Catholic Anarchists

[Christus Imperat]

I do think that, because it has been the consensus of nearly all human beings in history, let alone Popes.  I don't have a quote from Alexander VI to prove it to you, but you haven't tried to show that in any Pope or anywhere in tradition the authentic teachings of the ordinary Magisterium on the matter are different or contradicted. 

Okay. I am sure that the consensus of most popes up to the 17th century was that the sun revolves around the earth. Heck, the Roman Inquisition even said that you HAD to hold that idea, and said it was found in Scripture. Does that mean that all Catholics must accept that the sun rotates around the earth?

Whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct is a matter of empirical science.  The "political science" of the Church and philosophy is based on a rational understanding of  human nature.  The first is open to revision in a way that the second isn't.

[Resurrexi]

I do think that, because it has been the consensus of nearly all human beings in history, let alone Popes.  I don't have a quote from Alexander VI to prove it to you, but you haven't tried to show that in any Pope or anywhere in tradition the authentic teachings of the ordinary Magisterium on the matter are different or contradicted. 

Okay. I am sure that the consensus of most popes up to the 17th century was that the sun revolves around the earth. Heck, the Roman Inquisition even said that you HAD to hold that idea, and said it was found in Scripture. Does that mean that all Catholics must accept that the sun rotates around the earth?

Whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct is a matter of empirical science.  The "political science" of the Church and philosophy is based on a rational understanding of  human nature.  The first is open to revision in a way that the second isn't.

Whether the State is necessary is a matter of real political science, economics, and other social sciences, the conclusions of which, just like any other science, can and do change just like the conclusions of the natural sciences.

[Christus Imperat]

For what it is worth, I would say that I've decided over the last few days that perhaps anarchism is not the way to go. I'd say at this point I'm a libertarian who supports a (very) limited government.

That said, I still don't believe it would be heresy to anything approaching it to deny the necessity of the state. At most it would be disobedience to a few popes, which could be justified in some circumstances.

I originally come from a Libertarian perspective as well.  I still have a lot of Libertarian sympathies on a variety of issues.  As I told DK, I think the present political arrangements are radically problematic.

There is partly a failure of semantics here.  For example, I would consider tribes or villages with legal norms and customs together with structures of authority to be "nations" or "states."  The American Indians call themselves "nations."  Treaties supposedly acknowledge their sovereignity.  This fits within my broad definition of the "state" or polity.  DK says: no, they are anarchists--apparently because they do not have highly complex bureaucracies and legions of tax collectors.  Again, that is just a difference in defining words.

[Christus Imperat]

Whether the State is necessary is a matter of real political science, economics, and other social sciences, the conclusions of which, just like any other science, can and do change just like the conclusions of the natural sciences.

I assume by "real" political science you mean the sociology done under the name of political science as presently practiced in university polisci departments.  This kind of study only tells us how people and groups act under certain "political" conditions.  These political scientists generally don't even attempt to address the nature of the state.

Economics may address questions of the advisability of state actions in specific cases, but economics proper has nothing to do with whether the state ought to exist.  This question is outside of the scope of economics.  It is like examining whether God exists and what His nature is within the study of physics.

[Resurrexi]

Whether the State is necessary is a matter of real political science, economics, and other social sciences, the conclusions of which, just like any other science, can and do change just like the conclusions of the natural sciences.

I assume by "real" political science you mean the sociology done under the name of political science as presently practiced in university polisci departments.  This kind of study only tells us how people and groups act under certain "political" conditions.  These political scientists generally don't even attempt to address the nature of the state.

Economics may address questions of the advisability of state actions in specific cases, but economics proper has nothing to do with whether the state ought to exist.  This question is outside of the scope of economics.  It is like examining whether God exists and what His nature is within the study of physics.

It seems to me that you are attempting to turn a practical matter into a philosophical one.

[Scythian]

hey, anarchy works out real well in Somalia

[Resurrexi]

And the State really worked out in Nazi Germany. @@

[Scythian]

And the State really worked out in Nazi Germany. @@

really well actually, until a genocidal war broke out

[dymphna17]

For what it is worth, I would say that I've decided over the last few days that perhaps anarchism is not the way to go. I'd say at this point I'm a libertarian who supports a (very) limited government.

That said, I still don't believe it would be heresy to anything approaching it to deny the necessity of the state. At most it would be disobedience to a few popes, which could be justified in some circumstances.

I originally come from a Libertarian perspective as well.  I still have a lot of Libertarian sympathies on a variety of issues.  As I told DK, I think the present political arrangements are radically problematic.

There is partly a failure of semantics here.  For example, I would consider tribes or villages with legal norms and customs together with structures of authority to be "nations" or "states."  The American Indians call themselves "nations."  Treaties supposedly acknowledge their sovereignity.  This fits within my broad definition of the "state" or polity.  DK says: no, they are anarchists--apparently because they do not have highly complex bureaucracies and legions of tax collectors.  Again, that is just a difference in defining words.

So, would ancient Scotland, with various "kingdoms", ruled by the various Chieftans be considered an ideal?

[devotedknuckles]

According to classical political scienc. State means something. U nay have your version of it but that's not whatvis accepted u can not arguebprimative societies had or have a a state. No they did and do not. The reason why first nations r. Allex thTvis because of the white man not because bthem. As a matter of fact moat first nations didn't ven haw a co ception of what qe would term nation. Not even the idea of treaties or even owning land. Now when most were forced a gun point to sign weird papers the white man insisted on they did not out of any fomral ideal of forign relations but because they for the most part thought the idea of owning land to bw absurd. So between getting shot or signing away land they did not nor could not een concive of among was a no brainer. Now they call themselves nations but ubmust realize thas duebo being conquered and integrated into (here in cananda) the reserve system whch has for moat of them not been pretty. Iv been to a few Cree reserves along Hudson bay and James bay
grim and brutal. Very little hope. They never had a state prior to conquest. The inuit  were lucky As they weren't bought worthy to conquer and were descovered relativley late. Hence they were not conquers at all and left alone untill the cold war dictated forced urbanization whch has ruined them forthe most part. They had no state either the were actually more primative politicly then the Cree. But now they have their own legislator and territory but first nations up here don't co sider Inuit Indian anyway and they for the most part have and use white mans government structures ie the state.
Incan go on and on but any political science course 101 will show u the differences between triebL societies and those wihba statits not a very radical ideal