Christian Anarchism

[Crixus]

Having been asked to discuss my beliefs as an anarchist and a Christian, I think it most prudent to begin this topic by first establishing what anarchism is.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt. That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief. Anarchism, however, is very much a tradition of intellectuals, it's rather uncertain how the notion came to be, however most point to Bakunin as the Anarchist parallel to Marx. In the later portions of the 19th century and early 20th century anarchism was wide-spread, even so much as to build international institutions such as the anarchist black cross, an organization to support political prisoners, and the anarchist international. However, anarchists became an easy scapegoat in many instances for those wishing to discredit them, and anytime a bomb was put to ill-use, or any action was seen that might serve to undermine the word of the industrialist bosses a cry of "anarchists!" could be heard, much as communists would be later blamed for any disruption in the divine capitalist order.

It would be far to exhaustive to explain anarchism, here, in its entirety, in brief however it would be easiest to say that anarchism is a belief in community and equality amongst men and the end of hierarchical statism. Anarchy is witnessed everyday between friends, family, and neighbors. When one helps his neighbor it is not because of governmental compulsion, but his own volition. Anarchism is often wrongly portrayed as desiring no rules, which is not what anarchism is about; anarchists understand that a community has potential for bad elements and thus must be policed, but those rules would not be imposed upon the community by some patriarchal overlord or a few oligarchs in a senate building half-way across the world. Anarchism is about the people truly governing themselves.

Christian anarchism is derived from the notion that because man is fallible, and because his laws can often contradict the word of god, no government of man can be right for a Christian. While one king maybe good the next will likely not be. As I interpret the bible there is a clear message to the faithful that they should be beholden to no lord but God. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

As I said that many anarchists look to Bakunin as their progenitor he, like Marx, maintained a dogma of atheism, which is why many Christians despise anarchists and communists. However it is his contemporary Tolstoy who many Christian anarchists feel to have been a major influence in their politics. Though never using the term anarchism himself his ideas were certainly parallel, however they were inclusive of God. Many non-Christian anarchists feel his works are of great value to their cause as well. You would probably be surprised to find that the history of anarchism is actually populated with quite a few Christians.

For my part, since I understand my views, I would like to understand why any Christian would be pro-state, since this is a forum for debate, if anyone holds such views I think it would make for an enriching discourse if they would care to post about them.

[Corvus]

Let me say, Crixius, that this is fascinating. The sense of community that the government tries to force on people through communism is what you are trying to achieve here, all without government! However, I distrust it for the same reasons I do communism; it's too much of an ideal. I admit, I'm something of a socialist, and winced when you used statist as a bad word. I look around me and note that every one of my pleasures has been gotten at the expense of someone else. Every object that I own, I own at the expense of another. I am comfortable and am middle class. I suspect that even some of the lower class would be considered rich by the standards of the past. But a lot of the lower class still suffer, while we chat away about systems of government. The libertarian response to this suffering is to increase the flow of wealth, as if by throwing more money to the people who already have plenty will somehow engender feelings of generosity. My response is to skim more money off the top of the wealth of the wealthier, to ease the sufferings of the poorer. What is anarchism’s response? To let people decide how to make money, and let people decide how to spend it? I'm not sure if that reassures the unskilled poor. Then there are the institutions that are bolstered by tax dollars. Will our hospitals, our morgues, our ambulances, our methadone clinics, our fire brigades, all be kept afloat by voluntary donations? It would be easier to tax and divide.

The only place I can see anarchism working in is small communities, where survival is of mutual interest and generates unity. In such cases, anarchism becomes almost indistinguishable from communism.

I think the current problem is that citizens and government see one and the other as "us and them". There is most definitely a class where there shouldn't be, where civil servants may well be civil, but are no longer servants.

In an anarchy, is there be a universal set of laws over the state?
If not, how can justice be achieved when people that commit wrongs (murder, rape)?
If so, how can the laws be enforced?
How can the state protect itself from other states invading it?

I can answer some. Crixius did say his police force would be made of volunteers. It could also be a private company, I suppose. From what I understand of politics, every government's duty is the protection of its citizens. Different political theories take that protection to different levels. In a communist government, the government protects the citizen from absolutely everything; poverty, hunger, cold, burden of children, as well as what we see in our current government, insurance against theft and compensation for loss of occupation or whatever. In anarchism I think we see the government protecting against the bare minimum; loss of life, loss of property, loss of liberty.

That Crixius claims this as the true Christian political theory is fascinating, but leaves me with some questions. If every man is free to serve God as he chooses, and every atheist free to do as he wishes, I have to ask, what of certain deeds that are of questionable ethical value to Christians, but not to others? Currently, a lot of Christians look towards the government as a way of rectifying what they see as sinful behaviour. What of homosexuality? What of voluntary euthanasia? What of stem cell research? What of abortions? All morality is subjective, true, but morality is universalisable. One can disagree over whether abortion is wrong, but an anti-abortionist tolerating abortion calls into question their ethical stance. So, would all these be free to be practiced under an anarchist government?

[Crixus]

I do have some anarchistic tendencies in which I believe governments should be as small as possible. But, I can't see how a pure anarchy can work on a large scale (such as the US).

Certainly problems would arise in a free system, but as with issues surrounding democracy most of the problems would be issues of perspective, that is to say people not understanding or not believing in the system, however most of these would likely be overcome. No one can say that it would not be at times a struggle, as it is a struggle for former totalitarian nations to grasp the idea of freedom and democracy, but these struggles would be nothing that time and education could not overcome.

In an anarchy, is there be a universal set of laws over the state?

Well, there wouldn't be a state per se, one thing that anarchism is weary of is sectioning off the planet with imaginary lines. These man made barriers have throughout history become idols for their citizens to bow to, and all to often have been the reasons for bloody and pointless conflict. Now assuming that there are areas governed by none anarchist practices then the anarchist "state" would simply be an area that no longer abides authoritarian governance.

Laws in an anarchist society would be diverse depending upon the community, much as laws in our society change from city to city. However there would be certain requirements for a community to remain an anarchist society, if they stray from that path then, obviously, they are no longer anarchist.

Most universal laws must of course be maintained, murder, rape, theft (although it must be noted that many anarchists favor usufruct properties so theft laws would be much different) and all laws which essentially remove the right to put one person's will over another. If a state allows murder it allows privilege to the murderer over the victim, this is not an anarchist state.

If so, how can the laws be enforced?

Well as with any place laws must be enforced by men, in this case however the policing entity would not be a privileged caste as they are in our society, but more likely as I said earlier a group of volunteers. If they were paid it would be a voluntary tax much like when a community on a private road decides that road is in need of repairs. This may seem an odd idea, however most people would agree that their communities require a peacekeeping force of some sort, and thus would likely choose to donate time or material aid.

How can the state protect itself from other states invading it?

Likely the people would make up the militia, perhaps communities would send their own units to protect from outside forces, this as with many issues would vary from community to community as it does today from nation to nation.

Ideally however this would not be a concern; it's an understandable question but, it is more important for an anarchist society to serve its peoples needs than to build armies, and it would be expected that many would defend their home and freedom from an invading force.

Let me say, Crixius, that this is fascinating. The sense of community that the government tries to force on people through communism is what you are trying to achieve here, all without government! However, I distrust it for the same reasons I do communism; it's too much of an ideal. I admit, I'm something of a socialist, and winced when you used statist as a bad word. I look around me and note that every one of my pleasures has been gotten at the expense of someone else. Every object that I own, I own at the expense of another. I am comfortable and am middle class. I suspect that even some of the lower class would be considered rich by the standards of the past. But a lot of the lower class still suffer, while we chat away about systems of government. The libertarian response to this suffering is to increase the flow of wealth, as if by throwing more money to the people who already have plenty will somehow engender feelings of generosity. My response is to skim more money off the top of the wealth of the wealthier, to ease the sufferings of the poorer. What is anarchism’s response? To let people decide how to make money, and let people decide how to spend it? I'm not sure if that reassures the unskilled poor. Then there are the institutions that are bolstered by tax dollars. Will our hospitals, our morgues, our ambulances, our methadone clinics, our fire brigades, all be kept afloat by voluntary donations? It would be easier to tax and divide.

Well, I consider myself a socialist, though not by the dictionary definition of "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state" - MW. Socialism in the sense of public controlled industries, which is socialism, however since Marx's ideals of statist socialism became so popular the term has been rather distorted. Anarchists have traditionally fought to destroy capitalism where ever it is found, believing it to be aristocracy. In most anarchist circles capitalism is enemy number one often more so than the state, assuming you have a rather liberal state. However in totalitarian states, socialist or capitalist, it is the state that is more oppressive than the economics and therefore the greater of the enemies. There are people who call themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists” however most anarchists consider that rather an oxymoron, and those people simply laissez-faire capitalists.

I must yet clarify that since there are many different flavors of anarchism as far as economics go, there is honestly no one answer. However in the sense that the poor and unskilled have unmet needs most anarchist, I think, would look toward communal aid of some sort. Aside from those anarchists who believe in an agrarian system, I think it would be likely that those who wish to work in carpentry would be taught thusly to be carpenters by offering their assistance to carpenters, in a sort of free form apprenticeship. Anarcho-syndicalists would probably agree to communal taxes for those who have been abundantly successful but these things once again would be by community and of course are debated widely in anarchist circles. Voluntary donations have been used in the past, however that is not to exclude taxes as a means to support social programs, so long as the taxes are decided on by the same community that is spending the taxes.

I can't speak to immense governments the size of the United States without sacrificing some of what Anarchism is about, however there are anarchists who accept those sacrifices, they would be generally small sacrifices so long as the economy could support them, however once a tax becomes burdensome then obviously there would arise a conflict with anarchist principles and would imply that the economics would not be great enough to support such a large state and thereby force the diminishing of the state to a point where all within could thrive.

Noam Chomsky, an anarcho-syndicalist, is one who has touched on the subject of larger states, but that isn't necessarily supported by all anarchists.

As to the issue of community, it should be expected in a non-capitalist society that people would be free to group together with those of like-mind, instead of moving to where they can afford, and would do so naturally so compulsory community would not be necessary, and being that an anarchist society would necessarily be open. Discrimination and such things would have to be erased for the community to be anarchic. You could not for example have a racist or sexist anarchist society because those things would destroy the ideals of equality which anarchism is based around.

That Crixius claims this as the true Christian political theory is fascinating, but leaves me with some questions. If every man is free to serve God as he chooses, and every atheist free to do as he wishes, I have to ask, what of certain deeds that are of questionable ethical value to Christians, but not to others? Currently, a lot of Christians look towards the government as a way of rectifying what they see as sinful behaviour. What of homosexuality? What of voluntary euthanasia? What of stem cell research? What of abortions? All morality is subjective, true, but morality is universalisable. One can disagree over whether abortion is wrong, but an anti-abortionist tolerating abortion calls into question their ethical stance. So, would all these be free to be practiced under an anarchist government?

Well, I think that it is important to remember that god gave us free will. I don't recall Christ attempting to stone homosexual Romans, so I think it would be between a person and god. Since in an anarchic system marriage should probably not be a state institution that issue should be moot. As for abortion, it would likely vary community to community, you cannot force one community to abolish or allow abortions amongst their citizens. However if one community is pro-life there is no reason for a compulsory abortion clinic within their community. An issue might arise when one crosses over to another community, the issue of whether said person is a murderer or not within a pro-life community. This however would probably mean that a person from a pro-life community, who crosses to another community to receive an abortion, could not return to the original community without being prosecuted.

This is an issue that has yet to be resolved even amongst the world today and anarchism is not such a dogmatic belief that it can answer all of our moral dilemmas for us. It serves that any moral conflict that plagues the world today would remain an issue to be worked out in an anarchist society.

[Corvus]

Well as with any place laws must be enforced by men, in this case however the policing entity would not be a privileged caste as they are in our society, but more likely as I said earlier a group of volunteers. If they were paid it would be a voluntary tax much like when a community on a private road decides that road is in need of repairs. This may seem an odd idea, however most people would agree that their communities require a peacekeeping force of some sort, and thus would likely choose to donate time or material aid.

This is all highly novel for me, so excuse me if I seem too inquisitive. I really can't imagine anyone not wanting to pay the voluntary fee, so I have to wonder why have it as voluntary in the first place. the same goes for health care, fire brigades, and so on.

Likely the people would make up the militia, perhaps communities would send their own units to protect from outside forces, this as with many issues would vary from community to community as it does today from nation to nation.

Although I consider most defence spending as a considerable and useless drain on the economy, I have to recognise the possibility of new technological threats that can only be met with an up to date and experienced army. Militia would be lovely if we were fighting in the fields of the 18th century, though.

There are people who call themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists” however most anarchists consider that rather an oxymoron, and those people simply laissez-faire capitalists.

I believe the people you are referring to are libertarians, who also go by the name of "minarchists". They recognise a need for a small government with restricted powers, and see them as "necessary evils".

I must yet clarify that since there are many different flavors of anarchism as far as economics go, there is honestly no one answer. However in the sense that the poor and unskilled have unmet needs most anarchist, I think, would look toward communal aid of some sort. Aside from those anarchists who believe in an agrarian system, I think it would be likely that those who wish to work in carpentry would be taught thusly to be carpenters by offering their assistance to carpenters, in a sort of free form apprenticeship.

Like the way things used to be. But this again sounds far too much a picture of an ideal to me. The reason things are done now like they are is that the entire country recognises a certain standard of quality. Educational institutes are no longer concerned with the pursuit of knowledge, but the pursuit of workmanship. It's a fact I weep over, but one that I recognise as more or less essential. But when I consider anarchism - almost alien to me - I realise that what you are proposing is a return to small communities. You would like something similar to what the Amish have been doing, correct? In which case, since there will be no anonymity, no certificates of expertise will be needed. But the economy, the vast landscapes that make up whole united peoples and countries won't exist. I can accept it will be a whole lot more serene, and would result in the destruction of what we call "national progress" and an increase in a more personal progress... but who would accept such a drastic change, and who could do it first without fearing the consequences of weakening its united borders?

Anarcho-syndicalists would probably agree to communal taxes for those who have been abundantly successful but these things once again would be by community and of course are debated widely in anarchist circles. Voluntary donations have been used in the past, however that is not to exclude taxes as a means to support social programs, so long as the taxes are decided on by the same community that is spending the taxes.

I see.

As to the issue of community, it should be expected in a non-capitalist society that people would be free to group together with those of like-mind, instead of moving to where they can afford, and would do so naturally so compulsory community would not be necessary, and being that an anarchist society would necessarily be open. Discrimination and such things would have to be erased for the community to be anarchic. You could not for example have a racist or sexist anarchist society because those things would destroy the ideals of equality which anarchism is based around.

That makes sense - only I feel sorry for the children born with different beliefs to their parents. This inspires more questions, however. I have to wonder how these communities can have any definite boundaries when urban sprawl gets worse and worse. I suppose in the same way we have local councils, but it I still have trouble imagining likeminded people grouping together to form communities, or how difficult it would be for a community to maintain its homogenous qualities when the next suburb may espouse an entirely different code of ethics. I imagine people being most reactive to the issues they disagree with in their own communities, challenging them, and not moving.

Finally I'd like to ask, who organises the distribution of land? Would squatting be acceptable?

This is an issue that has yet to be resolved even amongst the world today and anarchism is not such a dogmatic belief that it can answer all of our moral dilemmas for us. It serves that any moral conflict that plagues the world today would remain an issue to be worked out in an anarchist society.

I think you mean anarchist societies, yes?

Oh, by the way, you may be interested to know Quarkhead actually lives on an Indian reservation – the Makah Nation, I believe it’s called. I think – though I’m not sure – he might be more familiar with what you’re talking about.

[otseng]

Like Corvus, this area is new to me too. So, some more questions.

Well, there wouldn't be a state per se, one thing that anarchism is weary of is sectioning off the planet with imaginary lines. These man made barriers have throughout history become idols for their citizens to bow to, and all to often have been the reasons for bloody and pointless conflict.

Wouldn't there still be something (besides geography) to define an anarchist community? Would it be the set of laws that the community accepts?

Laws in an anarchist society would be diverse depending upon the community, much as laws in our society change from city to city.

How would the laws get defined?

Well as with any place laws must be enforced by men, in this case however the policing entity would not be a privileged caste as they are in our society, but more likely as I said earlier a group of volunteers.

If a group of volunteers were setup to enforce the laws, wouldn't this in itself create them in a class with a higher level of authority?

Likely the people would make up the militia, perhaps communities would send their own units to protect from outside forces, this as with many issues would vary from community to community as it does today from nation to nation.

If the groups of people fighting used weapons readily available, then a militia might be possible. But a small community wouldn't have the resources to fight against tanks, jet planes, or battleships. It seems like anarchist communities would get easily swallowed up by aggressive states.

I look around me and note that every one of my pleasures has been gotten at the expense of someone else. Every object that I own, I own at the expense of another.

I would disagree with this, but that's for another thread. A good book discussing this is "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", by Thomas Sowell.

Anarchists have traditionally fought to destroy capitalism where ever it is found, believing it to be aristocracy.

Why would anarchists link capitalism with aristocracy?

What are the differences between libertarianism and anarchism?

[Crixus]

This is all highly novel for me, so excuse me if I seem too inquisitive.

No need for apologies. I feel that answering questions about ones belief helps them to more fully grasp their ideals.

However I am feeling some pressure because, it seems, I may be the only exposure that readers on this board have had to actual anarchist thought. This is burdensome in that if my statement is misrepresentative of anarchism then it is possible that my fallacy will be carried with the reader in their thoughts about anarchism. As such I would like to suggest that anyone who is interested in anarchism, enough to read about it, but perhaps not enough yet to digest an entire book, that they should go to this site www.anarchistfaq.org which has an rather extensive FAQ on anarchist thought.

I really can't imagine anyone not wanting to pay the voluntary fee, so I have to wonder why have it as voluntary in the first place. the same goes for health care, fire brigades, and so on.

Nor would I understand why anyone, who was capable of giving the aid, might refuse. There may very well be communities where taxes are collected in order to maintain a socialized society, but the burden would likely fall to the industries and not individuals.

Compulsory taxes, placed on individuals, I see as a detriment, especially to anarchism, because they can affect those few marginal people who cannot, for any number of reasons, afford the tax. If one person is overly burdened by the compulsory tax then it is not treating them as an equal and therefore favoring those who can. This is a slippery slope, because then laws would have to be in place for those deficient in funds to avert the tax, this would revive wonderful bureaucracies around things like, the IRS, tax brackets, tax attorneys, ect. before you know it you would have a fully bureaucratic government.

This is not to say that it would never be attempted, however in my opinion it would require centralization in order to make it work effectively and therefore defeat the intentions of anarchism.

Although I consider most defence spending as a considerable and useless drain on the economy, I have to recognise the possibility of new technological threats that can only be met with an up to date and experienced army. Militia would be lovely if we were fighting in the fields of the 18th century, though.

Well for a country that has little desire for imperialist expansion, military technology would only be as necessary as it is to their enemies. Ideally this society would not, as the US has done, make enemies by exploiting or taunting less developed nations around the globe, so hopefully the need for military technology would be minimal.

It is understood that many governments fearful of anarchism would seek to destroy it, and should the threat be great it is likely that the communities within would focus much effort on protection. I believe however that a determined militia, protecting its own territory, is just as capable as most standard militaries. My reasoning is that most countries would recognize the high cost of invasion of a people unwilling to be ruled. If a people make themselves ungovernable, they are unconquerable.

In the end however a people must ask themselves whether it is worth living in constant fear of then next fascist uprising. Most threats to a nation can be perceived and evaluated a while before any action is taken, it would be only reasonable to maintain necessary defenses until any percieved threat passes. Those nations that would maintain large peacetime militaries have either imperialist intentions or paranoia.

Like the way things used to be. But this again sounds far too much a picture of an ideal to me. The reason things are done now like they are is that the entire country recognises a certain standard of quality. Educational institutes are no longer concerned with the pursuit of knowledge, but the pursuit of workmanship. It's a fact I weep over, but one that I recognise as more or less essential.

Well, the system wouldn't necessarily reject the idea of certification for professional workers, however it would reject the pay-per-credit ideal of certification that emphasizes the bare minimum of quality as we have in capitalism, and results in lowest bidder type contracts. Yes, we have standards, and those standards are typically so poor that items build in the 1970's will probably still be around a decade from now while those built today will probably have to be replaced two or three times. It would also likely reject the idea that one must be in the classroom to learn; such was the vein in which I intended the analogy of apprenticeship to a carpenter. I see no reason why a certified carpenter would be unable to accept unskilled help until such a time that said carpenter feels the worker is prepared to proved his skill to a certification board, not a bureaucratic one but more likely one made up of local carpenters. In our system students are taught in abstract so that they can maximize their ability to answer multiple-choice questions, which does little to ensure quality work.

But when I consider anarchism - almost alien to me - I realise that what you are proposing is a return to small communities. You would like something similar to what the Amish have been doing, correct? In which case, since there will be no anonymity, no certificates of expertise will be needed. But the economy, the vast landscapes that make up whole united peoples and countries won't exist. I can accept it will be a whole lot more serene, and would result in the destruction of what we call "national progress" and an increase in a more personal progress...

Well, once again this depends one how the community feels, it is entirely possible that a community could be incredibly expansive. The future under anarchism however would look much different than one under capitalism. You would not see oceans of factories pumping out useless plastic products to peddle to small children, because the economy would not be based on how many people you could dupe before they catch on to your scheme. In anarchism industry would be there to meet demands not to invent new ones for mindless TV junkies. In a system primarily based on necessities you might see a few high rises, but only if a need was being met, and certainly not for a CEO to have ten floors all to himself.

but who would accept such a drastic change, and who could do it first without fearing the consequences of weakening its united borders?

Well, I would wager that most nations are not immediately threatened by another, making it rather in efficient to maintain a large military. Would Liechtenstein or Luxembourg ever be able to defend themselves against their neighbors? Not likely, so why even posses a military? In the world today conflicts are so global that the only reason to have a military is if you intend to compete in the global arms race that those in the weapons peddling business continue to perpetuate.

In the case that the region your in happens to be rife with regional conflict then it would only make sense that the community/ies would maintain a defensive military. Obviously the nature of any community must be adaptable to fit its surroundings, it would not be unreasonable, assuming many disparate communities, to form mutual protection pacts or any arrangement necessary to fit the circumstances.

That makes sense - only I feel sorry for the children born with different beliefs to their parents.

This is not likely to be an issue unless they are somehow born fascists. Anarchist communities would be generally open to all beliefs that aren't elitist, exclusive, or dangerous.

This inspires more questions, however. I have to wonder how these communities can have any definite boundaries when urban sprawl gets worse and worse

Well I imagine that most communities will not attempt to infringe upon the space of another, and those that do grow exceedingly large may very well have to grow around neighboring communities or if that is unacceptable to those communities then something would need to be worked out between them.

Urban sprawl would likely be more controlled in anarchist communities though, leaning towards more compact living in urban environments, it is likely that a city would be built around the pedestrian rather than the car, preferring high-rise housing to expansive suburban communities.

I suppose in the same way we have local councils, but it I still have trouble imagining likeminded people grouping together to form communities, or how difficult it would be for a community to maintain its homogenous qualities when the next suburb may espouse an entirely different code of ethics. I imagine people being most reactive to the issues they disagree with in their own communities, challenging them, and not moving.

It may be the case that most communities opt to have their common bond be openness and diversity, however there would certainly be communities that seek to live a separate life, such as primitivists or the religious. It would likely be an issue of the culture in which one feels most comfortable though, and not a means to isolate themselves. The maintenance of homogeneity would be rather natural in most case, as I don't imagine too many people move to India, who do not find something agreeable in their culture.

Those people who feel something in their community is lacking might very well struggle to change their own community, I personally would not endeavor to create a static and sterile society, that is somehow perfectly unchangeable, and so it seems natural and perhaps necessary for that to happen. However if the change that is sought is disagreeable to most then it would not become the standard, and that person, choosing as they might to remain in the community, may feel socially separated from the community. I imagine in this scenario that the person would be more than likely to move, however some may choose to remain in the face of adversity. Yet this is a human problem, not honestly an anarchist issue, all communities face internal strife, in all forms of government, and it would be wrong in any system to suppress independent thought.

Finally I'd like to ask, who organises the distribution of land? Would squatting be acceptable?

Largely, I imagine, land distribution would be worked out by a confederation of the communities in a region. Exactly what system they might prefer I cannot speak to with certainty, though I would expect land allotment would be decided based first on necessities, so food first, then shelter, next necessary industries and so on.

In many cases squatting would not be necessary because, since many anarchist lean towards usufruct properties, land would be communal, and it is probable that most communities would put up visitors in shelters. Those who desire to remain within the community would be given work and lodging.

Oh, by the way, you may be interested to know Quarkhead actually lives on an Indian reservation – the Makah Nation, I believe it’s called. I think – though I’m not sure – he might be more familiar with what you’re talking about.

I'm not entirely familiar with the working of the Indian Nations; it might be interesting to compare the workings of them to anarchist principles though.

Wouldn't there still be something (besides geography) to define an anarchist community? Would it be the set of laws that the community accepts?

Yes, there would be regions, some cultural others perhaps economical, however the borders would be lose not like the states of today.

How would the laws get defined?

Most of the laws that anarchist societies would follow would be universal laws, however those laws that differ from place to place would almost certainly be decided by vote, there is question as to what percentage of people should be required for such a vote, while some favor only unanimity others might opt for overwhelming majority. It should be noted though that since the universal laws would be an essential requirement for any community to claim to be anarchist, and that since these laws are the necessary laws that protect human life and liberty other laws may be seen a frivolous restrictions of freedom, therefore unanimity is not necessarily an outrageous expectation.

If a group of volunteers were setup to enforce the laws, wouldn't this in itself create them in a class with a higher level of authority?

Because this would not create a permanent position and since anyone of able body and mind within the community would be a welcomed participant it would not be a class, nor would it have any higher level of authority than anyone else in the community. The community would simply apply this institution when a portion of that community is afflicting the rest. You would not have, for example, highway patrols or cops milling about looking to harass citizens, but rather citizens looking to protect their community from poisonous elements.

If the groups of people fighting used weapons readily available, then a militia might be possible. But a small community wouldn't have the resources to fight against tanks, jet planes, or battleships. It seems like anarchist communities would get easily swallowed up by aggressive states.

Yes, if the communities were isolated, however that is not the goal of anarchism. Anarchist communities would be in some senses separate but unified as well. You cannot have a city for example support every aspect of itself within its own borders it must be able to join a greater community in order to meet all of its needs, and in order for it to sufficiently provide other communities with the resources that it would produce.

One aspect of anarchism that is often misrepresented, especially by Marxist groups, is that anarchists are not in search of small self-sufficient communities, but communities that work for mutual gain. As such separate communities might provide the militia, but these smaller groups would feed a united force to the extent necessary to protect the society from perceived threats.

Why would anarchists link capitalism with aristocracy?

Many reasons, the most profound being that capitalism allots power over many to the few. If one man is given power over another then whatever system has invested that power in him has decided this man is superior in some sense to the other man. Within capitalism you have one man with power over thousands, whose wages he decides and usually places them thousands of times less than his, this power is much like that of a feudal lord over his serfs. Anarchism, believing in equality, finds this abhorrent and intolerable.

Beyond this money becomes hereditary, creating a new class of nobility for the rest of humanity to slave under while they reap the profits for the workless hours they spend in their mansions. The only difference between this system and the old system is the lack of titles for this new nobility.

Simply put, anarchists believe that the profits belong to those who work for them.

What are the differences between libertarianism and anarchism?

By dictionary definition, nothing, anarchists often refer to themselves as libertarian socialists.

As to the Libertarian party, the difference is rather substantial. Libertarians believe in capitalism, this is an affront to anarchists and thus separates them immediately. As well libertarians are more conservative on issues with the state, seeing certain elements of centralized power and hierarchy as necessary. By definition anarchists oppose centralized power and hierarchy in its entirety so anarchists are a step beyond Libertarians in that sense.

I apologize for the length of time it has taken for me to respond, but in my attempt to appropriately represent anarchism, I had to consider carefully my responses to some of the questions.

[veritas]

Greetings, Crixus,

I will tell you from the outset that I found much of your post to be both fascinating and thought-provoking: however, there was an event that occurred in your second paragraph that so distracted me from the rest that I cannot, at this time, formulate any coherent understanding of the balance of your essay. You seemed to do something that I so firmly disagree with that, if I were to go on this essay with no other clues, I would be forced to reject the entire premise.

Now, let me explain that: by "disagree," I do not mean "I'm right, and you're wrong," though there are some points that I feel I have the wherewithal to back my disagreements with overwhelming evidence. Instead, I mean "You use [word, phrase, or concept] differently than I use it: do we indeed have a difference of opinion, or am I using a different terminology?" I'd like to explore those differences with you, if you would be so kind.

I do, however, need to preface my response with this: I have not read the other responses in this thread, so I run the risk of bringing up points (or perhaps entire arguments) that one of the other members of this forum have already discussed. If I do become redundant in that fashion, I ask your pardon.

I also need to preface my comments with this: I am not only not an anarchist, I am not a Christian. I feel, however, that you and I still have enough of a "common ground" to establish some constructive dialogue on these issues.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt.

Not quite, though the folks who called themselves "anarchists" in the early twentieth century certainly did sling more than a few explosives about.

When I hear the word "anarchist," I think of someone who is opposed to the concept of a sovereign, overarching Government, especially an intrusive or abusive government. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon certainly used the word "anarchist" in this sense, and to the best of my knowledge, he is the first person to self-identify as an anarchist. The word, however, has a much longer history, dating back to the city-states of Greece: before the writings of Proudhon the word had been exclusively an insult, with rather the same connotation as the word "unamerican" in the mouth of McCarthy, or someone of that ilk.

That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief.

Crixus, the word anarchist was used as an insult, especially in a political context, long before Proudhon came up with the concepts I discussed in the last paragraph. To my mind, the use of such an insult really meant that those who were flinging the verbal abuse had nothing constructive to say: hence, to accuse someone of being an "anarchist" means simply that the accusor cannot counter his arguments. This is a logical fallacy, usually called an "ad hominem attack," and I find it singularly distasteful. By the same token, to immediately write off those who disagree with you as "statists," especially in the derisive connotation as you demonstrate above, is to repeat the same logical fallacy.

Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why this one point has attracted my attention to this degree: I am one of those people who feels that ethics is defined by more than just the end-result of an action. For an action to be ethical, it must have three components:
1: The intended goal must be ethical;
2: The means to that goal must be ethical;
3: The overarching motive for reaching that goal must be ethical.

In other words, if we were to look at the simple act of giving a hungry man some bread: if my goal is ethical (I want this hungry man to be fed, and have taken upon myself the responsibility to feed him), if the means to the goal are ethical (this is my bread, and I may share it with whom I choose), and if my motive is ethical (I choose to feed him to ease his hunger), then all is well. However, if any of those three components are missing--if, say, I fed him because I wanted the public recognition, or if I fed him with bread I stole from someone else, or if I fed him because I want to ask him for a favor later--then my "ethical" act becomes unethical.

Crixus, I feel that if you have fallen into the trap of responding to ad hominem attacks with more of the same, that you may have crossed that line from ethical behavior to unethical behavior. If that is the case, then to the best of my understanding, you have already stepped outside of the area of ethical behavior: any further work you build on a "foundation" such as that is going to resemble the house built of sand, as mentioned in the parable in Matthew 7:26.

I would like to discuss the balance of your essay with you, but I would first prefer to clarify this point, so that I may do so with no confusion or lack of clarity.

Justin

[Crixus]

I will tell you from the outset that I found much of your post to be both fascinating and thought-provoking: however, there was an event that occurred in your second paragraph that so distracted me from the rest that I cannot, at this time, formulate any coherent understanding of the balance of your essay. You seemed to do something that I so firmly disagree with that, if I were to go on this essay with no other clues, I would be forced to reject the entire premise.

I don't mean to seem critical but, that you would be forced into rejecting an entire premise for a minor rhetorical failure seems quite the burden to bear. I don't pretend to have invented this premise, so if indeed my writing seems too polluted for you, I encourage you to seek out the true minds behind it, Tolstoy, Hennacy, Ellul, or since we seem to have veered of towards a discussion of anarchism in general, read Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, Stirner and yes, Proudhon. Certainly though do not reject a premise on behalf of a fault in one posters logic.

Not quite, though the folks who called themselves "anarchists" in the early twentieth century certainly did sling more than a few explosives about.

Well, there were certainly enough prosecutions to give that impression anyway. However, not all of these incidents for which anarchists were blamed were actually committed by those accused. The most famous being the Haymarket incident in 1886, when a bomb that was thrown into a group of police officers started a fiasco for which eight prominent anarchists were blamed. All eight were convicted in a kangaroo court, four; Albert Parsons, George Engel, August Spies and Adolf Fischer were hanged, and Louis Lingg committed suicide. A newly elected governor would later release the remaining three after declaring the men innocent and their convictions unjust. For those who don't know this incident is lamented, and their struggle for the 8-hour workday is celebrated, internationally in the May Day holiday.

When I hear the word "anarchist," I think of someone who is opposed to the concept of a sovereign, overarching Government, especially an intrusive or abusive government. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon certainly used the word "anarchist" in this sense, and to the best of my knowledge, he is the first person to self-identify as an anarchist. The word, however, has a much longer history, dating back to the city-states of Greece: before the writings of Proudhon the word had been exclusively an insult, with rather the same connotation as the word "unamerican" in the mouth of McCarthy, or someone of that ilk.

And when I hear the word "cynic", I seldom envision a Grecian Philosopher. Thanks to temporal context though, I think it safe to say that we can leave Antisthenese and the rest of the Greeks safely in their tombs.

Crixus, the word anarchist was used as an insult, especially in a political context, long before Proudhon came up with the concepts I discussed in the last paragraph. To my mind, the use of such an insult really meant that those who were flinging the verbal abuse had nothing constructive to say: hence, to accuse someone of being an "anarchist" means simply that the accusor cannot counter his arguments. This is a logical fallacy, usually called an "ad hominem attack," and I find it singularly distasteful. By the same token, to immediately write off those who disagree with you as "statists," especially in the derisive connotation as you demonstrate above, is to repeat the same logical fallacy.

I disagree. Had I been dismissive of someone’s position due to their being a statist, that would have been ad hominem, however I was not. I am in fact correcting a false position, the cause of which I attribute to statist misrepresentation. While admittedly I over generalized, I do not believe I have been dismissive of anyone’s opinion, statist or otherwise. So for all statists, not wishing to spread falsities about anarchism, many apologies for my overly rhetorical generalization.

Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why this one point has attracted my attention to this degree: I am one of those people who feels that ethics is defined by more than just the end-result of an action. For an action to be ethical, it must have three components:
1: The intended goal must be ethical;
2: The means to that goal must be ethical;
3: The overarching motive for reaching that goal must be ethical.

In other words, if we were to look at the simple act of giving a hungry man some bread: if my goal is ethical (I want this hungry man to be fed, and have taken upon myself the responsibility to feed him), if the means to the goal are ethical (this is my bread, and I may share it with whom I choose), and if my motive is ethical (I choose to feed him to ease his hunger), then all is well. However, if any of those three components are missing--if, say, I fed him because I wanted the public recognition, or if I fed him with bread I stole from someone else, or if I fed him because I want to ask him for a favor later--then my "ethical" act becomes unethical.

I agree with this, however I think number 2 becomes ambiguous, for example, I believe that any law that precludes a person from eating is unethical and unjust, thus if I have no food to lend the hungry man I would feel no regret in taking the bread from a person who hoards large quantities of bread in order to sell it to the poor at an absurdly marked up price. Some would deem this act unethical; to me it is a matter of what impact number 2 has in relation to number 1. However if number 1 and number 3 are well intact, and number 2 is has relatively low impact compared to number 1 then the act must be ethical. Albeit perhaps not the most ethical option in the situation, I think, assuming one has generally explored other means by which to resolve the issue, that it would still be the right thing to do.

As such this system is relative to perspective. Is it not? What is ethical to me, may not be ethical to another, likewise I may find abhorrent what another sees as acceptable. So, even those who agree that method and motive define the ethics of an action, might still disagree on tolerable means.

Crixus, I feel that if you have fallen into the trap of responding to ad hominem attacks with more of the same, that you may have crossed that line from ethical behavior to unethical behavior. If that is the case, then to the best of my understanding, you have already stepped outside of the area of ethical behavior: any further work you build on a "foundation" such as that is going to resemble the house built of sand, as mentioned in the parable in Matthew 7:26.

I would like to discuss the balance of your essay with you, but I would first prefer to clarify this point, so that I may do so with no confusion or lack of clarity.

Once again I have to state my disagreement that I am attacking anyone's person in order to avoid challenging their opinion. And while it may be poor form to generalize, in this case the generalization was minor and the damage was slight, so I’d hardly say it brings my ethics into question.

[Corvus]

All right. Although I admit Crixius using the word Statist with some distaste, the fact is irrelevent as to whether anarchism makes for a good - or Christian - social system. Let us get back to the questions for debate.

[otseng]

Crixus,

Just to let you know my perspective, I don't find anything you've said so far insulting in the least. You have done a very good job of presenting your information, especially to those unfamiliar with this topic such as me.

What Biblical basis do you see for the support of anarchism?

[veritas]

Hi, Crixus,

I had a fairly long response to your post, hit the "Preview" button to make sure I formatted the quote tags correctly...and wouldn't you know it, that's when my computer decided to crash on me.

However, you answered my main point, but it quickly became obvious from your response that I had not communicated myself well. My main issue was not that I had objections to your statements even if they had contained ad hominem content (which I thank you for clarifying that such was not your intent), but an admission on my part that I don't have the capacity to fairly evaluate such. It's a flaw in my ability to communicate--one that I am working on, but with less than stellar success so far.

I'll try to get a more complete response going shortly, but it's finals week here at college, so my attendance will be spotty.

Be well,

Justin