Prof Rozeff tends to touch on topics which cause one to go "aha!" I've been denigrating democracy and its evil handmaiden capitalism, which clothes itself in free markets for legitimacy and disguise.
Rozeff notes the big problem in advancing anarchy is getting people to agree to the non-aggression principle, or more to the point, agree on what is non-aggression.
I point out government must be voluntary (and democracy by definition is not) and how the largest government in the world, and the oldest is purely voluntary: the Catholic Church. So voluntary is it that the Roman Rite welcomes competition from various other rites even within its own territory, even what little of that it has! But the vast experience of Catholicism is a government with no territory, or as Rozeff puts it, non-territorial government.
And so when Rozeff writes of non-territorial government, voila!, the penny drops yet again. he ultimately gets to panarchy, in which anarchy is but one system, but why not have several governments at once. In fact, we already do, with any given American under city, county, state, federal and blueberry commission rules all at once. It is so complex there is an area of law called "conflict of law."
Not only is the Catholic church voluntary, it has no territory. There is the Vatican, but the Vatican is no Jerusalem, which Jesus preferred, nor is the Vatican the home of some other 22 rites in the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Vatican spent sixty years holed up in France at one point. Sacre bleu!
We have all sorts of non-territorial governments, from rules over the game of chess to Lex Mercatoria, the most comprehensive and effective law in history short of the Bible, to SWIFT and so on.
When Islam ruled lands it often allowed the various factions to maintain their own legal structures within their lands. This is territorial, but non-exclusive law. When and where Islam reigned supreme, they allowed Jews to maintain their own laws and customs, and Jews were often safer under Islam than Christianity.
We have so much to learn form the government of religions. In practice there is no reason why we need territory for effective government.
Often I am told, as a critic of democracy, "if you don't like it here, just leave." But why should I leave if what everyone else is doing wrong. If someone has to leave, why not wrongdoers? But once we realize government need not be territorial, nor monopolistic, then we can all live side by side in peace and prosperity.
So under a free country, Sharia Law could thrive within this territory we call USA, along with all sorts of other laws. For those who want it. In fact it already does, if subscribers do not run off to the State for relief. Christianity teaches we are to stay our of courts, and court cases. People may have reason to visit religion on the coming years. They have interesting governments.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Rozeff notes the big problem in advancing anarchy is getting people to agree to the non-aggression principle, or more to the point, agree on what is non-aggression.
I point out government must be voluntary (and democracy by definition is not) and how the largest government in the world, and the oldest is purely voluntary: the Catholic Church. So voluntary is it that the Roman Rite welcomes competition from various other rites even within its own territory, even what little of that it has! But the vast experience of Catholicism is a government with no territory, or as Rozeff puts it, non-territorial government.
And so when Rozeff writes of non-territorial government, voila!, the penny drops yet again. he ultimately gets to panarchy, in which anarchy is but one system, but why not have several governments at once. In fact, we already do, with any given American under city, county, state, federal and blueberry commission rules all at once. It is so complex there is an area of law called "conflict of law."
Not only is the Catholic church voluntary, it has no territory. There is the Vatican, but the Vatican is no Jerusalem, which Jesus preferred, nor is the Vatican the home of some other 22 rites in the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Vatican spent sixty years holed up in France at one point. Sacre bleu!
We have all sorts of non-territorial governments, from rules over the game of chess to Lex Mercatoria, the most comprehensive and effective law in history short of the Bible, to SWIFT and so on.
When Islam ruled lands it often allowed the various factions to maintain their own legal structures within their lands. This is territorial, but non-exclusive law. When and where Islam reigned supreme, they allowed Jews to maintain their own laws and customs, and Jews were often safer under Islam than Christianity.
We have so much to learn form the government of religions. In practice there is no reason why we need territory for effective government.
Often I am told, as a critic of democracy, "if you don't like it here, just leave." But why should I leave if what everyone else is doing wrong. If someone has to leave, why not wrongdoers? But once we realize government need not be territorial, nor monopolistic, then we can all live side by side in peace and prosperity.
So under a free country, Sharia Law could thrive within this territory we call USA, along with all sorts of other laws. For those who want it. In fact it already does, if subscribers do not run off to the State for relief. Christianity teaches we are to stay our of courts, and court cases. People may have reason to visit religion on the coming years. They have interesting governments.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment