Why are many atheists statist rather than anarchist?

I myself am an atheistic anarchist. I don't understand why many atheists are statist and not anarchist. The whole idea of the state or government goes back to the whole "Divine Right of Kings" where faith to the state is thought to be ordained by god. Indeed, many of these ultra-religious folk are state-worshipping people because the Bible or Quran are such statists document (with the exception of Jesus, who was anarchist to a certain extent, but every other part of the Bible or Quran is for unquestionable obediance to the state).

Atheists and agnostics reject faith. But isn't the whole idea of a statism a form of faith? Just think about all the things states do: mass murder through war (violation of life), mass enslavement through their laws (violation of liberty), and mass robbery through taxation (violation of property).....(violation life, liberty, and property). If any other individual or organization did the things the state is allowed to do we would think of them as immoral, criminal (natural law crime), mentally sick, ect. But when government does these things for some reason it is okay. Isn't giving a special status to government that no other organization has as "faith"? Faith is blind trust in something or someone.......isn't statism blind trust in an institution (in this case the state)? Does it make anymore sense having faith in an institution than it does having faith in a god?

So why do some atheists justify faith in the state when in principle it is the same thing as having faith in a god? I think it has to do with many atheists being socialist and caring for their fellow man (which is very much fine and desirable)........so they think the state is the only thing that can create equality. This of course is false. Statism leads to hierarchy and massive differences in wealth among people. The state has done a good job in dividing and conquering people.......even the people who were traditionally against the state (anarchists, most of which considered themselves socialist). The state during the early 20th century found a new way to control the masses.......making people believe that man is evil and without the state the rich would own the poor or whatever.....so they need a state to keep the rich in line. Even though such big corporations were created by the state in the first place to control the working class!

For all atheists who are socialist........don't look to the state for equality! Look instead to voluntary collectivist systems ie libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism, free market anarchism, ect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

States aren't capable of doing things. People do things. People will fuck up any socio-political theory no matter how nicely it looks on paper. The only thing that will keep people in line is some one hovering near them with a big stick. The best we can do is hope the stick holder isn't arbitrary and attempt to create a system that holds the stick holders to some type of standard.

 

Maybe its because I'm a Londoner that I love London town

 

Libertarianism is the capitalist equivelant of socialism.

Self-rule

(L) Libertarian Socialism: Basically equates to direct democracy in all aspects of life, including economics. Economically, it wouldn't even require money, to run this system.

The standard criticism for this form of society is generally some ad hominem against mob rule. But, as is shown in Democratic Republics, the majority make the laws, anyway, and it wasn't until the majority decided that some laws were immoral, that things changed.

Opposite of Fascism.

(C) Total Anarchy: Totally lawless, every man for himself. Haven't seen many advocates, of this.

Opposite of Totalitarianism.

(R) Anarcho-Capitalism: Totally free capitalist driven society. Allows for private armies. Allows for private ownership, of pretty much anything...even people. IMO, this can lead to Feudalism and Monarchies. Monarchies were basically private ownership of an entire country, with no laws above, inhibiting the Monarch.

Opposite of Communism.

Accountable government

(L) Socialism: Socialist economics under an accountable government. Promotes a representational democractic governance.

Opposite of Libertarianism.

(C) Centrism: Centrism promotes a little bit of everything.

(R) Libertarianism: Capitalist economics under an accountable government. Promotes minimalist democractic governance. Although they say they want government out of economics, and promote the elimination of government funded social programs, hypocritically, they don't promote the elimination of government funded military programs. They also don't promote the elimination of government laws of incorporation, or government protection of trademarks, patents, or copyrights. And, although fewer politicians may seem like a good idea, it actually makes it easier to influence decision making.

Opposite of Socialism.

Unaccountable Government

(L) Communism: Socialist economics under an unaccountable government. Basically, a hostile government take-over of business.

Opposite of Anarcho-Capitalism.

(C) Totalitarianism: One man, makes all the decisions.

Opposite of Total Anarchy.

(R) Fascism: Capitalist economics under an unaccountable government. Basically, a hostile corporate take-over of government.

Opposite of Libertarian Socialism.


Economics... (L) "left", (C) "centre", (R) "right"

I'm in favour of the Libertarian Socialism, myself.


Peace

 

How can one be an "atheist" (protesting faith) but still be an anarchist? Atheists do not believe in faith, so how can they have faith in their neighbours to not abuse an anarchist society?

 

Athe-ist (believer).

Maybe you're refering to Agnostics. I don't have faith in anyone representing me, I want to do it myself. Politicians are all full of shit. That narrows it down to 3 choices. I don't have faith in capitalism. Too many lying crooks. That narrows it down to 2 choices. "Every man for himself", totally unlawful anarchy? Errr, maybe if I was Mad Max. That narrows it down to 1 choice.

Libertarian Socialism is basically direct democracy. Nobody votes for me, my voice is the one that counts. What do I have to have faith in? When it comes down to the nitty gritty, most people want the same things in life.

Would most people vote for, or against, having individual rights? I know I would vote for having them. Why wouldn't most people vote for having them? If I have my own voice, and have my individual rights, why would you say I'm relying on faith?


Peace

 

3DJay

That one day when you are berift of hope.
Occam will hold out his hand and say
[im an arrogant bastard with no time for fools, do i qualify?]

'Sup with me my brother.'
Let us dine on the grits of reason.. lol
And have a few ales.

Occam