RE: Fear of Voluntaryism due to Statist Thinking

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Fear of Voluntaryism due to Statist Thinking

in voluntaryism •  last year 

Why was it one day okay to carry pepperspray as a woman for instance, and the other day it's forbidden?

Good question. I don't know. The laws on carrying pepper spray are not consistent across Europe. Of the Nordic countries, it seems only Finland allows them. It's stupid. I think women should be allowed to carry pepper spray. But there are lots of stupid laws and my solution would be to fix them. It would not occur to me to remove all the laws altogether.

Let's say there are no more laws. So now women can carry pepper spray to protect themselves. What kind of weapons do you think unethical attackers will now have? You think pepper spray will still be able to stop them? Since there are no laws the bad guys can have whatever weapons they want. So then it becomes an arms race because everyone else will need to have the same or better weapons to protect themselves. Pretty soon everyone will be walking around with machine guns. And then it would make sense to also start wearing bullet proof vests. Maybe even helmets. This is not a society I want to live in.

You are aware that communism/communes etc. (could) work well in a voluntaristic world?

Theoretically, it could. But realistically, I seriously doubt that it actually would.

There are now groups that live in such fashion

Oh, I'm sure there are many. This is what I said of communism:

it's completely impractical and impossible to implement on a large scale.

The key words here are "large scale." I view voluntaryism in the same way. In my opinion, these kinds of idealistic ways of living can be implemented only on a small scale. With a small community, everyone is more or less on the same page. Everyone knows everyone and they all want to be there. Bad elements can easily be dealt with and ejected from the community if needed. At some point though, if the group keeps growing it will reach a critical mass where it will no longer be sustainable.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I would love to be proven wrong. If it could be somehow implemented to even a very small nation (maybe 1M people?) as an experiment, I would be very interested in seeing the results.

Actually, I see Steemit as a voluntaryist experiment. There are the natural laws (the blockchain, the code) but there are no artificial laws. There is no government, no elected leaders, no control over the members of the community. Everyone is free to use Steemit as they wish.

Now, 2 years later, the rich dominate the platform while the poor struggle for scraps. The rich just keep getting richer. Some of them sell their votes, operate bidbots and take the lion's share of available rewards. It doesn't matter how much the people complain. There's nothing anyone can do about it because with wealth comes power. The wealthiest are the most powerful and in a free society, they can do whatever they want. Who can stop them?

The video is really great and I hope to learn that method but I believe it is not doable in written language with someone you don't know, or personally meet.

I agree. There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion. Nevertheless, I have greatly enjoyed our online discussion. I have learned a lot.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order: