I have no problem with this distinction, but it gets a bit metaphysical, I think. Or we could just resort to nominalism. But I'd probably prefer to just rephrase the original question. I'm not concerned so much with what religion "is" in the sense you're drawing out. Instead I think what social scientists like Geertz or Durkheim are doing is first of all observing that humans engage in this very interesting kind of collective behavior, and wanting to understand how that behavior arises, why there are such consistent patterns to it across different times and cultures, and so on. Functional explanations are mostly trying to get at those how/why questions, rather than trying to elaborate some kind of ontology. Although Durkheim has an interesting ontology of "social facts"...

Right. I think that's both to the point that Geertz' definition of religion is blurred with just a definition of a "cultural system," as well as being related to what I said earlier in the thread about viewing secularization as being (in some sense) a "transformation of religion" instead of only being a decline of religiosity, given the above kind of definition.

But that's sort of the point of the first post I wrote -- I think people view "religion" as something sui generis and I think there's a lot of benefit to recognizing how thoroughly social it is in relation to other socio-cultural phenomena.

This gets more into political philosophy then religion, but my view is roughly that the emphasis you're putting on this concept of "The State" is problematic mostly because you need to ground your understanding of states in some more complete theory of human social organization, where state societies are just a particular form of more complex social organization existing along some spectrum in reference to other historical forms.

But the more fundamental issue is just that it's sort of intrinsically human to solve social problems (of whatever sort) via social institutions which regulate life. This isn't fundamentally different in state societies than it is in a hunter-gatherer band. I don't think it involves any qualitatively new or unique form of "state worship" or anything like that. Your presentation is also too much of a caricature.

But, I did quote Durkheim because I think there's something in the comparison between the role of traditional religious institutions and beliefs and "secular" beliefs and institutions, as far as that regulatory role. It's just that from an anthropological standpoint I also think your notion of a stable "voluntary society" is incompatible with how human social behavior really works.

I think that sort of thing is fun.

I think a study of how christianity has evolved to match (work for?) the societies it has existed within through the millennia would be interesting to read.

This is a hard sell if the people who would benefit are religious, but I think I agree. People seem averse to over-determined phenomena.

Also a hard sell to angry atheists but they are.just *******s, so who cares?

Sure, but those aren't the topic of discussion.

Well that's just not true. Genghis khan seemed to just fine with very little resources.

*Some. But yes, I would agree.

Well, I would just have to disagree. I would add that the consolidation of, and monopoly of, violent force seems to be a terrible idea given your view of all species.

More likely there would be some sort of third party insurance company that would handle this. There is tons of info and books written about how this sort of society could operate.

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow

Seems strange to limit it so. We might be at an impasse if your only concern in the world is mass atrocities. I happen to prefer to not be killed in tiny atrocities just as much as in mass ones.

Tons of horses is a pretty big resource. Granted, it wouldn't be considered a big resource nowadays given technological advancement.

My view of the species is pretty favorable. I happen to have the benefit of knowing some history, so I am aware that outsourcing of violence has generally been a positive development in regards to the odds of dying a violent death.

So, force would be outsourced to insurance companies? I'm fairly certain that we have tried outsourcing force to private companies before. It didn't turn out well.

It is too bad that the Jews didn't have holocaust insurance.

Looking forward to it. Fun conversation so far.

I was responding to you when you said...
Maybe yes, maybe no. Stateless societies don't allow for an aggregation of power. So the powerful have a lot to lose. There was a long time when the idea of a society with any personal freedoms didn't exist. So what's your point?

As I said, there really hasn't been any large scale. You could find pocket examples. The West in the US didn't really have a State for a long time. The US was founded as a minarchy. And it was a massive success. So much that it allowed us the ability to become a world economic power in an astoundingly short amount of time. But this was not stateless obv.

Your point was that you could only think of 2 large societies that did not commit atrocities. You also made the point that there have not been any stateless societies of any scale. So you are making the point that large scale State based societies seem to inevitably commit atrocities.

It's not strange, it was the OP topic. If you would like to switch topics, fine. But you cannot take what I said about mass atrocities and apply it to micro examples. My answers would be different.

Well if that's what you consider to be resources then your point doesn't mean anything. We have always had and will always have resources. You might as well say they all have breathing air in common. we cannot see what would happen if there were no resources.

So why do you think the only reason we are not running around with machetes is because we allow the elite to rule over us? I have a much more favorable view of people, and also a much lower. I don't think centralizing the ability to use violent force is ever going to work out well. No one should be allowed to aggressive against peaceful people.

So do I, which is why I am against the State. Probably 90% of violence in the last 100 years has been perpetrated by the State. And you are making a huge correlation to causation leap here.

Defensive force, yes. No one would be allowed to commit aggressive force.

You don't think private security works out well? Seems to be like it's a huge success.

The Jews were first disarmed (the first thing that the Nazi's did when they took over, as it's harder to oppress and slaughter a well armed populace). Second they were up against the State. An army funded by theft with no accountability. Seems like this is exactly the point I am making.

Thanks. I'm also enjoying the convo.

I'll just say that I don't think a belief in "the State" gives you this either. I'll agree wholeheartedly that political ideology can be sincerely used by normal people to justify horrific acts. But the government seems a pallid thing here. Nationalism, racial and class identity, religious identity, adherence to political ideals, and so on all seem like more likely candidates to me. I think for most people the government never gets far beyond being a means to some other end.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "liberal" in the political philosophy sense, not the sense when it is used to refer to Democratic Party ideology. The idea that some parts of life are private and so should be left up to the individual rather than controlled by the state is central to liberalism in the sense I'm talking about. This includes things like religion, where liberal theory would generally condemn state intervention into individual religious practice. Thus, nearly all liberals would have to reject the claim that the state can solve all problems - eg it can't solve religious problems. If some people act in anti-social ways because of their religious beliefs, that is not a problem for the state to solve according to liberalism (given certain parameters).

Not sure what you mean by the bolded, I'm doubtful that many Nazis are big Bernie supporters. I also disagree about the average democratic socialist Bernie supporter. For instance, here is Bernie from a recent speech laying out what he means by "democratic socialism" as including:

Sanders seems pretty clearly to understand his own project as one that includes freedom of religion, expression, assembly, press, etc, which would preclude authoritarianism.

I would have to push back here. Many people see their political party being in charge as an extension of themselves and a feeling that they are justly commanding others for "their own good". Power definitely corrupts. And having your party in charge for many people is a power. This is just one example.

Again, please account for my hyperbole.

He calls himself a "democratic socialist" who only supports this socialism for his country. So it is more accurately national socialism. Or "democratic" national socialism.

Was it not slavery when slaves were allowed to get their own job? Is something really not authoritarianism because you are allowed to choose one thing on your own? So at what point does it cross over to authoritarianism? At what point does it not matter what the technical term describes, the loss of freedom is impactful enough it might as well be authoritarianism?

And that term "Authoritarian" seems to be completely miss-understood in the public. People refer to Trump as such, yet don't refer to Obama as such. Same with Fascist.

Yes, people definitely want power, I'll agree with that. And people do identify with their party (although I'll point out that neither party is very popular right now), but their party, even when their candidates are elected to office, are neither the government nor the state (at least, not in democracies).

Okay, but then I'm not really sure what you mean by statist.

As a descriptive matter, I also disagree that American liberal ideology is primarily differentiated by turning to the state. I think the current right also looks to the state for solving the problems they are concerned with, eg crime, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Whatever, these word games are stupid. We all know that "national socialist" means Nazi, not someone who is both a nationalist and a socialist. Also, I'm skeptical that Bernie is much of a nationalist.

I don't really understand your viewpoint. I would say that if a government guaranteed a right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, etc that it is not an authoritarian government. It might have other problems - eg if it has a managed economy it is probably becoming poorer, but that doesn't mean it is authoritarian. It might even be a tyranny, but authoritarianism in particular is characterized by government control or limitation of political rights such as speech, assembly, press, etc.

Well, we don't live in a democracy. Popularity is really not important if it doesn't dissuade people from voting for one or the other.

The state or government is the group of people that currently hold a monopoly on aggressive force. Statists are those that support this system. The idea that the "government is the people" is demonstrably false.

see above.

Those in government on the right are really no different than the left. The ideology of conservatism is different. To be clear, I'm no fan of the right.

Isn't "democratic socialism" word games? Ok, you don't want to play word games, fine. I don't care what Bernie calls himself etc, he and his followers want to use violent force the steal from peaceful people as well as throw you in a cage for doing anything they don't like.

Look, you want to stop using the word authoritarian, fine. I don't care what you call it. And as a point of fact, most on the left do not believe in free speech. And the others are suspect.

I'm using authoritarian as defined "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." It would seem under that definition my comments are reasonable.

Yes we do live in a democracy. And the popularity of the parties speak to how much people identify with them.

Right. So Weber says in Politics as a Vocation that "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." This is a plausible way of understanding a state. So if you support a community successfully claiming a monopoly on legitimate use of physical force you are a "statist" and if you don't then you are probably an anarchist. In these terms, I'm definitely a "statist." I believe some uses of violence are legitimate, eg police, courts, and the military, and I prefer to live in a territory where some single group of people have a monopoly over these forms of violence rather than competing groups.

Obviously I disagree and view the left and the right as very different.

No. Democratic socialism is an old political idea that goes back to the nineteenth century as a way to understand socialism. As for what Bernie wants, eh, I don't think you have any special insight here. Yes, from anarcho-capitalist principles Bernie advocates for using violent force to steal from people. I don't accept AC principles, so I don't agree with this claim, but this disagreement isn't about Bernie, but about our differing priors regarding AC principles.

The bolded looks like that hyperbole thing again.

Okay, then I guess I favor "authoritarianism" as well as "statism." I favor strict obedience to just laws, even if they are at the expense of personal freedom.

Ok, now you are playing word games. You know the US is not a democracy.

I would imagine that you don't agree with all the laws, correct?

I would want to add that I don't believe all statists are religious. Just most.

[quoteObviously I disagree and view the left and the right as very different.[/quote]

Someone once said "The right is just the left driving the speed limit". Look at what the right supports today and compare it to what the left supported 20 years ago.

You don't have to accept AC principles. My description is accurate and anything else is word games.

Sure a little, but it's close to pretty accurate.

What constitutes a "just" law? Whose opinion of "just" are we forced to adhere to?

It's not a word game, I'm just using the standard way this term is used in political science and philosophy. I know some conservatives make a distinction between republics and democracies, but they are not mutually exclusive. A republic can be non-democratic (eg the Roman Republic) or it can be democratic, eg the US. The US is a democracy because its leaders are chosen largely through elections.

Sure, I don't agree with all the laws, but I think we should obey the law, even bad laws (although not always).

That's fine, I don't view being called "religious" as an insult.

Wow, so that sounds like a huge difference between the right and left if you understand politics as a dynamic system (as I do). To extend your metaphor, the speed at which you drive is a literal life-and-death issue.

According to AC principles, taxation is theft. I don't accept the AC principles that lead to the claim that taxation is theft, so I don't think Sanders wants to steal from people by proposing to increase their taxes.

Okay.
A just law is a fair law. In a democratic society like the US, we are forced to adhere to the opinions of political leaders, public opinion broadly, media figures and celebrities, businesspeople and other rich people, labor union leaders and other special interests leaders, judges and lawyers, and so on regarding what is "just."

How do you determine that something is a bad law?

Neither do I, not necessarily anyway. But if your religion say contained child sacrifice, then I would consider being very religious a bad thing. Also it depends on what definition of "religious" one is using.

When one is driving towards a cliff, one group gets there faster than the other, but the results and the journey are the same.

Taxation isn't theft under AC principles. Taxation is theft by definition. It's under statist ideology that it's not. I don't subscribe to the idea that the state owns us. Slavers didn't think they were stealing the labor of their slaves, but they were.

So what is "just" is what the elites decide that day? And saying a "just" law is a "fair" law just kicks the can. Obv, my next question would have to be, what is a fair law?

This is a pretty general question, I can't say I use a single method. I look at its likely consequences as policy, its legality, whether it is consistent with other rights and laws, the effects on the political system, etc.

Okay, give me the argument using premises I accept that taxation is theft.

No, you asked me whose opinion of what is "just" we are forced to adhere to, but that doesn't mean that they are correct.

I'm not ducking the question. The most influential English-language political philosopher of the 20th century defined justice as fairness (in part through using a conceptual tool he called the "original position"), and I'm referring to his theory of justice here.

The point is not for you to give me a methodology, but to point out that your position and my position are not actually different. You and I would probably agree on 95% of things we think are wrong when talking about the acts of an individual. You make special pleading for the government on some laws. I make no such special pleading and hold the state the same as an individual.


1. Theft is the act of taking someone else's property without permission
2. An individual is the sole owner of their self, their labor, and by extension the product of their labor.
4. Taxation is the act taking someone else's money without permission
5. taxation is theft.

This is not super rigorous but it gets the point across. Maybe an easier way to show that it is theft is to replace "government" with "the guy down the street". If you described the act of "taxing" but instead of using government you used any other individual, you would certainly call it theft. Again, I make no special pleading.

Exactly. You said you favor obedience to just laws. I asked who determines what's just, you said the elites (paraphrased). So you favor obedience to laws determined by the elites.

I don't have time to read that, care to summarize the "original position"?

If #2 is correct, wouldn't that be an argument against ANY form of government? Seems to me that #2 would not only rule out taxation, but also rule out ALL laws.

It would preclude any use of the initiation of force against peaceful people.

If an individual is not the owner of themselves, then who would be and why?

I can't help but think of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech (a favourite, not least because of some of the reactions it got!).

Libertarians often make reference to what they call the "Non-Aggression Principle", namely that force ought only be employed against those who are using force (which includes fraud) against peaceful people.

Hard to argue with your two points. Which is why I have twice voted for the Libertarian candidate for president, and will probably do so a third time in 2020.

Obama said a lot of nice sounding things. None of which hold up under scrutiny. Demagogues always sound like they make a lot of sense. And Obama was one of the best demagogues we have seen.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Grunch:

I never heard that nor thought that it was implied. It's just saying that religious ideologies aren't any more murderous than political ideologies.

Ideology = Bad. Conservatism(the antithesis of ideology) = Good.

No special pleading here. You assume I accept the non-aggression principle for individuals, but I don't. In the absence of a state I think pre-emptive violence against others is often morally acceptable. I think Hobbes is basically correct about the game theory. This is one of the biggest advantages of having a state, that it makes it rational to collaboratively use the non-aggression principle towards a greater number of people.

In the US, property rights in land are what are referred to as fee simple. This is in contrast to allodial property rights. Allodial property rights are absolute over a territory - no one can charge you any rent, taxes, etc for that land. This is the kind of property rights that were typically asserted by absolute monarchs over their lands.

However, because this land was too much for a single person to use, they would grant feudal estates to their lords under a structure called fee simple. This meant that those lords would have some ownership rights over that land, but must then promise to provide the monarch with a certain number of soldiers during war. Later on this was converted into an obligation to pay taxes to the monarch.

Now, the US doesn't have a monarch. But we do still use English common law as the basis for property rights, including the concept of fee simple ownership. Thus, when you buy land in the US, you are not purchasing allodial title in the land (since the person selling it to you doesn't have that title), but a fee simple title. Thus, your purchase of the land carries with it certain obligations, including an obligation to pay property taxes to the government.

Thus, in the same way that when you take ownership of a car or house that is not fully paid off you are also accepting the obligation to pay the lender back, when you take ownership of land in the US you are accepting the obligation to pay property taxes. Thus, (4) is false.

The bolded is correct. Your paraphrase is incorrect. I have explicitly stated that I think you should obey both just and unjust laws. Thus, you can't derive from my claim that you should obey the law that the law is just. Thus, your paraphrase isn't an implication of my stated position (and in fact is contrary to my stated position).

Sure. Justice as fairness says a maximally just society will structure its basic institutions so they are consistent with two principles:

1.Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

a) They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
b) They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).

I would reject premise (1). Theft is not, in practice, taking without permission. It's taking in violation of established social norms. "Permission" is a component of those norms but not the only one.

In this case the "established" norms are formalized in common law, so that history and the shape of the law is relevant and interesting, but I think libertarians are usually making a moral, and not legal, argument, and would tend to reject the legal argument as irrelevant. So I think the more fundamental issue is with their definition of theft, and with their way of conceptualizing morality.