Visions of a Voluntary World (A primer on Voluntaryist/anarchist thought).
Oh! The anarchy!
Imagine getting to keep everything you work for. Not in part, but in full. This is simple and basic human dignity.
Imagine the market providing virtually limitless solutions and mechanisms to help you with your problems in life.
Imagine self-responsibility, where no one is obligated to serve you, and you are obligated to serve no man.
As it stands, there are violence-backed limits placed on what you "may" and "may not" do, but other humans who have arbitrarily assigned themselves the "right" to wield authority over you, the "civilian," are not themselves constrained by these rules, as if they were superhumans, or "gods." I reference, of course, state agents, politicians, police, etc.
I don't know about you, but I am not a "civilian." I am a human being. My body is mine, and so is my money. It is morally illegitimate for any other human being to use violence or a threat of violence against me in the interest of taking ownership of my body or my property.
What's shocking is that billions and billions of "humans being" on this planet have accepted such immoral coercion as the norm. As "the way it has to be."
Foolish Utopianism is a dead end.
- If we just get the right individuals into positions of power, everything will be okay!
Two problems here. One is that anything non-consensual is morally illegitimate. Thus, to have a position of power available which allows for non-consensual rule of another human being is a morally illegitimate position, even if said individual is a "good person," by all estimations.
The second problem is that these positions of arbitrary power inevitably attract abusers of said power, and outright sociopaths/psychopaths.
- Taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society! Everyone must do their part!
First, taking people's money under the threat of violence to pay for things without their consent is not a civilized practice. It is barbaric. Second, me paying for drones to bomb infants in the Middle East is simply me funding murder. I certainly must not do "my part" insofar as possible, to the same extent I should try not to be mugged on the street by a serial rapist.
- People are evil so we need government to keep them in line!
Governments are made of these same people you call evil. Why should we afford such reprobate, evil beings seats of massive power and brutally coercive, legalized violent influence? This is an idiotic position to hold. It is immediately self-detonating, logically speaking.
Non-coercive, private property models (anarchism) are realistic, universalizable, and sensible.
If our goal as humans being is to create the most peaceful place possible here on this planet, a few things are necessary.
There must be a recognition of individual self-ownership. Each individual is his or her own authority and has highest possible claim to his or her body/self.
(If there is no self-ownership, then there is nothing wrong with slavery.)
There must be a recognition of the scarcity of resources on this planet, and our needs as individuals to be able to own these resources as means to flourish and survive.
(If scarcity is not recognized, there is no way to claim one needs something to live or flourish.)
In order to own something, one must have the right to exclude another from using said resource.
(If you cannot exclude others from using your resources or body, stealing, rape, slavery, murder, etc, all have no meaning.)
In order to exclude others from using one's resources, a universalizable property norm must be established, based on the above principles.
(If the property norm is not universalizable--able to be applied to and exercised by each and every individual, the logical fallacy of special pleading comes in to play--i.e. "He's a cop, so he can beat that man and still be in the right!" "He's the king, so it's okay for HIM to have slaves!" "They're the IRS, so it's okay for THEM to take your money by force!")
In order for this norm to be applied practically, it must be enforceable via voluntarily created institutions based on the aforementioned principle of ISO (Individual Self-Ownership).
(If created defense and legal institutions are violent in nature (non-consensual) then ISO is not respected, and slavery is allowed.)
It thus logically follows that in order to have a maximally peaceful society, where the sustenance and flourishing of human life is held as the primary value, it is objectively true that individual self-ownership must be recognized and respected above all other ideologies, dogmas, principles, and philosophical persuasions.
Anything less than this is to deny the nature of reality itself and, indeed, to indulge in dangerous (murderous and brutally violent) delusion.
(Biology itself tells us the story of ISO and "the golden rule," in that each individual human being possesses highest claim and most direct link to his or her self. No other being can move my arms or think my thoughts for me, in a more direct fashion than I can. Engaging in argument with another being is a performative affirmation of the fact that we recognize brute force (the initiation of force/violence) to be an illegitimate practice.)
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
I find the argument appealing and can follow the thought process to the creation of non-violent societies that follow the ISO principle. I find that the use of force is society is not a necessary evil, but something that can and should be avoided.
But often times we run into implementation problems which make things more difficult. If everyone followed the ISO principle, then we're good. But what if we have individuals that don't consent to such agreements and truly believe in the application of force?
How would these individuals / groups be addressed / approached in your framework? I'm genuinely curious.
That's a great question. Self-defense is morally legitimate.
Violators individuals surrender their right to self-ownership when they violate yours, as they have performatively (via the aggressive act) demonstrated they do not respect ISO (the golden rule, nature, etc).
As voluntaryism is an anarchist philosophy, there could be myriad ways different societies take shape all around the globe. Some private property owners may wish to ban alcohol on their connected property, and thus a non-alcohol community would be created. Others might not wish to do so.
As far as how justice systems might work, this video by Man Against the State does an excellent job of explaining a few possible ways it can work.
While I think that self-defense is a good way of protecting an individual from injustice, after watching the video, the justice system problem seems a lot harder to resolve. They provide a very interesting approach and one could conceive of a world where such a system exists. Unfortunately, too many people are content with using force in one way or another where such a world seems pretty distant.
But education is the best path to build a better world. I'll admit that I was pretty skeptical of the whole voluntary world without a government idea. But now seeing how everything might work, it makes a lot of rational sense.
You're absolutely right about it being a philosophical battle, ultimately. All the violent "revolutions" of the world thus far have been little more than a changing of the guard, switching one violent regime for another.
As far as this being a far away goal, I don't really see it that way. The world is flooded with voluntaryists (most people live according to voluntaryist values until the religion of the state is invoked). It's only as far away as people realizing that what we teach kids about not hitting and not stealing should not stop at the word "government."
So happy to hear you're open minded about this. Kind of the rare case ;)
I really agree with what you have described in your post. I just want to add complaints in my view. the whole vision of every human being, depends on every leader who carries out all the affairs of this world. in the recent times, we humans have been living like children without parents. no more guiding us. myself, really feel it. because, almost all leaders in this world only think of their personal interests. i like your post. i always follow you. thanks my friend. by, @boyasyie
Sorry about you, but...its kind akward, no leader of any country should concern about your relationship with your parrents. Lets be onest, why did you leave home ? Why did you moved into larger city? 'Cuz off MONEY! Thats all we want...money and free time. Nobody force you to do anything, nobody put a gun to your head and tell u that if don't do this and that i will...
I'm new on this site but is quit interesting
Outstanding, clear, compelling arguments. You are of course, preaching to the choir...
If only our neighbors would listen and understand.
Thanks, Graham!
😄😇😄
![@creatr](https://steemitimages.com/DQmWvzuqZ51DoiSjXXf8bukb7JeeVV1eAJJhGBkDiYc8ajj/creatr_ap.gif)
Cheers my friend!
Upvoted & RESTEEMED :]
I teach English in Israel on the phone. I had one student tell me that Prime Minister Benyamin Netnyahu was a " king" according to a certain religious edict and that "he could do whatever he wanted to anyone" in the area because he was "chosen" by the Israeli electorate. I couldn't believe what I was listening to. Anarchism is the answer to this nonsense
Exactly ..we are manopolised by the government... It control everything .. but we as individuals are having the responsibility of making the world a better place to live in..and everyone has the freedom to do and think for his own self..
Just looking at the word "Government " itself tells you a lot... Govern means to Control, Mente from Latin means Mind. Its a system created to control you and your mind. Also very close structure to "Mafia".
Yeah...absolutely correct ...
Exactly ..we are manopolised by the government... It control everything .. but we as individuals are having the responsibility of making the world a better place to live in..and everyone has the freedom to do so..
To have the true voluntary way... The system that keeps everything chained by rule of.. Etc. Now for thousands of years, how does on break free from it 100%? Humans and even animals have superiors above others (pack leaders), it seems this behavior and group status thinking is in our biology. In today's world it seems you must go along for your survival, else you will have nothing. In how far should we take this voluntarist approach and way of thinking? I find it hard taking it to this level logically, because I'm so stuck and used to this way of living, from birth programmed.
Just some questions, that you could take as rhetorical questions.
Do you think slavery is the normal natural state because people ought to be slaves naturally?
How about those who don't want to be slaves, are they going against the laws of nature, according to you because people are meant to be slaves of a group of masters?
And because you and other people say it's biology, do you think I or others (voluntayists) should just accept our slavery because you and other people say so?
Do you see that it is not possible to convince an voluntayist ;) that he or she should just accept his or her slavery?
Peace
Edit
That is totally up to you in how far you take that approach. It's your choice and I guess choice, in a way, is what differentiates us, in at least one way, from animals.
To address this point, Voluntaryism is not opposed to the presence of superiors or leaders, but coercive, violent, non-consensually accepted superiors and leaders.
I think it should be taken all the way as slavery is immoral.
I see in easy words don't abuse others and be a dick :p. You make it sound complicated with your intelligence of words though. Or my English just lacks with tricky words here and there.
Nice one, Graham! We need simple explanations like this to make voluntaryism an easy to understand concept. We need to approach people from their level of thinking if we want to make sense to them. Otherwise we'll only get instant rejections of our beliefs back from them.
Upvoted and resteemed :) Steem on!
I agree man. Gotta keep the basics in view and approach people as people. Much obliged!
It doesn't help society conforms to social belittling and common acceptance through trends and niche types of groups.
You're right though, we do need to own ourselves without giving free reign or right to others.
There is a lot to be changed to get society back on track without the amount of fears sprung on us in this day and age and I personally fear it isn't likely to happen, not at least until we have damaged ourselves greatly.