Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, which is why I don't do it to others.  I'm having trouble understanding something.....is this only a good idea when it gets penciled into christs mouth, and not when it gets penciled into the mouths of others in all of those other variants? Gods plan for civil society, in this regard, seems entirely unremarkable.

[log]

Nope, which is why I don't do it to others.  I'm having trouble understanding something.....is this only a good idea when it gets penciled into christs mouth, and not when it gets penciled into the mouths of others in all of those other variants?  Gods plan, in this regard, seems entirely unremarkable.

If it comes from a man, it is only an opinion, which is worth nothing; philosophies and ideologies are pretty cheap to come by, and few are worth dying for, and can be argued about ad infinitum and yet never be implemented.  I like chocolate, there oughtta be a law, let's kill Russia!

If it is from God, then it's kinda important.  Given that Jesus actually taught, lived, and died by this rule, that might make it worth thinking about.

And if this rule undergirds all the commandments of Christ - and I hold that it does; that is, all Christ's commandments are implications of this rule - then that's significant, at least to me.

---

But here's the thing - when I asked if you ever wanted people to threaten you in a bid to control your behavior, you said no - thus the Golden Rule is incompatible with private property as defined in the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you may value the opinions of other men as nothing, but if that's so...what value are your opinions?  I, otoh, value opinions from men based upon metrics other than "did they come from a man".  

If it's from god, it's no more important and no more useful than if it is from a man.  I don;t actually believe in jesus, so obviously, the value of the rule itself means more to me than whether or not a character in a book is said to have lived their lives by it.  

As to whether or not the golden rule is incompatible with private property as defined in the op...so what (and it isn't..just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean some other person wouldn't - ultimately that's one of the shortcomings of the golden rule no matter who expressed it or when)?  I think you took liberties in your definition...but didn't feel the need to bicker about them.

[log]

Well, you may value the opinions of other men as nothing, but if that's so...what value are your opinions?  I, otoh, value opinions from men based upon metrics other than "did they come from a man".  

If it's from god, it's no more important and no more useful than if it is from a man.  I don;t actually believe in jesus, so obviously, the value of the rule itself means more to me than whether or not a character in a book is said to have lived their lives by it.  

As to whether or not the golden rule is incompatible with private proprty as defined in the op...so what?  I think you took liberties in your definition...but didn't feel the need to bicker about them.

My opinions have no value, of course.  That's why I have to come with truth - that private property is not merely analogous to, but is in very deed, the state.  I have to demonstrate that, and the demonstration stands or falls on the definitions deployed.  If an alternative definition of private property is to be offered it has to be shown that it cannot be reduced, as I have done, down to "monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others."

Ah, as an atheist, you do not see the utility of proving property incompatible with Christ's teachings?

Let us just say this - my ultimate argument is that the Golden Rule actually resolves all societal conflict, and for that alone it is worth looking at.  It's also not the kind of thing anyone would come up with on their own, in a world with a social order predicated upon private property as defined in the OP, which itself is predicated upon the notion of scarce resources.

That's it.  I think that as an atheist, you would be more open to thinking about these things than my nominal co-religionists, and that you might therefore get more value from it.

[The Grand Nudger]

My opinions have no value, of course.

Then why should anyone here afford them credence?  The opinion, for example...that there;s some significance to christs teachings, as you just expressed?  Valueless?  

That's why I have to come with truth - that private property is not merely analogous to, but is in very deed, the state.  I have to demonstrate that, and the demonstration stands or falls on the definitions deployed.  If an alternative definition of private property is to be offered it has to be shown that it cannot be reduced, as I have done, down to "monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others."

Then it falls.  I have to wonder, though, why do you feel that such an approach is valid here but not in the case of gods rules and mens opinions?  A good rule, that you could demonstrate to be a good rule, would be a good rule regardless, right?  It stands or falls on it;s own, and not based upon who foisted it?  

Ah, as an atheist, you do not see the utility of proving property incompatible with Christ's teachings?

Nope...why would I, lol?  Christs teachings are as devoid of value to me as your own and other men's opinions are to you.

Let us just say this - my ultimate argument is that the Golden Rule actually resolves all societal conflict, and for that alone it is worth looking at.  It's also not the kind of thing anyone would come up with on their own, in a world with a social order predicated upon private property as defined in the OP, which itself is predicated upon the notion of scarce resources.

Huh, sounds like a dead argument.  The golden rule has been known and followed for far longer than "christ" was a twinkle in "pauls" eye...and yet societal conflict continues.  Does this mean that god came up with an ineffective rule, or men?  My moneys on the latter.  

That's it.  I think that as an atheist, you would be more open to thinking about these things than my nominal co-religionists, and that you might therefore get more value from it.

Value, from the opinions of a man..........perish the thought. I think that our much more complicated and specific legal codes do a much better job at conflict resolution, at reducing societal conflict, than one liner deepities, personally.

[log]

It's not that the rule is ineffective - if by that you mean "capable of forcing everyone to abide it."

That is incompatible with the rule. The alternative to the rule is what you have now - private property and the inevitability of society collapse, perhaps ending in worldwide nuclear war this time.

Whichever one you like best, it seems to me that the rule will only be followed - and I mean in all circumstances - by those who are really and truly convinced there is a sky fairy watching and keeping tabs on behavior.

Which would you like better as neighbors? Those who observe the Golden Rule, or those who may well be looking for ways to take or encroach upon your stuff, either by law or by force or by fraud or by manipulation or by superior sales skills?

[Jesster]

The only one? Then how has it existed in many different forms (and sometimes in the same form) in many countries long before Jesus was supposed to have been born?

Because Jesus is, as I believe, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth and all things in them.  He is the source of this law, and this law defines "good," "moral," and "right."  But nobody else said, other than Jesus, that I can see, "every last thing you wish people would do to you, do to others."

I don't really care what you believe. I care about what you can present as true. Why should I care about your god's rule?

Also, you've been asking for alternatives all through this thread. Have you looked into Secular Humanism yet? Thoughts?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ineffective as in -there's still societal conflict even amongst those who follow it, as there was before someone decided that it might make christ sound smart if he'd said it. It;s simply not in the same class as things like civil law.

What's incompatible with the rule?  If a person wants to be forced or done violence to then forcing them or doing violence to them is perfectly within the remit of the golden rule.  Not just the remit, the golden rule explicitly tells them to do violence -to you-. The trouble with the golden rule is that it assumes normative cultures and individuals...it cannot cope with sadism or masochism or a warrior culture, for example - things that modern law has no problem addressing. Doesn;t matter whether or not you want to die in glorious battle to gain entrance to valhalla...you can't, on that basis - the basis of the golden rules provisions - attack me.  

It appears as though people who -do- believe that a sky fairy is watching break the rule about as often as people who don;t believe that a sky fairy is watching follow the rule.  

I'd prefer the third option, those who follow our better developed and better thought out laws.  I;m already surrounded by golden rulers, obviously it's not enough, the prison is full of them.

[log]

Because Jesus is, as I believe, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth and all things in them.  He is the source of this law, and this law defines "good," "moral," and "right."  But nobody else said, other than Jesus, that I can see, "every last thing you wish people would do to you, do to others."

I don't really care what you believe. I care about what you can present as true. Why should I care about your god's rule?

Also, you've been asking for alternatives all through this thread. Have you looked into Secular Humanism yet? Thoughts?

You shouldn't care if you don't believe my God is real.  If, however, you get sick of the alternatives, take another look at Him sometime.

I did not see any method of distributing resources in your cited article, but it seemed that private property was implicitly assumed, therefore I do not know that secular humanism solves the problem of societal collapse into totalitarianism and war by means of the underlying means of maintaining social order: threats to control behavior.

[Jesster]

You shouldn't care if you don't believe my God is real.  If, however, you get sick of the alternatives, take another look at Him sometime.

I did not see any method of distributing resources in your cited article, but it seemed that private property was implicitly assumed, therefore I do not know that secular humanism solves the problem of societal collapse into totalitarianism and war by means of the underlying means of maintaining social order: threats to control behavior.

Okay then. I'm not in danger of being sick of my alternative. I grew up Christian and I became very sick of that, though. I will move on without another thought of your beliefs here. Thanks.

As for the second part, I don't see how Christianity solves that either. But I'm sick of Christianity anyway.