What is Anarchy?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, I know what you're saying, but I don't want to stray too much off topic, for we are somehow getting back into God and free will when we were really talking about the State. I know that if we really wanted to drag this, we can eventually make a connection, but I want to avoid that, and instead keep them separate. I would like to add that yes, having free will, in order to be free for man to do good, he must also be free to do evil. It is because of our desires, our needs as individuals and our unique personalities that we have certain aspirations, spiritual, that I believe there is a soul, with a free will, and the latter is evidence of the former.

What determines the character of this soul? Surely it must be something whose existence precedes that of the soul, undermining free will at a very crucial point. So that you don't mistake me again as arguing against free will, I don't have a disbelief in the idea. I'm just making a point that I hope can contribute to both of us understanding this idea better. That means I'm listening to and taking note of your points as well, believe it or not.

[Anonymouse]

What determines the character of the soul can be answered several ways. One can make the argument that since the soul is immaterial, it is something ethereal , that which gives us our unique personality, that no two people in nature are alike. And if throughout time as far back as we can trace the human we know as homosapien, that is able to think, and we recognize he is in possession of a soul, then we can say that the soul has alawys been, and has always determined being. The reverse would be the position that Marx took, that being determines consciousness. So when Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that all our thoughts and ideas are a product of our class, then if you believe in free will, this conflicts with free will. If you believe that indeed our thoughts and ideas are a product of what our surroundings are, then this makes perfect sense.

I see this from another point, since Marx relied heavily on this, as do most Statists. If our thoughts and ideas are the product of our class, and we have no free will, meaning we can't think for ourselves, this then gives those people a chance to do the things they do, and justify it. Of course when certain ideas cost millions of lives, you wonder just how people can't see that ideas have consequences, and at any point people had the ability the will to turn away from it.

[loseyourname]

As I said before, Marx was an idiot. The worst kind, too, in that he was extremely intelligent and articulate.

Getting back to the eternality of the soul: As I said before, all things whose existence is determined must be determined by some other thing whose existence preceded their own. I was under the impression that the Christian belief is that God's existence preceded that of all other things, including our souls. If all he created were the bodies, and as you claim, we are primarily spiritual beings, then he isn't even our creator. What right does he now have to tell us how to live our lives? What right does he have to sentence us to anything at all, much less eternal damnation.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname As I said before, Marx was an idiot. The worst kind, too, in that he was extremely intelligent and articulate.

Getting back to the eternality of the soul: As I said before, all things whose existence is determined must be determined by some other thing whose existence preceded their own. I was under the impression that the Christian belief is that God's existence preceded that of all other things, including our souls. If all he created were the bodies, and as you claim, we are primarily spiritual beings, then he isn't even our creator. What right does he now have to tell us how to live our lives? What right does he have to sentence us to anything at all, much less eternal damnation.

First of all, I never said that God didn't create the soul. I said God is responsible for everything. God preceded all. As for Marx, well, an idiot or not, look what his ideas led to, since ideas have consequences. His ideas are still around today, largley influencing the social sciencies and humanities, and even the greens, or the Left, socialists, even our resident Shahumyan, who is a Marxist from Manchester.

I suggest you resurrect your God thread since this is clearly gone far off our topic in relation to the State and Anarchy.

[loseyourname]

I think this belongs in free will. I'll resurrect that.

[Anonymouse]

ttt

[loseyourname]

You'll be at 5000 in no time.

[Anonymouse]

The board is subject to anarchy.

[Anonymouse]

A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in John Phillip Reid’s book, Law for the Elephant. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful communities.

[loseyourname]

Not to mention the fact that they had no choice but to cooperate or die out on the frontier. Besides, not all people share their values and sense of moral obligation. Shahumyan, for instance, would be out beating the xxxx out of half the people he encountered if there were no laws or law-enforcement personnel in place to dissuade him.