Skip to main content

Taoist Christian Anarchism

The tension between individualist and communalist anarchisms is synthesized by the often paradoxical (but to me, far more elegant) mutualist anarchisms. I believe the source of that conflict is identified in the words of the most influential being in my life, a jew with a rather taoist approach to the Law, who said: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God." That Taoist Jew came to live for us, knowing we would kill him for it, so that He might show us The Way. He taught us how to die unto ourselves and be reborn of water and of the Spirit to best enjoy our lives together - a New Heaven and a New Earth.

As a result of taking on the perspective He prescribed, you can live for others instead of insisting upon your right to live only for yourself. Trying to practice that perspective, you can see that the life best lived is the opposite of the often solipsistic capitalist perspective. We must shift our thinking about property from "what's mine is mine" to "it's on me to use this wealth for the greatest benefit to my neighbor." I think this has vast and deep implications for our individual and communal responsibilities that we must reflect upon in our own forms of property; how the State currently protects them for us; and how we can adjust our socioeconomic praxis to reform our communities more justly.

I personally think the most anarchic revolution that society could pursue is for communities to nullify their existing unjust, usurious, monopolistic forms of State-enforced property. As that Taoist Jew explained, it's typically really hard to convince rich, powerful people that giving up their oppressive privileges is a good idea - "'If thou dost will to be perfect, go away, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.' And the young man, having heard the word, went away sorrowful, for he had many possessions; and Jesus said to his disciples, `Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the reign of the heavens;'"

That said, it also often seems equally hard to convince collectivists that allowing individual responsibility over personal property for personal gain is a practical way to incent the supply of the demands of a freed market. Personally, it seems unjust to prevent any consensual relationships that form for the sake of producing mutual wealth, particularly as mutualist transactions set cost as the limit of price. Where I agree with collective logic is that we must have a commons, and the broader that commons spreads over our economy, the more wealth will spread and grow throughout that community. The meek shall inherit the earth if we learn it is best for us and our communities to lend and expect nothing in return.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Unapologetic Paraphrasing of Bastiat's Apology for Landed Property

This is my admittedly snarky paraphrasing of Bastiat's rambling apology on Landed Property in his Economic Harmonies . I think by translating the verbiage into modern terms, which I couldn't help but do so with a pinch of sarcasm, it becomes clear he didn't prove much of anything at all. Instead, a reader feels underwhelmed by its points and overwhelmed by the verbosity of his rather banal parables. Even though he shows what actually causes land to increase in value when he describes the improvements of a city/town growing around land, he insists that all the gained value obtained by landlords by that mechanism is actually just the fruits of their past labors, ignoring his own supposition that value comes from the service provided, in the case of Land, by a better site to occupy, not labor. If it pleases you, enjoy the following: The economists of all sorts say that landlord's charge rent for value they did not create. Most say it is unjust, but some begrudgingly ad

Our Dancing Universe: the Word and the Circle of Light.

The Word lets light and begets all things. I have composed the following in awe of the beauty and balance of our cosmos. It is based off of concepts connected by three pieces of scientific literature. The summary of each is as follows: 1. "A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework" describes how the existence of a negative mass fluid would result in the orientation and behavior of the cosmos as we observe it, removing the need for the hypothetical notions of dark matter and dark energy to describe the shapes of galaxies and the observed expansion of space-time. 2. "Negative-Mass Hydrodynamics in a Spin-Orbit–Coupled Bose-Einstein Condensate" describes how when matter gets extremely cold, approximately absolute zero, atoms condense into a collective fluid that behaves as if it has negative mass. 3. "On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton" describes how gravity itself i

Free Land, or the ideal mean for a Location Value funded Citizen's Dividend

If we want to liberate ourselves from one another, we can buy into the idea that we can more effectively share this planet. We can do so for the purposes of maximizing human autonomy and the experience of equal liberty for every citizen of the Earth, through each of their local communities. We have the means today to voluntarily buy into a federation of neighborhood scale land trusts with a global reach. Existentially, our birthrights are the greatest lottery of all of history. We can make that a game with winning odds for everyone. The desire to be free, to choose to live how we each wish to live, is strongly felt within each of us. But those who experience it most, unfortunately, value it least. They become so accustomed to protecting or jealously expanding their own experience of it that they have created a system of enforcing their own privileges at the cost of others. I believe all people ought to choose whosoever's service they wish to enter, but I do not believe any of