Market Anarchist since...

[helio]

I wish I had some cool stories like David.  I think neo-conservatives have the hardest time accepting it because they generally seem to be the most nationalistic.

I'm a Christian, but I've been wondering why anarchists seem to be so dominantly atheist.  Could someone offer an explanation if this is true and why?  

I can't speak for anyone else but me, but I became an atheist first, around the age of 15 or 16.  
My story is ironic because my father was a minister for my entire life.  Yeap, preacher's kid.  Our church were particularly hellfire and brimstone, so the congregation was always pretty small.  

For me, I had always been terrified of the prospects for eternal damnation.  I was 'saved' twice. at 7 and again at 12 because I wasn't sure.  I was still terrified.  Then, from somewhere, I asked myself how I knew I was even in the right faith?  What if the Buddhists or Muslims had the 'right' faith? Then I slowly began to ask questions about how to begin to figure out which one was right.  

I remember around age 16, I refused to participate in our church's weeklong 'camp meeting'.  One of my dad's preacher friends came down to the parsonage to talk to me.  I remember asking him lots of questions about how he knew he was correct.  Each of his answers quoted the bible.   I asked, "How do you know the bible is correct?".  He finally just said he felt sorry for my soul and hoped Jesus would touch my heart, and left it at that.

So, I learned two things from this experience:
1. To know the strength of my beliefs, they must be attacked
2. Any belief system that condemns doubt is likely false.

I disagree that atheists are more logical.  It is the validity of the premise that leads to error most of the time, not the logic in deducing the relationship between the premises.  So I won't say atheists are more logical, because I don't think that is accurate.  Former christians become atheists when they get brave and challenge the premises upon which their faith is founded.

That is the same intellectual method that a person abandons statism and becomes an anarchist; challenging ones premises.  The more a person does it, the better you get at it.

[helio]

Part of the reason this forum is so peaceful, I think, is that its members are naturally less emotional than our statist counterparts

It is also about goals.  Mine is to see and end to the state as an accepted idea.  Whether people choose to have a faith or not, is personal to them and perfectly within their domain. 

I have great hope that Christians could be the largest potential group of allies we could have.  Just the other day my mom and I were discussing the behavior of some of the local churches' attendees that we knew.  I made the statement that the church has become an instrument of government and the Christians have largely sold out their faith to nationalism.  I asked her how many christian flags does she see flying, compared to the number of american flags at the homes of Christians?  None.

I would really like to see a church spring up that is full of anarchist Christians who witness and minister their fellow statist Christians.  I think that if they root their position firmly in biblical argument, many statist Christians could be convinced.

I wouldn't mind living in a free society with a bunch of Christians, Muslims, or any other faith, so long as individual sovereignty is respected. 

[AgoristTeen1994]

Right plus there are a few libertarians, including a few libertarian anarchists who use Christianity as the basis for their beliefs, such as Leo Tolstoy, and the guy who runs www.libertarianchristians.com who I'm pretty sure is an anarchist. While my being a Christian isn't the ONLY basis for my anarchism, or even a major one, that is part of why I am a anarchist. The way I see it humans are imperfect, only God is 1. Omnipotent and 2. Omniscient thus since humans, are by nature imperfect, and sinful, it's best to not have a gov't since 1. if there is a gov't it will be inherently corrupt because of people's inherently corrupt nature. and 2. I REALLY do not want the gov't to screw up...which it WILL eventually since it is run by humans, who are imperfect. I actually came close to converting my friend to christian anarchism by using such arguments as well as quoting the Bible. I say "close" because to use the metaphor, about taking a horse to water, I took him to the River of Anarchism, and he took a sip, then sadly, spat it out as if it was poison....still....I came close.

Also I know a lot of people take Romans Chapter 13 as meaning "do whatever the gov't tells you" but I disagree since based on my reading and interpretation of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, God and Jesus are inherently peaceful...while they aren't afraid to "kick butt" if necessary they prefer not too (that was a quote from my former youth pastor, before she and her family moved.) and they definitely are opposed to initiation of violence and coercion, and thus which would you expect God to want to obey if you had conflicting orders, him or the gov't? By "conflicting orders" I mean that say the gov't orders you to steal from a woman, rape her and her daughter and then kill both the woman and her daughter and then desecrate their corpses....all of which are things that are more than a little bit frowned upon by God and Jesus....which do you think God wants you to obey him, even if it means being punished by the gov't, or obey the gov't? I think God wants us to obey HIM!!! Really I think that Romans 13, is about things like obeying your parents, and doing what a property owner tells you while you're on his property or if you don't want to do that leave...that's my interpretation at least.

[Script]

I don't know if you can be a percentage Anarchist, but if you could I would be somewhere in the 90s.  I guess I take a long time to make up my mind when changing my opinions on things, but that's because I want to make absolutely sure and not end up flip-flopping if new evidence presents itself.  I have all the tools I need, I've read a lot of Mises.org and lewrockwell.com articles and essays.  I'm starting Rothbard's Man Economy and State with a book club, I've listened to a lot of podcasts by Tom Woods, Hans Herman Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo and others.  There are just a few things that are hanging me up.

My story starts with an Econ 100 class taught by a Pastor's wife at my local University.  She is an advocate of Austrian economics, mostly Hayekian, and she injected a lot of that into her class.  She introduced me to the "economic way of thinking" in which economics is directly relevant to personal choices in life and how humans interact with each other.  This was a whole new idea for me, as prior to that, I had the typical opinion of economics as boring numbers, graphs and equations. 

Towards the end of her class she offered us the choice between the "red pill" and the "blue pill".  The red pill was a book by Russell Roberts entitled "The Invisible Heart, An Economic Romance".  The book was essentially a compassionate driven defense of free markets and a refutation of the typical Progressive drivel about the "cold-hearted capitalists".  I read the book.  Even to this day, I think she has no idea exactly how deep the rabbit hole she showed me goes.

The next steps happened a few years later at a book club she hosted on campus.  The discussions were supposed to be on economics, but invariably they took a political turn.  When the subject of taxes came up, one of the members of the group, a guy named David, made the claim “taxes are theft”.  He articulated his points very well and I couldn't argue with his logic.  During this time I was also reading articles at Mises.org and doing a fair amount of google searching on the subject of the State. 

The next couple years (up to now) are hard for me to clearly trace the path that I followed to get to my current state of mind.  However, there was a lot of reading, debating and thinking involved.  I would argue with anyone who would listen about anarchism the state and taxes.  As David observed: “once you accept that taxes are theft it all follows from there”.

I am now almost completely converted to anarchism.  There are a few things still holding me back from 100% declaring myself an Anarchist that I am researching and thinking through.  One of those is religion.  I will probably start a separate thread with some questions for the Christians on this forum as they might be able to help me in my thought processes, but I don't want to distract this thread.  I am not too worried about people getting offended by a religious discussion based on the posts I've seen in this thread and throughout the forum.  Frankly, I am amazed by the respectfulness and lack of hostility with which the members of this forum handle religion (both sides). 

(Note: while writing this AgoristTeen1994 just brought up one of the things I'm struggling with: Romans 13.)

[JustSayNoToStatism]

With Seth's approval I'll continue  .
I'm going to highly recommend a passage to the readers of this thread. Human Action, chapter II: Epistemological Problems of Human Action, section 11: The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts.
It can be read here.
I was honestly stunned when I read it the first time (which is why I will always remember it), because I never expected him to discuss this in an economics treatise.

I think you all know which two lines I would remove from this section of the book (:

As a whole, this section is mindblowing, and a true masterpiece. It's somewhat related to this discussion, since it mentions omnipotence and omniscience.

[helio]

Frankly, I am amazed by the respectfulness and lack of hostility with which the members of this forum handle religion (both sides). 

I think it is because there aren't any narcissists here and I hope it stays that way =).

Note: while writing this AgoristTeen1994 just brought up one of the things I'm struggling with: Romans 13.

Which version of the Bible do you read?  For example:
Romans 13.1 - 2 in the King James 1611 version

1.Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

However, contrast that to the New International Version:

1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Furthermore, consider this for a moment.
Let us accept, for the moment, the argument that people should obey the government.  If that is the case, then the American Revolution was fought against God's will.  Turn that over in your mind a few times...

Maybe we do need a new thread on the subject. 

[Seth King]

I don't know if this contributes to the conversation or not, but I do not believe there is such a thing as coercive authority.

If a man sticks you up in a back alley, does he have authority? The answer is no. Nor do one million men doing the same thing.

The only legitimate authority is that which is freely assented to, such as an employer, a teacher, a property owner.

In this case, anyone who rebels against authority IS rebelling against God, because legitimate authority is natural. And all that is natural is of God.

[Script]

Hey, I don't want to hijack this thread so I started another one under "Questions About Anarcho- Capitalism" where we can further debate the religious aspect.

Edit: link inserted

[Anarcho/Infowarrior]

 It was a slow, time developing process for me.

End of 08 through 09: Ron Paul supporter
Middle of 10: Discovered Rothbard's "For a New Liberty"
Through 10: Became more of a radical minarchist. Still a Ron Paul supporter but started to apply Rothbard to many things.
2011: Found Tom Wood's "Rollback" and became an Anarcho-capitalist.

And I do believe in God, btw.

[Linux]

I was born an anarchist, I just didn't know it till about 2009. Before that I was a Ron Paul libertarian. How many people here are atheist and how many aren't? I myself am a Christian in the PCA.

What's the term for somebody who is non-religious, yet non-atheist? A deist?

What does PCA stand for?

Sorry, I forgot to check back in this thread. Presbyterian Church in America is what it stands for.

The PCA's main beliefs are decentralized church government (elder rule, vs. pastor/congregation rule,) baptism (we sprinkle instead of dunking, and we baptize infants) and Calvinism. Just to summarize.

As others have said, I too am amazed this hasn't descended into a flame war. I think it's because anarcho-capitalist are too cool to be noobs.

[Seth King]

I was born an anarchist, I just didn't know it till about 2009. Before that I was a Ron Paul libertarian. How many people here are atheist and how many aren't? I myself am a Christian in the PCA.

What's the term for somebody who is non-religious, yet non-atheist? A deist?

What does PCA stand for?

As others have said, I too am amazed this hasn't descended into a flame war. I think it's because anarcho-capitalist are too cool to be noobs.

I think that's because all anarcho-capitalists were at one time or another something else. And it is humbling to know that we were all wrong on many different things in the past, so there is little point judging another too harshly if we think they are wrong on something in the present.

[Script]

With Seth's approval I'll continue  .
I'm going to highly recommend a passage to the readers of this thread. Human Action, chapter II: Epistemological Problems of Human Action, section 11: The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts.
It can be read here.
I was honestly stunned when I read it the first time (which is why I will always remember it), because I never expected him to discuss this in an economics treatise.

I think you all know which two lines I would remove from this section of the book (:

As a whole, this section is mindblowing, and a true masterpiece. It's somewhat related to this discussion, since it mentions omnipotence and omniscience.

I've read this section a couple times and find it very interesting, but I don't think it illuminates the issue of the existence of God at all. Mises is talking about the limits of praxeology and how it doesn't apply to God because we cant know if He operates under the same logical structures that we do or even if he follows the laws of causality. Humans are not omniscient, and praxeology does not apply to omniscience, but that doesn't mean there isn't an omniscient God. At least that's how I interpret this section.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

With Seth's approval I'll continue  .
I'm going to highly recommend a passage to the readers of this thread. Human Action, chapter II: Epistemological Problems of Human Action, section 11: The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts.
It can be read here.
I was honestly stunned when I read it the first time (which is why I will always remember it), because I never expected him to discuss this in an economics treatise.

I think you all know which two lines I would remove from this section of the book (:

As a whole, this section is mindblowing, and a true masterpiece. It's somewhat related to this discussion, since it mentions omnipotence and omniscience.

I've read this section a couple times and find it very interesting, but I don't think it illuminates the issue of the existence of God at all. Mises is talking about the limits of praxeology and how it doesn't apply to God because we cant know if He operates under the same logical structures that we do or even if he follows the laws of causality. Humans are not omniscient, and praxeology does not apply to omniscience, but that doesn't mean there isn't an omniscient God. At least that's how I interpret this section.

I interpret it as meaning that a full understanding of the terms omnipotence and omniscience is beyond the scope of human reason, especially so when something is claimed to be BOTH omnipotent and omniscient, for the reasons he pointed out (inherent contradiction). So if this combination of things is literally meaningless to the human mind, what sense is there in making the claim to believe something to be omnipotent and omniscient? As far as you can ever reason, the two things are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd argue it doesn't mean anything to claim to believe in it. You can't believe in something if you don't know what it is you claim to believe in. Even if you could believe in it (although I posit you cannot) then would it be rational to believe in it? Again, I say the answer is a definitive no.

If I introduce the words parchus, and norgus, and claim to be the living examples of both of them, what does it mean if you say you believe this to be true? Well, since you don't know what it means, I would have to conclude you were behaving irrationally. Say I then explained what those terms meant (or rather invented meanings): parchus = everything, norgus = nothing. Now I ask the same question again, do you believe I am the living examples of both? Now if you said yes, I would still be wondering to myself if you are a rational being.

My first example here is analogous to my first point above: What does it mean to believe in something when you aren't sure what it is you believe in? Can it mean anything at all?

My second example here is analogous to my second point above: Even if you thought you knew what these things meant (although in reality you do not and cannot) would that be sufficient reason to believe in something? What would a rational actor conclude about someone who answered "yes" to the aforementioned question?

[bastiat]

I started out as a standard conservative until maybe  06.  My first flicker of libertarianism was when I attempted to justify why the American revolution was not a sin. I used Romans 13 to create limit for the government that if it exceeded it ceased to be a government at all. Now the acceptable limits  I proposed were absurdly large, but they were still limits. In 07 I backed Romney against “Juan McCain” embarrassing because I perceived McCain as soft in immigration. But I began moving to libertarianism when I started watching Lee Doren’s  How Stuff Works in 09 and when he linked to The Keynes Vs Hayek rap I started to listen to Mises lectures. I my transition to radical libertarianism was completed about a year ago when I reanalyzed Romans 13 and realized just how limited the powers given to government are. I continued to become more radical and when I was debating with a friend a adopted an An-Cap position as a challenge. When it turned out to be almost as easy to defend as democracy, I increased my research. Over the past two months I have transitioned to being an An-Cap.  I am still probably a percentage anarchist.  Interestingly, the I am also PCA.

[Chris]

Hello Fellow Anarchists!!

I figure this thread is as good as any to introduce myself, so here it goes...

My name is Chris, and I have claimed different flavors of the anarchist school of thought for quite a while now. I'm a Southern boy at heart, but my Father was in the Air Force, so I moved out of the South, and moved to Chicago when I was about 10. I fell pretty hard into the punk scene there, and was an avid skateboarder. I listened to a lot of anarcho-punk in my youth, and it really helped to shape my thoughts. Bands like Propagandhi were so intellectual, and intelligent that often times I would sit in my room with a dictionary and pause my dubbed tapes to define the words they used like, Fascist, Communist, etc.

I was a very left leaning anarchist, and later in my teen years I hung out with some pretty radical "anarchists". Being a skateboarder really opened my eyes to the brutality and absolute authority of the police. Before the age of 18 I was arrested more times than I can count for trespassing, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. While in custody I was treated like a sub-human, thrown around, skateboards ran over by the cops, cuffs on WAY too tight. One time I was arrested in Chicago when it was about 10 degrees outside. We were very dedicated non-violent skaters. Six of us were put in the back of the "patty wagon" with no coats on and we were driven around the city for about eight hours. Where I was arrested the police station was about 3 blocks away. We were freezing, we had to go to the bathroom, the cuffs were ice cold, and the cops took every corner as hard as they could. Torture, plain and simple.

Through internal cross-examination I have found myself firmly in the anarcho-capitalist camp somewhere around five years ago, but I have always been anti-authority. I am very choosy about my activism, because I have a young family now. Besides, I have taken to different forms of activism. A war of philosophies will only be won with words, so I write quite a bit now. I write for a website called, http://zerogov.com/  and actually one of my essays is up right now. I have been a daily reader of the daily anarchist, and I would like to submit some of my stuff here.

Anyway, glad to be here.