You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voluntarists are just the same as communists. ...
they are too stiff to bend to reality.
Do you alter your morality depending on what day it is?
Voluntarism is based on consent, it's tough to bend that idea while still holding the definition, no?
...from what i see, 90% of s called volutarists still prefer to pay taxes with a job than take the true route and drop out.
'Prefer' to pay taxes? I'll call bs. Anyone calling themselves vol. would never prefer to pay taxes. The only other option is agorism (which a lot of them do) or live like hermits in the woods and try to be left in peace.
Unfortunately, both of those options leave little room to spread the message.
...change your options?
everybody does to some degree.
I don't like killing things I don't eat, but a couple of months ago, I killed something to put it out of its misery.
Would you accept a gift of 1 million dollars - but only if it meant you pay an extra 40% income tax on it?
Or not accept it, and not pay tax?
You could refuse it, and not contribute to your enslavement, or accept it and support your enslavement.
...morality is a slippery customer...
(yes I know simplistic, but you see my point)
Putting an animal out of its misery wouldn't be considered egregious violence, imo.
To what degree would you violate someone else's consent? Under what conditions?
Would I accept stolen money? No.
If a private person gave me 1 mil, and then said I had to return 40%, then sure.
Taxes aren't paid, they are taken.
To what degree would you violate someone else's consent? Under what conditions?
let me have a think...to examine point, playing devils advocate...
a gift to you, without crime..
not return - but to actively pay to the government..
( if the government offered it to you, you would refuse? all you had to do was give them 40% back?)
If it was given/offered from the government, it was taken via taxes. Therefore stolen money. Therefore, no, I would not accept stolen money.
I currently work, and thus do in fact have to actively pay the govt. I am paid via 'gift' w/o crime. So currently, I would have to answer yes. But this is non-consensual.
I would not accept monetary compensation in a voluntarist society if a % of that $ was sent to a gang like govt.
I look forward to your answer on when you would violate someone else's consent.
So that's makes you a very rich then.
90% of people are not in that fortunate a position.
So you have the luxury to afford that morality. (and nothing wrong with your wealth in the slightest)
Most do not. So being in that position, separates you from an understanding of the poorer.
The people you are trying to convince voluntarism is the way to go, are people that would not behave the same as you in that situation.
A disconnect - you will be seen as a'holier than thou' kind of figure....you see the problem?
(why not take from the criminals and give it to non criminals, for example?
I would.
I see that as a moral imperative, personally. An action, not words - to weaken the system..)
....or you are lying to prove an ideological point? In which case it shows the dis ingenuousness of the ideologue (as all are, in my experience).
all ideology is fragile, and proponents of any ideology will be shown as to be hypocritical at some point. Which only shows the person to be insincere.. (imo). Too rigid,
Pragmatism isn't, bound in the same way...and is my whole point talking to the ideologue...
Ideologies, from communism to voluntarism miss one vital component - they can't allow for human beings - they just won't fit neatly in..
I'm very glad I ventured into this area.
It has been very educational.
You can paint the rich vs the poor (or their perceived outlook). You asked me MY perspective, I wouldn't put it past the poor person to have a different perspective, but that doesn't mean I condone it. It also doesn't change the meaning of theft if you take something that wasn't yours.
We are in agreement that utopia does not exist, yes? No one I know advocating for vol is saying there won't be bad things happening.
I would steal off another to keep my loved ones safe.
you?
you would never contravene your own morale code?
Steal 200 dollars to save a family member?
Life and death scenarios. I'm sure most people would do what they had to do to survive. But I don't feel like that is really a Mon-Sun scenario. If the only force ever used was in life and death situations, I would be a happy man. I'd be even happier if it didn't have to come to that, but even anarchy doesn't equal utopia.
If I had to steal $200 (out of necessity, not some 'I'm too lazy to work and my stomach is growling') and I am on deaths door, I would do whatever necessary, besides physically hurting another individual, to survive.
I would however return that $200, or work it off, when I regained my strength.
You have never been in that situation then....( I have, far too many times).
If you wouldn't kill to survive, you know nothing about survival.
This is meant in no offense to you - in the slightest, btw.
You're lucky to have had such a gentle life. seriously.