Christian Anarchy is the best answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

I agree.
How did you come to these conclusions? I was completely blown away by Tolstoy's book and it has changed my views on many things.

So how should we then live?

I have never read Tolstoy's book.  My greatest influence was from "An Essay On The Trial By Jury" by Lysander Spooner.  I was a strong "constitutionalist" but something just didn't seem right.  I had been in and out of "Christianity" and saw several problems there too but they all stemmed from what men did with their "religion" and certainly could not be blamed on God.  I came to the realization that I was an "anarchist" towards men yet still believed that Christ was our salvation.  I picked "Christian Anarchist" out of the blue and when I did a search on metacrawler I found that others had already used that term. 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'm a Christian, and an Anarchist, but not a "Christian anarchist" by the definition I think you mean. I do believe that the state was, if anything else, a punishment from God (granted upon the Israelites) and not what he intended for us, it's just taken us ten thousand years to really begin to figure this out. I notice the flag in your icon has a red half contrasting the black, which is sending yellow (or gold, you might say) lights off in my head.

In your idea of Christian anarchy, are you an advocate for communal property, and communities based of the joint ownership of the means of production? If not, change that red to gold and alleviate my fears. =P

I'm not sure what definition you are referring to.  My personal definition is slightly different than the definition I found online through a search (check my sig for a link to my blog and that definition).  I differ in that I do not accept the total pacifist ideology.  I recognize the right of self-defense to protect one from an aggressor.   I do not believe in communal property and the flag is simply the black/red "anarchist" flag with the cross imposed on it.  For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

They're referring to your 'anarchist flag', it's not a generic anarchist flag, that's the all-black one. The gold/black variant is the an-cap/property rights anarchist type, while your red/black is the communist-anarchist version. If you don't agree with EthanAllen and his crowd, who say that property rights are an aggression, you should change that flag to a gold/black flag with a cross on it.

I looked at wikipedia and some other sources and could not find any reference to a gold/black flag.  I may simply revise it to a black flag with a white cross...

[dalebert]

For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

Communal property ownership based on consensus is legitimate authority!

Doh! Christian Anarchist! Now look what you did! You said the bad words that summon the bad person. It's like saying "Voldemoort"! He has little demons monitoring the board that call to him when you say such things!

You're new so I forgive you. 

[toowm]

I thought "He who must not be named" was Seth.

D'Oh

My bad

[Kat Kanning]

I thought "He who must not be named" was Seth.

D'Oh

My bad

you're right.  Now they've both been summoned.   

[error]

Maybe this thread really does belong in Endless Debate and Whining.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Error why do I see some of your old posts as "guest" (which means the account is deleted or closed) but now see you posting under the same name with many posts in your history?  Is it possible to delete an account and then open another with the same name??

[EthanAllen]

For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

Communal property ownership based on consensus is legitimate authority!

And exactly how would one obtain "consensus" from a community of anarchists anyway??  And if one did manage to do so, then there would not be any problem with it as I would have "consented"...

There is the rub - huh?

In the civic republican tradition, which is older than the classical liberal tradition, individual freedom could only be attained by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies of the whole so the greatest chance for total consensus could be attempted.

As the body of the whole got bigger it was purposely subdivided. Humans can only intimately know a couple hundred people at a time.

[ChristianAnarchist]

For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

Communal property ownership based on consensus is legitimate authority!

And exactly how would one obtain "consensus" from a community of anarchists anyway??  And if one did manage to do so, then there would not be any problem with it as I would have "consented"...

There is the rub - huh?

In the civic republican tradition, which is older than the classical liberal tradition, individual freedom could only be attained by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies of the whole so the greatest chance for total consensus could be attempted.

As the body of the whole got bigger it was purposely subdivided. Humans can only intimately know a couple hundred people at a time.

Which is why I make the argument that the greatest evil in the history of mankind is "government".  Only with those believers in "government" can one be tricked into thinking they have some kind of "authority" to kill and maim on a scale of millions.  The holocaust, killing fields, firebombing of Dresden, and untold atrocities throughout history were only possible because normal people who knew that murder was wrong, were fooled into thinking that some mysterious non-entity called "government" gave them "authority" to do murder...

[EthanAllen]

For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

Communal property ownership based on consensus is legitimate authority!

And exactly how would one obtain "consensus" from a community of anarchists anyway??  And if one did manage to do so, then there would not be any problem with it as I would have "consented"...

There is the rub - huh?

In the civic republican tradition, which is older than the classical liberal tradition, individual freedom could only be attained by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies of the whole so the greatest chance for total consensus could be attempted.

As the body of the whole got bigger it was purposely subdivided. Humans can only intimately know a couple hundred people at a time.

Which is why I make the argument that the greatest evil in the history of mankind is "government".  Only with those believers in "government" can one be tricked into thinking they have some kind of "authority" to kill and maim on a scale of millions.  The holocaust, killing fields, firebombing of Dresden, and untold atrocities throughout history were only possible because normal people who knew that murder was wrong, were fooled into thinking that some mysterious non-entity called "government" gave them "authority" to do murder...

You are confusing governance as legitimate authority with the state.

They are not the same.

[J’raxis 270145]

Error why do I see some of your old posts as "guest" (which means the account is deleted or closed) but now see you posting under the same name with many posts in your history?  Is it possible to delete an account and then open another with the same name??

It is.

[ChristianAnarchist]

For one to believe in communal property, one would have to accept some "authority" that exists in order to enforce that communal ownership...

Communal property ownership based on consensus is legitimate authority!

And exactly how would one obtain "consensus" from a community of anarchists anyway??  And if one did manage to do so, then there would not be any problem with it as I would have "consented"...

There is the rub - huh?

In the civic republican tradition, which is older than the classical liberal tradition, individual freedom could only be attained by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies of the whole so the greatest chance for total consensus could be attempted.

As the body of the whole got bigger it was purposely subdivided. Humans can only intimately know a couple hundred people at a time.

Which is why I make the argument that the greatest evil in the history of mankind is "government".  Only with those believers in "government" can one be tricked into thinking they have some kind of "authority" to kill and maim on a scale of millions.  The holocaust, killing fields, firebombing of Dresden, and untold atrocities throughout history were only possible because normal people who knew that murder was wrong, were fooled into thinking that some mysterious non-entity called "government" gave them "authority" to do murder...

You are confusing governance as legitimate authority with the state.

They are not the same.

Both are fictions and do not exist...

[EthanAllen]

Both are fictions and do not exist...

See just how fictitious they are by not paying your property taxes in NH.

[sandm000]

Bah. I'm for Cthuluian Anarchy!

If he's such an anarchist, why is he running for president?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Both are fictions and do not exist...

See just how fictitious they are by not paying your property taxes in NH.

You are making the very common mistake of confusing REAL MEN with GUNS for a fiction called USA (or NH or whatever).  The men with guns certainly do believe there is an Easter Bunny named "XYZ" who grants them authority to kill for them, but their belief is unfounded.  "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh.  Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy.  And ideas are bulletproof."  The idea that the USA exists, when applied with enough zeal, will allow men to do things that are against their own personal moral code...