Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?

For the most part Christianity is a big part of American conservatism. Most of the conservatives I know are more interested in small government than religion. Still, rhetoric involving religion is more prominent among conservative groups and pundits than liberals.

I'm a fiscal conservative.


If we go by anecdotes, Christianity is central to the conservative American. Alas, I don't have actual statistics. Logic dictates, however, that the majority will be Christians.

It is the basis for the ideology it seems. I'm studying Southern rhetoric right now so I've been up and down this convo many times. If someone doesn't get into it later, I'll cover it but I'm lazy right now .

Originally posted by chithappens
It is the basis for the ideology it seems. I'm studying Southern rhetoric right now so I've been up and down this convo many times. If someone doesn't get into it later, I'll cover it but I'm lazy right now .


No no, please do cover it. We certainly could use some discussion around these parts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, please do cover it. We certainly could use some discussion around these parts. Nah.

I will just say a few things to get the ball rolling rather than attempt to cover the entire thing.

First let me mention that I am only 21 years old. I consider myself a moderate thinker. Two years ago, I thought I was a liberal but as some things have changed, I found myself becoming more and more conservative politically, musically, etc. I would be willing to argue that part of being "conservative" is a belief that things should be a certain way or should not be changed wildly that we forget it's purposes; however, these things can be taken to an extreme which then results in a group simply making up things to preserve a false memory or to excuse irrational behavior.

Religion is one of those things that is often used to make very blanket statements about how life should be lived and the way you should swing your vote. History (or it's misrepresentation) is also used to sway groups of people. History affects culture, culture controls rhetoric (direct or indirect).

For example, there is this republican who I can't think of for the life of me who ran for reelection as a senator in 2008. A Native American was videotaping one of his town hall meetings or something like that waiting on him to say something stupid on tape. The idiot senator then looks at the Native American (who is obviously holding a camera) and calls the guy a "caca" or some variation of that word (a derogatory term for Native Americans and means "shit" in Spanish). Rhetorically speaking, it was the senator's way of reaching out to the "real" (speaking to the culture) voters in a way the rest of the public might not understand. So of course the video was published and he lost, but this is an example of how this persist today.

*I'm sure someone knows about this and can find the video but I gotta do some work for this damn Geology lab now...

Ever since traditional conservatism, pre-American, religion was seen as a necessary part of society because it was meant to provide social services and an additional structure of social order in a society. The difference between traditional conservatism and the American conservatism that emerged during the cold war on the heels of people such as Rousas Rushdoony, Billy Graham, and James Kennedy, is that traditional conservatism did not prescribe any specific faith as long as the church worked in tandem with the state whereas American Christian conservatism specifically prescribes a form of charismatic protestant Christianity which tends to reinforce American conservative social and economic policies regardless of biblical doctrine on one end of the spectrum while advocating theocracy or even Dominionism (basically, Christian Fascism) on the far end of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ever since traditional conservatism, pre-American, religion was seen as a necessary part of society because it was meant to provide social services and an additional structure of social order in a society. The difference between traditional conservatism and the American conservatism that emerged during the cold war on the heels of people such as Rousas Rushdoony, Billy Graham, and James Kennedy, is that traditional conservatism did not prescribe any specific faith as long as the church worked in tandem with the state whereas American Christian conservatism specifically prescribes a form of charismatic protestant Christianity which tends to reinforce American conservative social and economic policies regardless of biblical doctrine on one end of the spectrum while advocating theocracy or even Dominionism (basically, Christian Fascism) on the far end of the spectrum.

I could easily argue that the Christian conservatism you mention existed and was used way before the cold war. Any discussions of slavery (political and literary) were dominated by religious undertones before the middle of the 19th century when slavery became the American problem rather than Native Americans specifically.

It would be very difficult to explain on a purely secular level why poor white citizens of the U.S. would be for slavery when, at the very least, it insured less jobs for them. There are loads of examples where politicians and scholars up until the 1960s openly used the Bible as proof that equal rights or any mix of races was immoral and against God's will.

That's splitting hairs and actually has to do with religious and political factions.

I was simply stating that in traditional conservatism, the roll of the church is to provide further social order as well as maintain schools, hospitals, social welfare etc.

Financially, it means that people are obligated to pay taxes to the government, which in this case typically meant a monarchy with or without a parliament which provides law enforcement and defense in exchange (judicial rights were typically pay per use affairs). The church collected tithes through shaming/social pressure or fees through services or the selling of indulgences, typically from the poor or middle class (or the pre-bourgeoisie service/banker/merchant class) which it then used to pay tributes to government and either a central church, Rome, or the head of the orthodox church (be it Moscow or Constantinople). What was left-over was used for financing schools, often run through monasteries-many of which also did some of the leading scientific research of the day, hospitals and orphanages, the upkeep of cemeteries, and some limited support for the poor through tax payments or debt relief.

All in all, a pretty inefficient system which would be made even more ass-backwards today if applied in an Dominionst system. Dominionists believe in prosperity gospel which nearly every other religious movement views as a heresy so bye-bye to any support for the poor or unemployed right there.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?

The two usually go hand in hand, but it's not always necessary for one to exist with the other in certain people. I know plenty of atheistic conservatives.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nah.


You should probably stick to the forums that the owner wants to kick you out of and 6 out of 23 want you to stay. Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?
You're the only non-christian conservative I know, if that means anything.

I believe you can separate yourself from religion in the conservative field. It isn't very difficult as an independent to do it...but the conservative keeps the one governement under God very tight. Many third world countries in Central and South America cannot separate themselves from religion and govenment. Mostly because it is embeded in the culture...but still there are countries like Cuba and Venezuela that broke from it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You're the only non-christian conservative I know, if that means anything.

hi...

also, many conservatives come from other religions





anyways, a better question might be about the role of religion in all American politics. No supposedly liberal candidates can run as someone without religion, if it isn't so explicit in their political ideology (though, they make similar appeals to divine truth and justification).

Also, a good question would concern the influence of religion even though terms might be hidden in secular rhetoric.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
I believe you can separate yourself from religion in the conservative field. It isn't very difficult as an independent to do it...but the conservative keeps the one governement under God very tight. Many third world countries in Central and South America cannot separate themselves from religion and govenment. Mostly because it is embeded in the culture...but still there are countries like Cuba and Venezuela that broke from it.
They didn't break from it. Cuba tried to get rid of Christianity and Venezuela is ruled by an autocrat. It's not a system that should be enshrined. Argentina and Suriname both have greater religious freedom than either of those countries.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project


Because you know, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a liberal plant, Capitalism is ordained by God who is male and has only one name and who commanded Jesus, who wasn't a Jew but was Aryan and born of pure Nordic Blood and fought against the evil of the Jews, to encourage incorporation among the money changers in the temple, God forever cursed the "mud races" as a plague on humanity, and the golden rule is "Do as I say, not as I do, now give me all your money and kill yourself".

Originally posted by Darth Jello
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project


Because you know, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a liberal plant, Capitalism is ordained by God who is male and has only one name and who commanded Jesus, who wasn't a Jew but was Aryan and born of pure Nordic Blood and fought against the evil of the Jews, to encourage incorporation among the money changers in the temple, God forever cursed the "mud races" as a plague on humanity, and the golden rule is "Do as I say, not as I do, now give me all your money and kill yourself".

There are people out there who have conservative ideas, but are not Christian. For example: I have a lot of conservative ideas, but I am a Buddhist. However, the conservatives I know, think I'm liberal.

I was referring to committing what would typically be referred to as heresy in order to justify a political belief. The oldest example I can think of in the 20th century is prosperity Gospel.

And as usual, if you had bothered to read my first post, you would note that I made that exact point when I described the difference between traditional conservatism and American conservatism, specifically Christian Conservatism.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
...And as usual, if you had bothered to read my first post,...

I don't go out of my way to read your posts.

So you just comment without context and create arguments that aren't there because it entertains you to act like a smartass and create conflict. Wow, the mod was right, you are an idiot.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So you just comment without context and create arguments that aren't there because it entertains you to act like a smartass and create conflict. Wow, the mod was right, you are an idiot.

So, you think a mod personally attacked me? Interesting. Personal attacks are against the rules, and now you are accusing a mod of personally attacked me? I think what is really going on is you are filled with hate and would like to personally attack me any chance you get.

You should put me on your ignore list. You will suffer less.

or I could just report you for a long history of launching personal attacks, going off topic, creating needless conflict etc. That would be fine too.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
or I could just report you for a long history of launching personal attacks, going off topic, creating needless conflict etc. That would be fine too.

I have never personally attacked you. I have only attacked your ideas.

I did not go off topic. You only had a problem with me not reading your posts.

I am not the person causing trouble or conflict.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology?

Yes, there certainly is; unfortunately for conservatives, the Religious (whack-job) Right has deeply entrenched itself with the Conservative ideal.

What's worse, these "conservatives" aren't really conservatives, they want to ass-mangle the Constitution to include Jesus, certain cherry-picked Christian ideals, declare what is and isn't marrige and a bunch of other non-conservative nonsense.

In short: They make Jefferson and the other framers of the US cry.

^ Yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
hi...
You are definitely not someone I think of as having conservative ideology.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You are definitely not someone I think of as having conservative ideology.

Excluding his fiscal policies I assume?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Excluding his fiscal policies I assume?
Even on finances he is not as conservative as the ideas I associate with that title.

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you believe there can be conservatives in the United States that hold no religious beliefs? Or do you feel it's an intricate part of the ideology? Certainly. Like Robtard said, the Christian Right aren't real conservatives in the first place.

However, I see no difference between theoratic politics and secular politics. Both are based on presuppositions that an over arching entity(God, or the Union) holds authority over a population of people, neither of which can prove that they do, or even exist.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Even on finances he is not as conservative as the ideas I associate with that title.

He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.
I really just haven't seen him come out strongly for conservative ideas.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
However, I see no difference between theoratic politics and secular politics. Both are based on presuppositions that an over arching entity(God, or the Union) holds authority over a population of people, neither of which can prove that they do, or even exist.

Erm, a union exists so long as people are working together toward a common goal. So long as a government exists a form of union exists. As for it's authority, that exists because it is given by the people to that group. You could argue that it doesn't deserve authority but that's about it. Or you could leave, which would fit much better with an ideology that opposes working with others.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's an anarch(ocapital)ist, is that not the ultimate end of conservative economic theory? Obviously it conflicts with Republican ideology but that's not the be all and end all of conservatism.

It depends on whether or not the concept of property is defined as the ultimate arbitrator of decision making. The way I see conservatism, i is that it is protectionist in nature and defends the rights of countries ultimately over the rights of property. Anarcho capitalism is the ultimate result of Ayn Rands Objectionism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, a union exists so long as people are working together toward a common goal. So long as a government exists a form of union exists. As for it's authority, that exists because it is given by the people to that group. You could argue that it doesn't deserve authority but that's about it. Or you could leave, which would fit much better with an ideology that opposes working with others.

Whether or not X deserves authority is pretty much what political discourse is about. Unfortunately, taxation doesn't allow us the choice of whether or not we have a "most perfect union".

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Whether or not X deserves authority is pretty much what political discourse is about. Unfortunately, taxation doesn't allow us the choice of whether or not we have a "most perfect union".

Nothing prevents you from making a new one. Founding a new government is an unregulated market (your only competition is other governments who in this case are simply "companies", lots of people have done it and are still doing it.

Really? Show me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I really just haven't seen him come out strongly for conservative ideas.

that is because your definition of conservatism is probably closer to that of neo-conservatism

the other reason is probably because I try to be more of a pragmatist than a radical. I'm way of the scale to the right, and advocating the disassembling of the state because it doesn't have the right to rule people does little to promote human standards of living.

I'm also much more of a Burke Conservative, where I feel progressive change is both necessary and inevitable, but that such change must come over time and with the greatest care, rather than with sweeping reform. I think most things need to change, but I understand that radical change is worse than the status quo.

I guess since I'm already in the rant: On the extremes, the rhetoric of the right and the left can become very similar. The distinction I prefer is that of individual vs collective rights. One of the best examples might be the legalization of marijuana. From my experience, liberals are more likely to make arguments referring to the health effects and potential social and economic bonuses from legalizing the drug (I would almost characterize it as asking permission for something from the government, thereby empowering a central authority) whereas conservatives more often make arguments about the rights of the state to prevent people from doing something (which I would characterize as restricting the power of a central authority), the former using rhetoric of society, the latter of the individual.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
It depends on whether or not the concept of property is defined as the ultimate arbitrator of decision making. The way I see conservatism, i is that it is protectionist in nature and defends the rights of countries ultimately over the rights of property. Anarcho capitalism is the ultimate result of Ayn Rands Objectionism.

in your definition, conservatism is about enhancing the right of the state at the expense of the individual then?

Are you saying this is what Rand would have suggested also?

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Really? Show me.

I'll assume that's some manner of post-modernist joke.

Originally posted by inimalist
in your definition, conservatism is about enhancing the right of the state at the expense of the individual then?

Are you saying this is what Rand would have suggested also?

Ultimately, yes. Conservatives think of the state like the steward and watchmen of people's property and their livlihood(Freedom, security, property).

Ayn Rand saw free markets and states as totally inseparable, and dependant on each other for sucess. She hated anarchism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll assume that's some manner of post-modernist joke.

It is, but it's not sarcastic. I can't think of a single place on Earth that isn't run by a collective.

Originally posted by inimalist
the other reason is probably because I try to be more of a pragmatist than a radical. I'm way of the scale to the right, and advocating the disassembling of the state because it doesn't have the right to rule people does little to promote human standards of living.
But, the countries with the highest standard of living are socialist and have high government control... I don't see how this follows logically at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess since I'm already in the rant: On the extremes, the rhetoric of the right and the left can become very similar. The distinction I prefer is that of individual vs collective rights. One of the best examples might be the legalization of marijuana. From my experience, liberals are more likely to make arguments referring to the health effects and potential social and economic bonuses from legalizing the drug (I would almost characterize it as asking permission for something from the government, thereby empowering a central authority) whereas conservatives more often make arguments about the rights of the state to prevent people from doing something (which I would characterize as restricting the power of a central authority), the former using rhetoric of society, the latter of the individual.
From my experience, liberals are more likely to argue in favor of marijuana in the first place.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
It is, but it's not sarcastic. I can't think of a single place on Earth that isn't run by a collective.

I'd point out that that is a strike against your version of anarchy. Collectives have formed all over the world in totally unconnected places. The few groups that were anything close to anarchic quickly got their asses kicked by collective groups. The free market itself has been seen to fail on the free market. Now that's poetic justice.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, the countries with the highest standard of living are socialist and have high government control... I don't see how this follows logically at all.

For a chosen operational definitions of "standard of living".

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, the countries with the highest standard of living are socialist and have high government control... I don't see how this follows logically at all.

yes, but name me a government that has ever tried to give up power

The reality of the human condition means that some form of social network is necessary in some way. I don't feel that the government is necessarily the best or moral choice, but given the fact it has, with threat of violence, granted itself the sole power to provide such things, yes, it has made itself necessary.

Originally posted by King Kandy
From my experience, liberals are more likely to argue in favor of marijuana in the first place.

indeed, but you do understand my point?

else, ya, you are preaching at the choir. Its very hard to find any way to get politically involved. The "conservatives" are basically authoritarians.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, the countries with the highest standard of living are socialist and have high government control... I don't see how this follows logically at all.


This could be because of the general hegemony of Scandinavian people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd point out that that is a strike against your version of anarchy. Collectives have formed all over the world in totally unconnected places. The few groups that were anything close to anarchic quickly got their asses kicked by collective groups. The free market itself has been seen to fail on the free market. Now that's poetic justice.


Are you familar with Agorism at all? What you are referring to, I assume, are the one of many anarchist communes that tried to be self sufficient. While it's true that they got their asses kicked, you still have to provide evidence for why taxation is justifiable. Free markets and cooperation can exist outside the boundries of the established and possibly coercise law of a given state.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but name me a government that has ever tried to give up power

The reality of the human condition means that some form of social network is necessary in some way. I don't feel that the government is necessarily the best or moral choice, but given the fact it has, with threat of violence, granted itself the sole power to provide such things, yes, it has made itself necessary.
I don't think so. All government is a social contract, anyway. I doubt that all governments are only keeping themselves in power through reigns of terror. Hell a lot only have tiny militaries.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Are you familar with Agorism at all? What you are referring to, I assume, are the one of many anarchist communes that tried to be self sufficient. While it's true that they got their asses kicked, you still have to provide evidence for why taxation is justifiable. Free markets and cooperation can exist outside the boundries of the established and possibly coercise law of a given state.
Ever since the dawn of governments, taxation has had to exist. Communities without governments can only ever exist on small scales, that's the reason why they were developed in the first place.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Are you familar with Agorism at all? What you are referring to, I assume, are the one of many anarchist communes that tried to be self sufficient. While it's true that they got their asses kicked, you still have to provide evidence for why taxation is justifiable.

To provide for the defense of the people against outside threats and to ensure that opportunity at a minimum begins at an equal state for everyone.

An anarchy cannot provide for the common defense because everyone's pointing their weapons at everyone else (which ensure a "perfect" state of internal security) and won't ensure a basic level of equal opportunity because it isn't in the short term interest of the individuals who have money.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Free markets and cooperation can exist outside the boundries of the established and possibly coercise law of a given state.

What does coercise mean?

And no, they really can't. Once people begin to cooperate anarchy collapses into government unless there is a magical force that destroys them when they get "too" large.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Ever since the dawn of governments, taxation has had to exist. Communities without governments can only ever exist on small scales, that's the reason why they were developed in the first place.

I agree with you that large scale communities need order, but that doesn't justify taxation. Voluntary organization and government exists, and is reasonable beyond a shadow of a doubt. If an over arching entity calling itself a legitimate goverenment deserving of funding in the form of taxation(Theft), they are commiting an act of aggression against an already recognized state.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think so. All government is a social contract, anyway. I doubt that all governments are only keeping themselves in power through reigns of terror. Hell a lot only have tiny militaries.

an involuntary contract enforced with violence and imprisonment

Originally posted by inimalist
an involuntary contract enforced with violence and imprisonment

Which describes anarchy perfectly well if you remove "imprisonment".

Sorry, I didn't see the second part.

I meant coercive, not "coercise" :P.

Government and a voluntary organization that people willingly pay money to and trust to dole out services are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by inimalist
an involuntary contract enforced with violence and imprisonment
Nonsense. It is a voluntary contract which is why governments collapse or have a revolution. Governments don't pop out of thin air, society developed them because they perform a vital function.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I agree with you that large scale communities need order, but that doesn't justify taxation. Voluntary organization and government exists, and is reasonable beyond a shadow of a doubt. If an over arching entity calling itself a legitimate goverenment deserving of funding in the form of taxation(Theft), they are commiting an act of aggression against an already recognized state.
Nope. Let me give you an example. If a government exists in a farming society, it's workers will be doing their jobs instead of farming. They'll need food of course, as we can't have all government workers starving. So, these crops will have to come from (you guessed it) other people. This is taxation.

That's a silly example. If it is true, then who initially provided the food? I presume that you were thinking of the United States and it's subsidized farming.


On another note, while anarchy may bring violence, government is guaranteed to deliever violence via the military or other branchs of law enforcement.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Nonsense. It is a voluntary contract which is why governments collapse or have a revolution. Governments don't pop out of thin air, society developed them because they perform a vital function.

alright, so are you satisfied then that I pass the test as a conservative?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which describes anarchy perfectly well if you remove "imprisonment".

why wouldn't people put one another in captivity?

we are assuming that people are just going ape shit bananas, because, without government around, I know that is how I would act. Government, literally, at all times of the day, is preventing me and you from being violent and evil. fact.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
That's a silly example. If it is true, then who initially provided the food? I presume that you were thinking of the United States and it's subsidized farming.

On another note, while anarchy may bring violence, government is guaranteed to deliever violence via the military or other branchs of law enforcement.
What? That example was designed to take place in a pre-industrial farming society. It was simple, because it took money out of the equation. The food is provided by the farmers who produce surplus, which allows government workers to do government work rather than subsistence farming. It is a perfectly legit example.

Governments barely ever run the "reigns of terror" you and inimalist are going on about. Governments are employed by people to serve a purpose. They exist because they do a valuable service, not because some assholes just decided to enslave anyone else.

Originally posted by inimalist
we are assuming that people are just going ape shit bananas, because, without government around, I know that is how I would act. Government, literally, at all times of the day, is preventing me and you from being violent and evil. fact.

It wouldn't be me or you I'd worry about.


Also not my point. To maintain anarchy there must be no government, to maintain that people have to be prevented from making one. Thus bringing back your "involuntary contract enforced by violence or imprisonment".

If you don't force people to be anarchists eventually some of them will organize for personal defense against their (presumably not suicidally pacifist) neighbors. Such defense works best through top down authority, groups cannot make snap decisions at all. Some one will realize that "hey we'd be idiots not to do this before our neighbors try it" which later leads to "hey this can lead to profit" yadda yadda yadda and anarchy collapses into militarism.

Pure anarchy is a house of cards at the best of times. The simple ability to cause harm (the act is unneeded) eventually forms military tribes out of the people who have even a few emotions. Sure, if we assume that everyone is rational anarchy is great, but at that point so is communism.



Or for the TL;DR folks, I'd argue that "prisoner's dilemma" type problems would ultimately (but not immediately) force people into alliances that would grow into governments.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Governments barely ever run the "reigns of terror" you and inimalist are going on about.

Police. Taxation. Military. Utility Companies.

To some people any or all of those can be looked at as ongoing reigns of terror.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It wouldn't be me or you I'd worry about.


Also not my point. To maintain anarchy there must be no government, to maintain that people have to be prevented from making one. Thus bringing back your "involuntary contract enforced by violence or imprisonment".

If you don't force people to be anarchists eventually some of them will organize for personal defense against their (presumably not suicidally pacifist) neighbors. Such defense works best through top down authority, groups cannot make snap decisions at all. Some one will realize that "hey we'd be idiots not to do this before our neighbors try it" which later leads to "hey this can lead to profit" yadda yadda yadda and anarchy collapses into militarism.

Pure anarchy is a house of cards at the best of times. The simple ability to cause harm (the act is unneeded) eventually forms military tribes out of the people who have even a few emotions. Sure, if we assume that everyone is rational anarchy is great, but at that point so is communism.



Or for the TL;DR folks, I'd argue that "prisoner's dilemma" type problems would ultimately (but not immediately) force people into alliances that would grow into governments.

indeed

crazy that it isn't the moderate "Burke Conservatism" or "Pragmatism" that I identify with that people seem to want to argue with me about. I agree, there are really no plausible "theories" of anarchy. There are examples of things that work, but for the most part, the type of social experimentation that would be required to see how one could work is destroyed by more militant communities. I'd never deny the ability of a highly structured society to do violence against other, less structured, societies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Police. Taxation. Military. Utility Companies.

To some people any or all of those can be looked at as ongoing reigns of terror.

you can cut the hyperbole with a knife!