Political Atheism

[Tim Moen]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a conspiracy theorist, or, a NWO theorist.

About 5 years ago at the age of 30 I finally was able to break from my fundamentalist Christian upbringing and truly examine my beliefs in the light of reality. I tried to remain as objective as possible during this soul searching process and studied as much material as possible on both sides of the debate including many Christian apologists. The writings of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens were very helpful during this period and really helped me understand the importance of living a life that is as congruent with reality as possible. This was a lengthy and very painful process that left palpable fractures in my family.

I can't tell you the feeling of relief that breaking free from this dogma has brought to my life. So much so that I now continually search my life for any dogma that I might be holding on to, because it feels great letting go and living a life that is more congruent with reality. I find Penn and Tellers: B.S. very entertaining and I must say that Penn's libertarian philosophy has always intrigued me, and in fact started me on a long road of questioning my own beliefs about politics.

After about a year of studying various political philosophies I currently consider myself a political atheist... I don't believe in government. You can't quantify government.... it doesn't appear to exist outside of our minds. There are men with guns, buildings, imaginary lines drawn on the land, people who claim moral authority... but no government. Government appears to be nothing more than a claimed monopoly on force... a construct of the mind designed to create an ethical heirarchy (some can use force, others cannot).

The consequence of the belief in government seems to be a whole lot of death.... much more than any belief in religion. Most of those around me believe in a god called 'democracy'... to those I would say I am an atheist to your 'democracy' in the way you don't believe in 'monarchy', or 'communism', or 'dictatorship'... I just take it one god more. Maybe thats a bad analogy, it may be more like a stone age tribesman believes that other gods than his particular tribes god exist, but, their particular god is more powerful (ie. Yaweh as opposed to Baal). Seems to me democracy is nothing more than mob rule. It has no more moral authority than any other failed god.

So fellow skeptics I would ask you to challenge my political atheism. Is it a dogmatic belief? Would you call it a religion in the same way that Christians call atheism a religion? Can you provide me with some ways in which belief in government and belief in a god are different? I feel I must be way off base here, because why wouldn't notable skeptics such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet pick up the cause of erradicating such a harmful belief system?

 

[Lonewulf]

The analogy er... rather fails at some fundamental points.

However, in the absense of this thing you call "not a government", what would you rather have?

And why should anyone else accept this thing, that you would have us be under (whether it be anarchy or your own form of government)?

 

[Tim Moen]

The analogy er... rather fails at some fundamental points.

However, in the absense of this thing you call "government", what would you rather have?

And why should anyone else accept this thing, that you would have us be under (whether it be anarchy or your own form of government)?

I'm not proposing anything. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to run your life. Thats my point. I don't believe I need someone else running my life, and I certainly don't need to elect someone to run yours. I wouldn't want you under any form of authority that you don't voluntarily submit to.

I think that some people would prefer to live a communal life and others a fiercely independent one. I think most would choose to participate in a free economy where trade of goods, services, and ideas are unrestricted. If you are afraid of suicide bombers... I imagine someone would market themselves as your protector for example... you could choose your level of protection based on your perceived need and your resources.

Can you explain to me how my analogy fails on several fundamental points, thats what I am really interested in? I'm not really interested in hearing arguments about whether living under one political system or another is more effective, I'm only interested in arguments from morality. I subscribe to the axiom that no man should commit an act of aggression against another man (murder, theft of property, assault, coercion etc.), therefore, I do not believe that government is valid because it gives certain men the right to commit aggressive acts against another.

 

[paximperium]

I'm not proposing anything. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to run your life. Thats my point. I don't believe I need someone else running my life, and I certainly don't need to elect someone to run yours. I wouldn't want you under any form of authority that you don't voluntarily submit to.

Actually here is where a large number of people would completely disagree with you.

I would want other people telling me and others not to blow a stranger's brains out. I would want other people telling me and others not to steal, rob or rape.
I sure as hell would want someone else to tell you to drive your car on the right side of road.

I think that some people would prefer to live a communal life and others a fiercely independent one. I think most would choose to participate in a free economy where trade of goods, services, and ideas are unrestricted. If you are afraid of suicide bombers... I imagine someone would market themselves as your protector for example... you could choose your level of protection based on your perceived need and your resources.

Sorry such anarchist beliefs are essentially pure selfishness.

There is nothing communal about such attitudes. Essentially what such a system will lead to might is right or the rich gaining even more power than they do right now. The rich get to protect themselves with hired guns while the poor get killed.

Can you explain to me how my analogy fails on several fundamental points, thats what I am really interested in? I'm not really interested in hearing arguments about whether living under one political system or another is more effective, I'm only interested in arguments from morality. I subscribe to the axiom that no man should commit an act of aggression against another man (murder, theft of property, assault, coercion etc.), therefore, I do not believe that government is valid because it gives certain men the right to commit aggressive acts against another.

So who's going to enforce such a belief?
Who's going to stop Bob from blowing your brains out and moving on to another place where he isn't known?
While the police may not stop the primary criminal act, they can attempt to stop more from ocurring by incarcerating or killing the individual.

 

[Tim Moen]

Thanks for the response Pax.

Again I was hoping not to argue from effect, but, from morality... but I will address some of your points:

1) Violence is required to keep people in-line:
Most relationships I engage in are voluntary, I don't require threat of violence for me to cooperate with my neighbors and not steal and commit murder. I do these things because I understand that it benefits me more to be peaceful and cooperative. Violence from my experience creates more violence... not more non-violence.

2) Anarchism is selfish:
I'm not sure how to respond to this other than to say advocating cooperative and non-violent relationships seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from advocating violent and coercive ones.

I would choose to live by some rules as well in the absence of government. For example I'd probably only pay to drive on roads where the owner has made a rule about which side one should drive on. I would probably hire a third party arbitrator when engaging in commerce to ensure contract enforcement and warn me about criminals (those who have breeched contracts in the past and/or committed violent acts). For any problem that you are concerned about, I'm sure that somebody will find a way to solve it and sell it to you if its so important. I'm not sure how a government is required for this.

I would find your government apologia more compelling if you could argue from morality. For example if you could point out the ethical distinction between a mobster extorting protection money and government taxation I would appreciate it. Or, maybe you could explain how forcibly confining someone against their will... in an institutionalized rape room no less... is different than me kidnapping and holding another person captive.

Once you have established that 'government' actually exists... you have all your work ahead of you to explain how it can grant a man moral authority.

 

[politas]

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, it doesn't really matter if you don't believe that government exists. It does, and there's not much you can do about it. You will find that out if you decide to break the law.

In short, the kind of society we have in which we can, in general, trust other people only exists when there is some kind of government making and enforcing rules. The point about driving on the correct side of the road is one good example of this.

We've seen what happens in lawless societies. Would we really prefer to live that way?

 

[phantomb]

After about a year of studying various political philosophies I currently consider myself a political atheist... I don't believe in government.

Right, so first of all, please stop using the term "political atheist" to mean "one who does not believe in government". I don't know what term you should be using, but the word "atheist" shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Also, and I'm adding this retrospectively, can you please explain exactly what you mean when you say "I don't believe in government". Some of the time it it looks like you mean "I don't believe that one form of government is better than another", some of the time it looks like you mean "I don't believe that governments physically exist", etc.

You can't quantify government.... it doesn't appear to exist outside of our minds. There are men with guns, buildings, imaginary lines drawn on the land, people who claim moral authority... but no government. Government appears to be nothing more than a claimed monopoly on force... a construct of the mind designed to create an ethical heirarchy (some can use force, others cannot).

government |ˈgəvərmənt| |ˈgəvə(r)mənt|
noun
1 [treated as sing. or pl. ] the governing body of a nation, state, or community : an agency of the federal government | [as adj. ] government controls.

Yes, governments function as a construct of the mind. If tomorrow everybody decided to stop acknowledging the current government then the government would no longer exist. This doesn't change the fact that today, many governments do exist and everybody knows this.

The consequence of the belief in government seems to be a whole lot of death.... much more than any belief in religion.

What reason do you have to believe that? One of the main reasons we have governments is that without an enforced rule of law, some people would choose to break your non-aggression axiom. Also, please specify what exactly you are referring to as "a whole lot of death". If you are blaming government for war here, can you point to any anarchistic societies that have acted differently when faced with situations similar to the ones that have lead governed societies to kill or go to war?

And are you seriously saying that you can't think of a single advantage to the people that is granted by having governments around?

Most of those around me believe in a god called 'democracy'... to those I would say I am an atheist to your 'democracy' in the way you don't believe in 'monarchy', or 'communism', or 'dictatorship'... I just take it one god more. Maybe thats a bad analogy,

Yes, it is a terrible analogy. Belief in the existence of gods doesn't have much to do with belief in the effectiveness of a system of government.

it may be more like a stone age tribesman believes that other gods than his particular tribes god exist, but, their particular god is more powerful (ie. Yaweh as opposed to Baal).

I guess that makes more sense, but I don't see why you're so fixated with connecting belief in the effectiveness of systems of government to god beliefs.

Seems to me democracy is nothing more than mob rule. It has no more moral authority than any other failed god.

Perhaps this is true if you believe in a universal, objective morality. I believe that for the most part, if the majority of the people in a society decide that a certain action is not moral, then the government, if so charged by the people, has the moral authority to act to stop people from doing it.

So fellow skeptics I would ask you to challenge my political atheism. Is it a dogmatic belief?

That would depend on where your beliefs came from, and why you believe them.

Would you call it a religion in the same way that Christians call atheism a religion?

A belief system maybe, but a religion, no. The strict definition of religion requires the belief and worship of a superhuman power.

Can you provide me with some ways in which belief in government and belief in a god are different?

Here's the important one: belief in the effectiveness of a form of government is a personal opinion, while belief in a god makes a claim about the objective universe.

I feel I must be way off base here, because why wouldn't notable skeptics such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet pick up the cause of erradicating such a harmful belief system?

What belief system? If you are referring to the fact that we indoctrinate our children to believe that our government or form of government is the best, then I imagine the reason that skeptics don't "pick up the case" is that one's belief in the effectiveness of one form of government over another is not a claim about the objective universe, and thus has nothing to do with skeptics as they have nothing to be skeptical about.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't want to clash with your ideas, but...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4

 

[adamruth]

Tim,

It's good to read what you said, as I have followed a similar path, except that I went from anarchism (voluntaryism) to atheism instead of the other way round.

I've had this same discussion with many, many sceptics over the years and haven't heard a compelling moral argument for government, except for those who deny individual property rights. Those who think that all property is actually owned by "the collective" and therefore anything done in the name of more evenly distributing that wealth is morally acceptable. I usually fail in trying to explain that property can only be owned by one individual at a time, and that there's no such thing as communal ownership. Some one individual must be in charge of administering usage of a piece of property, and they are the owner.

The response you got earlier is a fairly typical response. This fallacy is usually the first to come out:

You: I don't think government should be operating a police force.
Them: I wouldn't want to live in a world where no one is punished for crimes.

The idea that government alone is capable of punishing crimes is pretty dearly held by those who have faith in government. Crime prevention is a valuable good, and people are willing to pay for it, so it will be provided.

Next is usually the fallacy that only wealthy people will have whatever services that the government currently provides:

You: I don't think that there should be government.
Them: Then who will pay for the roads?
You: Whomever derives value from them. Who pays for parking lots and driveways?
Them: Then only rich people and rich places will have roads.

In the same way that only rich people get to eat, I guess. Rich cities will probably have better roads, with all kinds of high-technology, but is that such a bad thing? Wouldn't mass transit be more widely used without poor people paying for rich people's roads? The concept of roads is quite complex, until you understand the economics behind it, and then it's actually pretty simple.

It goes on, usually ending with a pragmatic argument that essentially says that the ends justify the means, "Some violence against non-violent people to achieve my goals is acceptable because it's not directed at me." And they think that individualists are selfish...

The primary problem, I think, is folk economics. Sceptics wouldn't dream of supporting folk medicine, but for some reason folk economics seems to be all the rage. It is this naïveté that leads many to a belief in government. Things like:

1) Minimum wages help poor people.
2) Trade deficits are bad things.
3) Unions protect workers from corporations.
4) Opportunity cost... what's opportunity cost?
5) There is no dead weight loss to taxation.
6) Monopolies exist naturally in a free market.
7) Making something illegal is the same as making it not happen.
8) Government employees do a better job because there is no profit margin.
9) People vote rationally.
10) Regulation keeps corporations from hurting consumers.

Etc.

Personally, I think that sceptics generally don't like the fact that free markets (read: free human interaction) cannot be controlled. Science is all about being able to measure, master, and control the natural world. Markets and humans cannot be controlled, and any attempt to do so is doomed to fail. It's comforting to view people as pieces on a chessboard who can be moved around at will by the central planners. The fact that each piece has it's own will and will resist being moved is painful for some to accept.

 

[adamruth]

Well, it doesn't really matter if you don't believe that government exists. It does, and there's not much you can do about it. You will find that out if you decide to break the law.

Actually, no, it only exists as a concept. When I form a club with some other people, the club doesn't physically exist. All that exists are individual people who agree with me how the concept works. If I break the law, all I will find out is that there are people with guns and robes and jails who will enforce those laws. Government is only in their minds.

In short, the kind of society we have in which we can, in general, trust other people only exists when there is some kind of government making and enforcing rules.

Governments aren't the only things to create and enforce rules. When you come to my property, there is a set of rules that must be followed to allow you to continue to be there. Currently, if you break my rules, I call up an enforcement agency to have you removed. Typically that is a government police force, but it need not be so.

The point about driving on the correct side of the road is one good example of this.

Those rules are created by the owners of the road, which for most roads is the government. Owners of private roads don't require you to drive on the other side or not require you to pick a side. They do this because it's stupid to do otherwise. Industry standards exist for a reason.

We've seen what happens in lawless societies. Would we really prefer to live that way?

Lawless societies and societies without government are not the same thing. There are plenty of lawless societies with government, why can't there be societies with law and order without government?

 

[phantomb]

I went from anarchism (voluntaryism) to atheism instead of the other way round.

What?

 

[adamruth]

A belief system maybe, but a religion, no. The strict definition of religion requires the belief and worship of a superhuman power.

You're correct about this, but I would add one caveat.

A belief in government requires the idea that acts which are immoral for individuals to commit become moral when committed by "the government." In a way this is a power which is possessed by a non-existent entity. Not a physical power, certainly, but something to consider.

 

[adamruth]

What?

I was an anarchist before I was an atheist. My journey to anarchism touched off my journey to atheism.

 

[phantomb]

I was an anarchist before I was an atheist. My journey to anarchism touched off my journey to atheism.

Ah, okay. I thought you were saying that you used to be an anarchist but are now an atheist instead.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually, no, it only exists as a concept. When I form a club with some other people, the club doesn't physically exist. All that exists are individual people who agree with me how the concept works. If I break the law, all I will find out is that there are people with guns and robes and jails who will enforce those laws. Government is only in their minds.

I don't agree. Government exists in the physicality of the people who hold government jobs. When the man in an immaculately tailored suit comes to the door and says "I work for the government", there's the tangible existence of the government right there at your door.

By your reasoning, religion doesn't exist either, since it exists only in the minds of its adherents. Families don't exist - there are just people who share parts of their DNA. I choose to acknowledge the independent existence of government as an entity because there is logical and practical benefit to doing so.

Governments aren't the only things to create and enforce rules. When you come to my property, there is a set of rules that must be followed to allow you to continue to be there. Currently, if you break my rules, I call up an enforcement agency to have you removed. Typically that is a government police force, but it need not be so.

Those rules are created by the owners of the road, which for most roads is the government. Owners of private roads don't require you to drive on the other side or not require you to pick a side. They do this because it's stupid to do otherwise. Industry standards exist for a reason.

However, if your rules are in opposition to the government's rules, guess who has the final say? Hint: David Koresh thought that he could defy the government's rules.

Lawless societies and societies without government are not the same thing. There are plenty of lawless societies with government, why can't there be societies with law and order without government?

Because left to their own devices, human beings will tend to be selfish, and do things for the sole benefit to themselves without regard for the desires of others. Also, when two unregulated human beings come into conflict, one of them is usually seriously injured or killed.

I'm quite happy with the existence of government, thank you very much, if it means that the guy I accidentally bump into at the store isn't going to shoot me because he's had a bad day.

Government exists to regulate society for the benefit of all. Sometimes this means that the government has to do things that you don't personally agree with. Such is the nature of compromise. I participate in the voting process partly because in my country, one of the government's rules is that I am required to, and partly because by voting in elections I have some small measure of influence over which people get chosen to participate in my country's governing body.

 

[arthwollipot]

A belief in government requires the idea that acts which are immoral for individuals to commit become moral when committed by "the government."

Why should that be the case?

 

[phantomb]

You're correct about this, but I would add one caveat.

A belief in government requires the idea that acts which are immoral for individuals to commit become moral when committed by "the government." In a way this is a power which is possessed by a non-existent entity. Not a physical power, certainly, but something to consider.

Here's a simplified scenario:

The people vote to decide what is a crime and what is not.

One of these crimes is locking people up.

The people appoint a representative to be in the government whose job is to judge criminals and sentence those who are found guilty.

The people appoint police to enforce their list of crimes, and agree that even if these police have to commit the crime of locking someone up, they will not be punished for doing so.

Someone commits a crime .

The judge decides to lock the criminal up.

The police carry out the sentence.

The people don't complain about the police because they remember that they had already decided that it was okay for them to commit that crime.

Now tell me, at what point in this scenario was power given to a non-existent entity?

 

[adamruth]

I don't agree. Government exists in the physicality of the people who hold government jobs. When the man in an immaculately tailored suit comes to the door and says "I work for the government", there's the tangible existence of the government right there at your door.

By your reasoning, religion doesn't exist either, since it exists only in the minds of its adherents. Families don't exist - there are just people who share parts of their DNA. I choose to acknowledge the independent existence of government as an entity because there is logical and practical benefit to doing so.

When I say that these things don't exist, I mean that they don't exist outside the minds of those who choose to acknowledge them. The point being that a government has no will, power, authority, or capabilities that exist independent of the individual humans that make it up. Government, like religion, is incapable of any action, only the individuals within it can do things in its name. It's a consciousness raising concept to acknowledge that everything done in the name of government (or religion for that matter) was done by individuals.

However, if your rules are in opposition to the government's rules, guess who has the final say? Hint: David Koresh thought that he could defy the government's rules.

My point was that those rules don't cease to exist when government does.

Because left to their own devices, human beings will tend to be selfish, and do things for the sole benefit to themselves without regard for the desires of others. Also, when two unregulated human beings come into conflict, one of them is usually seriously injured or killed.

Couldn't agree more. I think you're conflating government with the goals of government. Those goals (helping people to get along with each other) will continue to exist without government.

I'm quite happy with the existence of government, thank you very much, if it means that the guy I accidentally bump into at the store isn't going to shoot me because he's had a bad day.

Good for you, I want something better.

 

[adamruth]

Why should that be the case?

Because a government which doesn't have authority to do things that individuals don't isn't a government at all, but a club.

It's what differentiates government from all other forms of organisation, a monopoly on the use and exercise of violence.