thing which does good things for the sake of the community. So there is no state which is bad -a bad state is not a state at all. So again I was wrong apparently, but would you know why? Perhaps somehow, a state's can be good even though it doesn't do anything for the community and does evil stuff too?

(4)I'll be more explicit about how I use words from now on.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by fakename

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm

Tolerance is,
"the magnanimous determination not to interfere with the evil, but to allow it to run its course without molestation."

Yes, it seems that tolerance can be a virtue, in a narrow sense. I had not heard that before. If you read further in the article on tolerance, you find that tolerance, like other virtues, can turn into vice by being either too much, or too little.

Tolerance in a court of law sounds to me like a judge letting a serial drunk-driver off because he is convinced by an argument of different strokes for different folks.

The action of mitigation by a judge wrt say, giving a lower sentence because the person was young, the person has made restitution, etc. is called mercy. Legally, I guess it's also called clemncy.

So tolerance must be courage.

Just remember that like courage, toleration can turn into vice both by a lack or by an excess.

Now to the other points:

(1) That's an astute observation. So let me correct myself by asking do you think that CST is consistent with a messy world? I think it is.

CST is consistent with reality. That the world is messy is reality. Therefore, CST is consistent with a messy world.

(3) Actually I asked a priest for some clarification and it turns out that I was wrong about this (I might ask for more though later). Basically in every definition of state I've read the state is a thing which does good things for the sake of the community. So there is no state which is bad -a bad state is not a state at all. So again I was wrong apparently, but would you know why? Perhaps somehow, a state's can be good even though it doesn't do anything for the community and does evil stuff too?

Hmmmm, this is an interesting point.

Let's consider this: the definition of a wife is that she is a woman who is faithful to one man, her husband...

But we know that some women don't do all these things. Are they then not wives? No, they are bad wives.

The Church teaches that there are inherently bad forms of government, but overall that government is good and necessary to a human society, human nature being what it is. Therefore, government is a necessary good, a-narchy (in its most formal sense) is bad.

So I would say not that a government (which is slightly different from the state itself) is merely by virtue of its existence doing good things and that if it is not doing good things it is not a government, but that one can have good governments and bad governments, just as we can have good wives and bad wives.

(4)I'll be more explicit about how I use words from now on.

It can be tough, sometimes our thoughts seem so clear to ourselves, but they just don't come across in writing.