The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I do understand and it is one

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Fascinating Idea (see in situ)

I do understand and it is one

I do understand and it is one reason I don't discuss self ownership in this essay:) It's an important topic but libertarian philosophy of whichever flavor doesn't depend on it. For our purposes specifically, I can suggest to you, based on delegation and ethical symmetry that you might be able to accurately call yourself a libertarian or even anarchist. I would consider anyone who finds cause to uphold even partial symmetry in the form of the Rule of Law, even if only in the specific case of the Constitution can consider themselves libertarian. Which is simply saying, and I think validly, if you believe in a Constitutionally limited government, then you are libertarian.

Further. It is not required to believe in self ownership to even be an anarchist. You merely need to agree in the narrow case of ethical symmetry in the form of the NAP, along with strict delegation.

Self ownership is nice, but not required. You may believe in ethical asymmetry with respect to your creator yet still believe in ethical symmetry between men. You may believe your creator may have no limits whatsoever to what he can delegate to you but surely this doesn't necessarily mean that you can't think that in human moral delegation one must have the moral authority first before it can be delegated.

Put in allegorical terms while God may be able to make a rock so big that he can't move it, he hasn't seemed to show any interest in granting us humans the ability to create paradoxes:)

So even granting that He could if He so desired, He hasn't, and we must live in the universe we are provided with. Humans can't create moral authority. If you agree we can't create moral authority, that we can only act on the authority we are given, then anarchy need not conflict with your Christianity. In fact many of the most famous living anarchist/libertarians are deeply religious. Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Jeffry Tucker, Bob Murphy, etc.

You don't need to own yourself to be an anarchist. You just need to agree that since you do not own yourself, you cannot legally transfer title to another man:D In fact you cannot transfer title at all. Whether you own yourself or god owns you and has granted to you exclusive stewardship of yourself for all eternity, the ramifications are the same. You may not even give stewardship back! Until He decides to reclaim it, you have no choice in the matter.

You can be a rigorously consistent Christian and be an anarchist if you wish. It's fun, it's cool, and it's philosophically coherent:D

And I would of course argue it's the most philosophically coherent position.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. I don't think you need a creator to have a moral code, but this is not my position. I assume by moral code you mean moral realism, morality resultant from the universe. Moral antireallists have moral codes, they just think of them more as aesthetics. Like assholes and opinions moral antireallists all have moral codes:)

I argue for a real moral code from a creator, I'm just indifferent if that creator is ultimately God or not. I argue it inductively from evolution and thence markets. Again there is no conflict if you think God created evolution. Actually I don't think there is a conflict if God fabricated the universe yesterday and is using fully fabricated evidence of evolution to get me to see signs of moral reality I think that works too.