The Daily Owl. Ep. 05: The Immutable, Objective, Metaphysical, Natural Law Reality of Individual Self-Ownership
Wow. Already on episode number 5! Great!
Today I'll be answering a question from @nocturnal, about my use of the word "metaphysical" when describing individual self-ownership.
Most importantly, I'll be laying the groundwork for what ISO is, and discussing its a priori existence, critical importance, and intrinsic necessity to any and all legitimate forms of libertarianism.
~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 DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
My live stream is at DLive
Thanks for your explanation. (I'm a he, by the way.) I think I understand what you were trying to say, even if I couldn't quite put it in my own words without thinking I'd be misrepresenting you.
We're in slightly different camps because I'm leaning towards the pragmatist type that you hate.
Meaning that I wouldn't mind government that much - and don't mind the idea of government that much - if worked as advertised. Or at least worked in a very specific way. I think violence is a good problem-solving method in certain cases and with certain individuals.
Jeff Berwick hasn't initiated force against me, but if given the opportunity, I wouldn't mind to whip out my retired blue belt in BJJ and roll with him a little. Simply because he's a scammy asshole. And I don't like his face.
I used to be exactly like you. I was a very idealistic libertarian. And I dig the fact that you still are - especially since I can tell the passion comes from a very good place.
That's why I like to read and listen to your stuff; because I still want to believe in libertarianism and voluntaryism. After all, voluntaryism is the most consistent and ethical moral framework.
It won't just work itself out automatically, though. A voluntaryist society would probably the toughest model to get functioning and rolling. Something that it would, in my eyes, require is a mutual respect among all of its habitats towards the idea of self-ownership and freedom.
That's why I don't think it's worth the time to really try to persuade "statists" too much; voluntaryists should just build their own society elsewhere. The people who would move in would be people who already respect the idea of freedom.
Something like the Seasteading project that I still follow from time to time.
I’m the farthest thing from an idealist there is. Maybe you mean something more like unwilling to compromise on certain things?
I don’t see it that way. To the contrary, the way things are set up now is totally laborious, complex, and ultimately untenable. Not to mention murderous. On top of all of this, I don’t really care if it all works out for “society” as much as I want to see individuals afforded the basic dignity to be. I’m in it for me. I want to be as free as possible.
You may have a point here. Although, I have seen a few converted. I was one of them, too.
But I doubt you would call yourself a pragmatist, and I think both you and the LP would describe their "inside-the-system" approach as more pragmatic than idealistic. Right?
Yes, and their definitions would be incorrect. Because justifying violation in the name of minimizing it is highly impractical. And their belief that “the right man” in power can make everything better is the height of idealistic lunacy. I wanna take the real meanings and definitions back! :)
....I 'think' (definitely in the 'think' stage), I may have found a compromise in systems - that could work...
This is most definitely in the ether at the moment...but hopefully it will lead to something that encapsulates most ideologies...
....including communism! Yes, I said it. lol
Voluntaryism can already include communists, so long as they do not initiate force.
Ditto.
I am certainly no idealist. That is very funny, actually, because it’s more like hardcore, stubborn as hell realism.
Surely that would mean accepting things 'as they are', and not 'as you want it to be'?
Considering the lack of any historical evidence of voluntarism principles ever enduring, or working, it would suggest that it's not 'realism' orientated, but idealistic....?
Maybe I misunderstand..?
Being realistic does not preclude action. It also does not preclude wanting to change things. It is important not to be sloppy with definitions, I think.
I understand very well that to entertain the pipe dream of a “great man” or men in politics (a mechanism of an intrinsically violent state) changing things for the better and eroding the state via its own machines is about as unrealistic as it gets.