Am I an Anarchist?

[The Grand Nudger]

China is the usual boogeyman, but a closer reading of that situation would give you a better idea of why religious liberty is curtailed, when and how it is.

Perhaps you should bemoan the overt politicization of religion, instead? There's a reason that christian missionaries are seen as subversive western imperialists, and t. buddhists as separatist rebels. They are.

Far right populism....for it's part...chock full of religious dolts who seek to fuck with the Other Heathens™.

[Cherub786]

We all possess the ability to opt out of the social contract.  It's the legal contract that binds us.

You could haul yourself out into the woods and be a hermit and yell at people all day..just generally be a dick.  That would be opting out of the social contract.  You just can't do it on someone else's land.  As an advocate of personal liberty this much should be clear to you, I imagine.  

It might also be worthwhile to mention that whatever violence may be inherent to the state is still done at the behest of or in the interests of the people of that state..either collectively or invidually.  It's not arbitrary.  

Shit doesn't just happen, in gov, shit takes time and planning and people and money...lots and lots of money!

“Haul yourself out into the woods”
Even this technically cannot be done. There is an illiberal concept of “crown land” whereby the government actually owns all the vacant territory within the borders of the state. There is no more frontier. The state is omnipresent as I said.
Opting out of the social contract shouldn’t mean having to go out into the wilderness either. The solution, as I said, is to drastically decrease the size, scope and power of the state. Non-state actors that wield influence in society because their deep roots in it must be respected more.
The violence of the state is also kinetic. It can become violent potentially to put down any uprising to challenge to its “writ”.

---

China is the usual boogeyman, but a closer reading of that situation would give you a better idea of why religious liberty is curtailed, when and how it is.

Perhaps you should bemoan the overt politicization of religion, instead?  There's a reason that christian missionaries are seen as subversive western imperialists, and t. buddhists as separatist rebels.  They are.

Far right populism....for it's part...chock full of religious dolts who seek to fuck with the Other Heathens™.

Christian missionaries did historically act in the service of European colonialism and imperialism. However, presently that is simply not the case. What will you say about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am not a JW myself, but I totally respect their refusal to ritually “worship” the state, i.e., in the form of standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag, etc. Because of this they are viciously persecuted in Russia and other authoritarian states. In China, the Christian missionaries operate without any political agenda. China is “Big Brother” a classical Orwellian state only slightly better than North Korea. Don’t forget that is a nation of over a billion people.
India, the next largest country, also with a population of over a billion, though much better than China, likewise has issues with religious liberty and the poison of ultra-nationalism.
I should also add here that there is a strong current of anti-nationalism and contempt for patriotism in my political philosophy. That is why I respect the JWs in particular despite disagreeing with their theology and metaphysics.
Too often do the autocratic states of the non-Western world invoke the imagined threat of Western imperialism as an excuse to curtail religious freedom.

[The Grand Nudger]

“Haul yourself out into the woods”
Even this technically cannot be done. There is an illiberal concept of “crown land” whereby the government actually owns all the vacant territory within the borders of the state. There is no more frontier. The state is omnipresent as I said.
Opting out of the social contract shouldn’t mean having to go out into the wilderness either. The solution, as I said, is to drastically decrease the size, scope and power of the state. Non-state actors that wield influence in society because their deep roots in it must be respected more.
The violence of the state is also kinetic. It can become violent potentially to put down any uprising to challenge to its “writ”.

Or, you could...you know..buy the plot of land and live on it as you see fit.  : shrugs :

---

China is the usual boogeyman, but a closer reading of that situation would give you a better idea of why religious liberty is curtailed, when and how it is.

Perhaps you should bemoan the overt politicization of religion, instead?  There's a reason that christian missionaries are seen as subversive western imperialists, and t. buddhists as separatist rebels.  They are.

Far right populism....for it's part...chock full of religious dolts who seek to fuck with the Other Heathens™.

Christian missionaries did historically act in the service of European colonialism and imperialism. However, presently that is simply not the case. What will you say about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am not a JW myself, but I totally respect their refusal to ritually “worship” the state, i.e., in the form of standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag, etc. Because of this they are viciously persecuted in Russia and other authoritarian states. In China, the Christian missionaries operate without any political agenda. China is “Big Brother” a classical Orwellian state only slightly better than North Korea. Don’t forget that is a nation of over a billion people.
India, the next largest country, also with a population of over a billion, though much better than China, likewise has issues with religious liberty and the poison of ultra-nationalism.
I should also add here that there is a strong current of anti-nationalism and contempt for patriotism in my political philosophy. That is why I respect the JWs in particular despite disagreeing with their theology and metaphysics.
Too often do the autocratic states of the non-Western world invoke the imagined threat of Western imperialism as an excuse to curtail religious freedom.

The western imperialism in christian missionary service to china is a going concern, not a historical footnote, lol.  As far as JWs..surprise surprise, states don't look kindly on people who rail against the legitimacy of the state and have taken that so far as to incorporate it into their ritual observance.  India...full on -hindu- nationalism.  

Meanwhile, here in the states, religious liberty is taken to such an extreme that it's abused as a matter of routine fact in the attempt to trample on the personal liberties of others..most often, themselves, religious.  It's almost as if these religious hookers aren't all rainbows and sunshine, or something?

Combine all of that with the irony of airing these grievances on a atheist board.  You wanna talk personal freedom, the social contract, and religious liberty?  Try on the personal freedom, social contract, and religious liberty of being free -from- religion..for a change.   See how that fits.

You're comments are a canard, a foil..and a common one.

---

I would reiterate, though, that we might at least find common ground in the notion that if we were made to choose between a usurious state and a state of anarchy, a state of anarchy at least -might- be preferable.  However, since those choices don't exhaust all options present or hypothetical, we can probably hold onto our molotovs..at least for now.  We might really need them, later, after all. Specifically in the event that all of these religious nutballs praying for the apocalypse and the end of the other guy finally get tired of waiting and pull that trigger. All of this swirls around the fact that religion, just like government, is a way of exerting power and social control. They are direct competitors, whenever they aren't collaborating with each other against the rest of us.

[Cherub786]

“Haul yourself out into the woods”
Even this technically cannot be done. There is an illiberal concept of “crown land” whereby the government actually owns all the vacant territory within the borders of the state. There is no more frontier. The state is omnipresent as I said.
Opting out of the social contract shouldn’t mean having to go out into the wilderness either. The solution, as I said, is to drastically decrease the size, scope and power of the state. Non-state actors that wield influence in society because their deep roots in it must be respected more.
The violence of the state is also kinetic. It can become violent potentially to put down any uprising to challenge to its “writ”.

Or, you could...you know..buy the plot of land and live on it as you see fit.  : shrugs :

---

Christian missionaries did historically act in the service of European colonialism and imperialism. However, presently that is simply not the case. What will you say about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am not a JW myself, but I totally respect their refusal to ritually “worship” the state, i.e., in the form of standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag, etc. Because of this they are viciously persecuted in Russia and other authoritarian states. In China, the Christian missionaries operate without any political agenda. China is “Big Brother” a classical Orwellian state only slightly better than North Korea. Don’t forget that is a nation of over a billion people.
India, the next largest country, also with a population of over a billion, though much better than China, likewise has issues with religious liberty and the poison of ultra-nationalism.
I should also add here that there is a strong current of anti-nationalism and contempt for patriotism in my political philosophy. That is why I respect the JWs in particular despite disagreeing with their theology and metaphysics.
Too often do the autocratic states of the non-Western world invoke the imagined threat of Western imperialism as an excuse to curtail religious freedom.

The western imperialism in christian missionary service to china is a going concern, not a historical footnote, lol.  As far as JWs..surprise surprise, states don't look kindly on people who rail against the legitimacy of the state and have taken that so far as to incorporate it into their ritual observance.  India...full on -hindu- nationalism.  

Meanwhile, here in the states, religious liberty is taken to such an extreme that it's abused as a matter of routine fact in the attempt to trample on the personal liberties of others..most often, themselves, religious.  It's almost as if these religious hookers aren't all rainbows and sunshine, or something?

Combine all of that with the irony of airing these grievances on a atheist board.  You wanna talk personal freedom, the social contract, and religious liberty?  Try on the personal liberty, social contract, and religious liberty of being free -from- religion..for a change.   See how that fits.

You're comments are a canard, a foil..and a common one.

Why not just admit that the state owning all the vacant territory by default because of some artificial borders is totally against the principle of liberty?
And what about eminent domain, another example of woeful state abuse and overreaching?
Now coming to religious liberty, let us deal with the JWs. I am very disturbed by your statement that implies it is somehow justified for those authoritarian states like Russia and China to persecute them. The JWs are a peaceful religious group. They are committed to non-violence. Just because they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state means they deserve such cruelty?
The United States should be somewhat appreciated for the greater religious liberty relative to virtually all other countries. I do not see at all how religious liberty is being taken to the extreme there, or how any personal liberty is being trampled upon due to religion. Quite the contrary, the negativity directed toward religious groups like JWs and others that refuse to “pledge allegiance to the flag” or stand for the national anthem is against the spirit with which the union was founded some two and half centuries ago.
A glance at the situation of our planet reveals that, generally speaking, the situation of atheists is a lot better in terms of freedom as compared to religious minorities in authoritarian states like China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and the former Soviet republics. You need to put things in perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not just admit that the state owning all the vacant territory by default because of some artificial borders is totally against the principle of liberty?

Mostly because it;s not.  You are entirely at liberty to purchase that property, and property is also a liberty you would seek for yourself.  That's not to say that I agree with the idea, because I don't....but..here in the states, around 30% of land is owned by the government and it's managed for the benefit of we the people.  Logging companies make their nut that way.  Farmers depends on the thaws of federal rivers.  Our natural stocks are maintained in these areas.  That there are people who own no land is more an issue of private property held by individuals unproductively.   We really can't afford..individually or as a nation, to set up all of the impoverished on what dwindling natural resources the fed protects.  That could obviously be different elsewhere.   Personally..I think that property taxes should scale with acreage multiplicatively instead of additively.  That would induce owners of unproductive land to sell, and encourage small holdings over dead lawns.  I'd take a huge hit, but my land is productive, so I could afford it.  I'd still look to purchase more of whatever acreage others shed as what they're doing with it barely covers their property tax as is.  

And what about eminent domain, another example of woeful state abuse and overreaching?

Here in the US, eminent domain is rare and those subjected are fairly compensated.   Though the provisions for so called "blight" are more abusive than the usual roadas and public services..even here, however, the justification is that the blight which the property owner has caused has damaged -other- property owners.  

Now coming to religious liberty, let us deal with the JWs. I am very disturbed by your statement that implies it is somehow justified for those authoritarian states like Russia and China to persecute them. The JWs are a peaceful religious group. They are committed to non-violence. Just because they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state means they deserve such cruelty?

I only gave the rationale.  I avoid comments about people deserving what the government does to them because it's rarely the case, for good or for ill..that this is so.  I will note, however, that any difficulties caused by the politicization of their religion are firmly within their own power to remedy.  That they refuse, whether they deserve the consequences or not..is entirely predictable.  I appreciate that you're desperately looking to paint the religious as victims..but they're more commonly victimizers, even of themselves.  

The United States should be somewhat appreciated for the greater religious liberty relative to virtually all other countries. I do not see at all how religious liberty is being taken to the extreme there, or how any personal liberty is being trampled upon due to religion. Quite the contrary, the negativity directed toward religious groups like JWs and others that refuse to “pledge allegiance to the flag” or stand for the national anthem is against the spirit with which the union was founded some two and half centuries ago.
A glance at the situation of our planet reveals that, generally speaking, the situation of atheists is a lot better in terms of freedom as compared to religious minorities in authoritarian states like China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and the former Soviet republics. You need to put things in perspective.

Yeah, isn't it interesting that you don't see the religious using their liberty and gaming the system to fuck with people?  Gee, I wonder why that might be? You know who -actually- gets shit for not standing for the pledge...godless liberals, lol..and guess who'se giving them shit? The faithfully patriotic.

Next up, whores and the whoring whoremongers who whore them and then need whore health services.

Then, gaymosexuals and mooslims.

Fuck man, I can't even buy beer on a sunday..and the county where they make bourbon is fuckin dry! Talking about fucking with people in pointless religiously themed ways. Atheists, btw, less trusted thatn a muslim. That;s saying something, considering how fucking racist the christian twatwaffles who respond to those surveys are, lol.

So..long story short, no...you're not an anarchist, you're a religious person with a common and commonly faulty grievance....and here I thought I had a rioting buddy for a change! PFFT.

[Cherub786]

Indeed a state of anarchy is far more tolerable than an Orwellian state. And by anarchy I mean the political definition, i.e., the absence of the state which does not necessitate the absence of peace and harmony. The modern state is a modern phenomenon. With radical advancements in technology, we are heading toward a super surveillance state where you get forget about any scrap of privacy, online and offline. The state will have information and access to everything about you, like your finances, spending habits, even reading interests. At present we are being told we have to trust the system not to abuse our liberty so that it can deal with security threats like terrorism. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I there is much truth to the idea that the “war on terror” was simply an exercise in testing the tools at the disposal of the state now to control the population at large.
My own approach to religion is apocalyptic and millenarian. But at present, I am leaning toward anarchism not as a creed but as a tactic to preserve my self interest of self preservation, therefore I feel it is an ideal for the whole world, at least until the coming of the promised Messiah.
Furthermore, I am extremely cynical of the irreligious masses. By irreligious I don’t just mean atheists, but nominally religious people too, especially those who follow mainstream religions like the Catholic Church. Those are the ones you mean when you speak about the catastrophic unholy alliance between the state and organized religion. However, in today’s world that issue is no longer as relevant. It is patriotism and nationalism that is the real threat, which gave birth to the horror of fascism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The chief trouble with anarchy is that it ascribes a nobility of purpose to human beings which, sad to say, doesn't exist on a wide enough scale to make anarchistic societies feasible. 

In any group of human beings, there is always going to be someone who wants a little bit more - more possessions, more authority, more hot chicks in gold lame scuba gear...more whatever.  And this type will necessarily attract people who feel that same way and then BANG goes your stateless society.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we agree there, anarchy is preferable to an orwellian state..or at least could be.  If the anarchists state is made up of the same actors as the orwellian state...well, lock your doors and load your rifle, man.  Remember to leave plenty for yourself and your loved ones should they surround your firing position.

IDK where you're from, so I don't know what you're being told, but the US was a country formed by a palpable distrust and pessimism of the state.  Our founding documents are basically a list of shit the government can't do, lol.  OFC, they do that shit anyway, from time to time.....and because of this, and even though we nixed the whole "right to rebellion" thing as soon as we won that rebellion....it still exists as a strong motivator in our social contract. We fashion ourselves a nation of rebels and misfits...though, I wonder how true that is, if it ever was.

Look at all the pissy little whiners we have in government who can't handled being booed and shamed out of a restaurant.  Honestly, I -like- the fact that..in the dark of night, as they try to get some rest between bouts of fucking us raw for profit..they might worry that actual physical harm will be done to them for having done that very same.  

There is no such thing as "the irreligious masses".  That is a boogeyman of your own invention, and in order to so much as create it you included one of the largest religions in the world....lol.  Facism, meanwhile, -consistently- allies itself with the prevailing religion. Be as cynical as you like, but it isn't exactly atheists standing in knee deep pools of blood shouting "god wills it!"..or exploding on street corners because god is just so damned great, eh?

[brewer]

I'm tired of being shouted at. The OP seems to want to enforce his own self interests at the expense of others. Jesus fucking muhammad, grow up. 

Maybe this should be your next home.

[Cherub786]

I think we agree there, anarchy is preferable to an orwellian state..or at least could be.  If the anarchists state is made up of the same actors as the orwellian state...well, lock your doors and load your rifle, man.  Remember to leave plenty for yourself and your loved ones should they surround your firing position.

IDK where you're from, so I don't know what you're being told, but the US was a country formed by a palpable distrust and pessimism of the state.  Our founding documents are basically a list of shit the government can't do, lol.  OFC, they do that shit anyway, from time to time.....and because of this, and even though we nixed the whole "right to rebellion" thing as soon as we won that rebellion....it still exists as a strong motivator in our social contract.  We fashion ourselves a nation of rebels and misfits...though, I wonder how true that is, if it ever was.

Look at all the pissy little whiners we have in government who can't handled being booed and shamed out of a restaurant.  Honestly, I -like- the fact that..in the dark of night, as they try to get some rest between bouts of fucking us raw for profit..they might worry that actual physical harm will be done to them for having done that very same.  

There is no such thing as "the irreligious masses".  That is a boogeyman of your own invention, and in order to so much as create it you included one of the largest religions in the world....lol.  Facism, meanwhile, -consistently- allies itself with the prevailing religion.  Be as cynical as you like, but it isn't exactly atheists standing in knee deep pools of blood shouting "god wills it!"..or exploding on street corners because god is just so damned great, eh?

I happen to live in Canada, my place of birth and residence for most of my life, a relatively free country. Of course I don’t consider myself a Canadian or express any loyalty to the state or the “nation”. Countries are merely territories to me, soil, rock, water and vegetation. I don’t anthropomorphize a country like a patriot or nationalist.
I have come to realize I am more anti-nationalist than I am anarchist. I can tolerate a state as long as it is very weak and limited. I guess I’m more of a libertarian then. But a stateless society has its appeal too. Let me be quite honest, I’d rather live in a place like Somalia with its roaming militias than in China with its spotless streets. You can’t put a price on freedom. The point is I absolutely hate any kind of authoritarianism. I sincerely hope North America continues to be relatively free and doesn’t go down the route of Europe or Britain.
As for atheists, to each his own, but it must be admitted that the Soviet Union and now China have been the bastions of state sponsored atheism and persecute religious groups. The concentration camps in Xiangjiang province and the condition of Uighurs and Kazakhs is an outright example of atheist persecution of a religious community right now as we approach the year 2019.
Now of course the atheists here in North America tend to be humanists or at least liberal and committed to religious liberty. But they have to acknowledge the illiberal atheists across the Atlantic and the Pacific are harming the cause of religious liberty in the name of the state.
Atheism is intrinsically prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies. That is because atheism is colorless, it doesn’t understand the human condition as religion does, particularly Semitic religions, and it is from the latter that we get concept like civil disobedience and the morality of defying the state and the law when the state or law is unjust and tyrannical.