Political Atheist
My name is Jonathan Lumpkin and I am a political atheist. While the name itself denotes immediate connotations of someone who is both political and an atheist, I seek to claim the title and run it in another direction. So, in my purview, what is a political atheist? A political atheist is one who acknowledges government for what it truly is, a religion, and rejects the notion of the deistic qualities inscribed upon it in the human consciousness. For the anarchist/voluntaryist, I am sure this concept makes sense. For those that it does not, please allow me to elaborate.
Atheism, in a traditionally religious context, is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Wait...god? "Government isn't god!" one may declare. Yes, government is not the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority (as in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) nor is it a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes (as exhibited by other religions). That said, throughout history, government has not only taken on the form of a "godlike" force but many with the desire to rule have declared themselves to be divine. One simply need look at how the politician propositions himself as the source of our good will, security, and prosperity. Furthermore, our political "betters" in their divine authority also prescribe rewards for our blind fealty as well as punishment, in many cases "eternal" punishment (life in a steel cage or capital punishment), for our transgressions against him and his "moral" law. The result of such an overbearing force lends itself to cementing in the minds of the public that government is god: an immutable force necessary for our existence and prosperity.
Gods typically sit at the head of almost all religious institutions. In fact, upon further examination, government is of itself a religious institution. Since this is an introduction, I shall direct you to a book composed by @larkenrose, The Most Dangerous Superstition, that fully fleshes this concept out; excerpt here:
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/02/28/government-is-a-religion-larken-rose/
That said, welcome to my page! I look forward to engaging with many of you. Politics at times can be a tiresome subject of discussion but lucky for me (and you!) I am also a whimsical and creative person who, for the sake of sanity, often takes a mental health break so also look forward to some of my creative endeavors as I continue to learn more about Steemit, the Steemit community, and continue in my general descent toward total madness. Big shout out to @dragonanarchist for her Facebook and Steemit posts that ultimately inspired me to come here and, if you are not already following her, you better rush your ass over there to do so!
Hmmm.... Interesting ... Following this paradigm wouldn't atheist still kind of be the wrong label? I mean do you not believe it exists?
That's the part that I don't understand atheism is a lack of a particular belief in the existence of a god. I understand you switching the deity for a state head but you aren't denying or lacking belief in that.
I did anticipate this sort of feedback and actually appreciate it. I alluded to the notion of "atheist" in this regard as metaphorical in stating "...rejects the notion of the deistic qualities..." and "Atheism, in a traditionally religious context..." It may have been more salient of me to have specifically spelled that out.
Seems like anti-theist might fit too.
That would certainly fit as well. Government as a physical institution to be sure, so even further it may have also been worthy to note and equate the idea that to the religious atheist, God as a sort of theory, is a figment of the imagination and to the political atheist, government as a theory of necessity, is also derived from imagination. Either are easily used as a means subjugate a largely unwitting public. This is especially so when the bulk of the masses either lack the ability or desire to logically think the proposition through.
The State is the new God with near omniscient (surveilance) and omnipotent (law enforcer) powers. Being politically atheist is to find the State an immoral institution.
I agree only when it comes. To what u said about the state.
I think the term you're looking for is "Rational Anarchist".
A rational anarchist isn't an anarchist the way many anarchists are. A rational anarchist isn't trying to "eliminate the state". At least he or she doesn't have to.
The point is acknowledging that the state is a force just like a religion in the hearts and minds of people, and people obey it because they are told to, not because it is logical to obey it. The power structures that exist within society are all in your head.
You are already completely free. You just need to realize it.
I pondered the idea of "rational anarchist" but I am in favor of abolishing the state so it did not quite fit. While religion can be tossed aside logically by some, it is primarily a voluntary institution. Participation in the state is not.
"The power structures that exist within society are all in your head."
This hits the mark in what I was trying to convey with the idea of "government as god." Government is indeed a real physical institution but the idea that it is by any stretch of the means necessary is just as you said, in our heads. A point I was trying to articulate by stating, "...rejects the notion of the deistic qualities inscribed upon it in the human consciousness."
Religion is voluntary in OUR time, but long ago, it was not.
Even today, in countries around the middle-east, if you leave the religion, or do something that violates the religion, such as being gay, or having sex with an animal or even just eating the wrong animal, you could be killed or tortured for it.
But yeah, I like your point too, and I'm quite against government. I just don't think anarchy is a real solution that will last. When dealing with complicated systems, complexity naturally accumulates, so I don't think anarchy can last longer than a decade.
I think we need to find a system of government that can consistently resist corruption, reject the use of violent force to control people, rejects the use of propaganda, and instead focuses on performing a single task: Allowing humans to live in peace from one another.
Police forces should exist to reduce rape, theft and murder. Not force everyone to accept the same morals, right?
I somewhat agree, though largely one is killed for it under theocratic governments past and present. Certainly this is a complication to the anarchist ideal: what to do with large groups of madmen within a society for this is the problem where the government consents or is indifferent to individual religious persecution. I contend that I'd rather deal with a crazy neighbor than a crazy person with a monopoly on force (government) but it is a valid query on what to do if you have a large segment of the population given over to some form of ideological radicalism be it religious or otherwise philosophical. There is certainly power in numbers. Largely, I think, the free market can offer the best solutions and a free market best flows in where the people choose to invest over where they are forced to "invest."
Take Detroit as an example where the government has essentially said, "enter at your own risk." The people pay for police forces and not only is the government saying that, essentially, they won't get their dollars worth in terms of being secure in their persons and having an avenue of recourse against criminal elements. Worse yet is the systemic political corruption that allows for the police force to, for the most part, get away with crimes against the citizens ranging from theft to rape to straight up murder. Private security has emerged to fill in the gap with a much higher success rate in terms of not violating the people. They are more accountable because individuals can pull funding from them of their own volition. With government you're pretty much stuck. A worthwhile watch:
As for finding a system of government that can resist corruption, etc., I don't think it possible given human nature. If we did actually evolve as a species enough to resist these things, we wouldn't really need a government at all.
I agree with u, man are trying to play, God, all government's, see them self equal to God, but they are nothing but dictator, I have a question for you. Regarding the creator of the univers and all that is in the univers, do u think bitcoin and the blockchain came to existence, by chance.. e.g from big bang or it was created by some genius guy, and the blockchain is it just functioning, randomly by it's self or by a group of people who paid to keep it running.?
Ironically enough, I believe in a Creator (I am RCC). I am of a mind that the Big Bang, and by extension evolution, is not odds with creation. The one does not necessarily disprove the other. I am a proponent of free will so I would have to say that bitcoin/blockchain are merely the result of an individual using their natural talents to create something of value. Unless one believes that a divine creator manufactures everything we do, then I would say a fair, neutral position is it is a factor of both chance and opportunity.
I strongly agree, with u about Big Bang, my point was nothing happens by, chance, u are a very intelligent, guy, I hope, I can learn from u, and also debate, our differences with mutual respect for one and other, I will leave u with a link, and wait for ur, out put! SCIENCE IN GREAT DETAILS