How an Airborne Ranger Became a Voluntaryist
The Definition of Voluntaryism, and How I Align With It
According to voluntaryist.com, “If you believe – that the initiation of force is wrong; that the institution of government relies on initiatory violence against peaceful people; and that taxation is stealing – then you meet the basic definition of being a voluntaryist.” That’s me: I concur on all three points. It continues, “Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. ” That’s also me; specifically, I favor agorism. Then it reads, “We reject electoral politics, in theory, and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy.” I understand this to mean, ‘don’t vote or support bills that promote freedom.’ Here I diverge somewhat. Does it legitimize the criminal gang in my neighborhood to discourage its leaders from engaging in criminal activity, or if there are rival gangs to encourage one of them to make things difficult for the other? No. I will support any proposition that results in a net gain of freedom. I don’t believe it’s an all or nothing proposition. The definition continues, “Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education.” I’m all for that as well. Many people assume that the State is necessary for the provision of services that could be provided better, more cheaply, and more efficiently by the voluntary actions of the free market: education is the natural remedy for this ignorance. In conclusion, I generally identify with the definition of a voluntaryist, except that I stop short of total abstention, believing that as long as the state exists it’s better to make it smaller and make freedom bigger, than to pretend and wish it didn’t exist at all.
How does Voluntaryism differ from run-of-the-mill libertarianism? In brief, a voluntaryist is more ideologically consistent, taking the principles of libertarianism further than most libertarians do. Libertarians often aren’t even minarchists. Some advocate a universal basic income, just because it would make for a simpler bureaucracy, even though it would certainly expand the role of government in the lives of many people. I believe we shouldn’t have government at all. However, since it exists, I believe there are responsible actions to be taken in regards to government, beyond non-participation in electoral politics.
Family Background, and Their Opinion On My Views
My earliest exposure to libertarian thought was the op-eds in the Backwoods Home Magazine anthologies gracing our bookshelves. I don’t think my parents read those much, but I believe they shaped my views for years to come. Even though I was seven years old at the time, I knew common sense when I saw it.
I grew up in a conservative Christian household, with parents voting Republican, Dad serving in the Army for a few years, kids bouncing back and forth between home school, public school, and a local Christian academy. We held a firm belief that government was handed down by God, that it was an institution to be obeyed as from God except in those matters that clearly contradicted Scriptural duties. My parents taught us the Bible, first and foremost, as well as how to think and apply logical conclusions to our lives. Having learned how to think, our logical conclusions sometimes outpaced their comfort levels. For example, I concluded as a teenager that if the American Revolution were a just response to the tyranny of King George and Parliament, then another armed revolution would likewise be an appropriate response to the tyranny found in the modern United States. As you can imagine, this alarmed my parents greatly.
To me, the difference between agorism and voluntaryism is voluntaryism focuses on non-participation in government, while agorism focuses on free market replacement of government. As my political views have evolved toward agorism and voluntaryism, I haven’t always discussed the evolving nuances of my belief system with my family. I’m not sure what they think about it. They live 500 miles away, and we all have busy lives and other things to talk about when we talk. Generally, the important thing to my parents is that my belief be based on the Bible, and of course not be heresy (contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture). One of my brothers thinks an independent arbitration system with a separate militia system (one arrangement I favor in place of the state) would constitute a government, so his difference of opinion seems to be mainly semantic.
Educational and Vocational History
I took a class in American Government at Carroll County Christian Academy, learning enough about our civic institutions that in a similar class a few years later in college, I felt I could have taught the class as well as the professor. Having learned a normative version of the political spectrum when I read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy in elementary school, I remember declaring in my high school Am Gov class that I was so far to the right of the political spectrum I was practically an anarchist. I wasn’t. I was still a minarchist at best, and not a very educated one, either, believing government should provide roads, currency, and maybe even postal service, etc. College expanded my access to classics of libertarian thought, Austrian economics, and current work on libertarian principles. I still believed that our Constitutional Republic was the best form of human government ever devised. I still believe that, although my perspective on the belief has changed dramatically.
In both high school and college, I learned David Barton’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Constitution as a document clearly embodying the principles of Scripture. In college, I also encountered Ted R. Weiland’s eloquent rebuttal of the Constitution as a document departing in almost every important way from the guidance of the Bible. At the time, I found Barton’s arguments convincing. Much later, I realized the United States government is an excellent example of how even in the best possible circumstances – intelligent, educated, and experienced men with a respect for God and His Word, if not a personal relationship with Him, sitting down and rationally and peacefully creating a government from scratch, on a landmass possessing natural defenses from outside interference, abundant natural resources, and room to expand – human efforts at creating governments are bound to result in massive deprivations of liberty, in a fairly short period of time.
After graduating Cum Laude (B.A. in Political Science, Pensacola Christian College) in 2013, I enlisted in the United States Army, with aspirations of a career in Special Forces. I hoped to support the revitalization of the Constitutional Militia, as outlined by Dr. Edwin Vieira. The Special Forces career path failed to pan out due to medical reasons, although I did serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment for a time. I continued reading libertarian works and interacting with the libertarian community online. I started a Facebook page, which I had to take down for a while as my chain of command informed me it was not acceptable for a service member to label the Commander in Chief a “tyrant,” even through an anonymous internet soapbox.
About that time, I read Alongside Night by J. Neil Schulman, finding it interesting and enjoyable, but failing at first to internalize the concept of agorism. I eventually began to realize that government fails at almost everything it does, although I continued to believe that we needed a government to provide many basic services.
The Turning Point
Still relying on Scripture as the foundation for my belief system, even while my understanding of God’s Word and the ways it applies to the world continues to evolve, I eventually arrived at a pivotal question: “Where in the Bible does God instruct man to create a government?” My college Poli Sci classes had posited that civil government was first instituted when God ordained capital punishment in Genesis 9. I had always hesitated to endorse that view, as I could see no mention of civil government in the text. The position assumes without textual foundation that capital punishment is the exclusive province of civil government. As I presented my pivotal query to my educated Christian friends, some pointed me to Romans 13 (the classic text for Christians who believe government must be obeyed in all things). However, I noted that divine guidance on the proper relationship with government is far from an endorsement of the institution. Consider Mosaic divorce law: divorce was clearly outside of God’s perfect will, but He nonetheless allowed for it in His Law, and gave guidance on the proper way to handle it. I noted also the guidance of Deuteronomy 17 regarding the selection of a King, which was certainly against God’s perfect will.
Ultimately, I have been unable to find anything in the Bible instructing us to create a government, other than the Deuteronomy 16 directive to choose judges and (militia) officers. Arbitration does not require a government now, any more than it did then. Nor does collective organized defense with a chain of command constitute a government. Having failed to find a divine command to create a government, and being unable to conclude that such a major aspect of human experience would be omitted by neglect rather than by intent, I am forced to conclude that human civil government is outside of the perfect will of God. I further conclude that the best form of governance (not government) is that prescribed by God Himself in the Mosaic Law, and practiced by ancient Israel during the time of the Judges, generally speaking. This would be a form of anarchy – “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” – with no coercive government taxation, conscription, eminent domain, etc. There would be individual responsibility to abide by God’s Law (as there is now, recognized or not) and communal responsibility to enforce His Law, e.g. execute murderers. Which parts of the Mosaic Law ought to be enforced under God’s current relationship with mankind is open for discussion among responsible adults. If such an anarchistic community declines to enforce some important aspects of the Law, they can hardly do worse than every government in the history of the world.
But I digress from the account of my transition to voluntaryism, into an explanation of my understanding of it, and an ideal application of it. The fact remains that I have concluded it would be better if governments did not exist, leaving men to interact voluntarily with each other. Furthermore, I believe much of God’s Law can be summed up in the zero aggression principle (initiation of force is morally wrong), furthermore government institutions inevitably rely on violations of that principle and thus of God’s Law, and – although we are instructed to pay taxes when doing otherwise would cause too much trouble – taxation constitutes theft, taking property without consent. Government directives to do evil (whether by commission or omission) do not override our conscience and our understanding of right and wrong. I favor agoristic obviation of government institutions. I support voluntary alternatives to government services as much as I can and continue to encourage government institutions to reduce and eliminate their restrictions on our freedoms.
http://everything-voluntary.com/airborne-ranger-became-voluntaryist
https://www.patreon.com/elijahjhenry
Thank you sharing my brother!
I’m with ya 100%
His name was Seth Rich. Their names were... The list is long but not forgotten. I salute them. May they never be forgotten and always keep our vigilance sharp.
Hey I got locked outta my account sadly. This is my new one. My first post is a video of me proving it’s me. Sucks it’s like totally starting over all cause I messed up my password when I backed it up :(
If you were following me @geneeverett please shoot me a follow here as this is my account now. Again I do a vlog showing this is me as my first post late last night!
Followed and sorry to hear about the account information. Print your master key out and keep it safe. :(
Hey, a PCC grad! I went there for a year after graduating from PCA, but that was quite awhile before you attended. Was A Beka Book your homeschool/Christian school curriculum?
There's some really good food for thought in your post, especially the "Turning Point" section. I totally recognize the capital punishment and Romans 13 arguments for government which is why I wondered about your curriculum :)
I attended a Christian Academy that largely used A Beka Book for Kindergarten and 1st grade, as well as my Junior and Senior year of High School. In between I had a couple of years of public school, and most of the rest was the ACE curriculum, with a year of using the Robinson Curriculum.
Congratulations @elijahjhenry! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPLet me make clear the meaning of “Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power.” It uses the term “aura of moral legitimacy.” By “aura,” think “appearance.” No street gang has moral legitimacy. No group of people labeling themselves “government” have any moral legitimacy, only an appearance/ a con artist approach to fool the sheep. I suspect now you are in 100% alignment with the voluntaryist statement of principles.
So there is no Legitimate Government? No Uniform Due Process?
Correct. That is the conclusion. The premise is the constitution grants government its authority. To check that premise, please read the essay “No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority,” by Lysander Spooner.
The premise is that people Judge people and people need to fill the positions to bring others before the justice of a court in front of a jury of their peers, under a signed affidavit attesting to the injuries of the one signing.
You did not read the essay. Nor did you address the true/false of the premise how government Is supposed to get it’s authority (moral legitimacy). That is the only premise required to prove whether the conclusion is true or false. Modus ponens or modus tonens.
Let me break down what Lysander is ignorant to. Legitimate government stems from the Treaties that are not contracts of governmental services or have any semblance to them because Treaties such as the Definitive Treaty of Peace are our establishment of truths, and their precedence is in the blood and guts spilt to assert them. When I said, "the premise is that People Judge people and people.." I was talking about our Legitimate Government and not the Constitution which is a Framework for the 19 services that our States Contracted through. Our legitimate government is American Common Law Republic, or By and For The Public, not by and for the Majority. People are supposed to take care of their State Government and their Local Government in this way, where the people hold the authority in LAW (Reason/Logic and Definition) and the Government is their Good Faith Servant. The role of Master and Servant is what Lysander wants from the Federal Government even though the Federal Government is supposed to be Subservient to the State (as they hold 99.99999999% of their authority as Sovereign) and if the State is not doing their job it's because the People who are supposed to fill the state aren't doing their job, and if they aren't doing their job it's because people have let their courts be run by thieving and kidnappers and haven't brought them to justice even though they are the Justice of the land, and as Sovereign owes no ALIGIENCE to the state he/she resides in insomuch as who is the treasurer, who maintains the armory, who are keeping tabs on robbery and murder and such things are of no importance or matter to him or her. Ultimately Lysander doesn't attack the Federal for the Federal is at the mercy of the State, and he cannot attack the Statehood Compacts or the Treaties upon which they are built, nor can he attack a good faith agreement, nor can he attack the function of the Federal, or to protect our, then newly acquired, Dutch merchant fleet, the largest fleet in the world at the time. He cannot attack he root of it because the root is legitimate in expressing the immutable truths our forefathers died and lost all to defend. The American Head of State is not the president, but that position is the Counterpart that Keeps the Federal IN check.
If you want to read more about what I am talking, go to http://www.annavonreitz.com
Sovereign and Citizen are Oil and Water, you cannot be Both your Own Master AND serve another master, that is why in our Republican Government requires that one relinquishes their Aliegence to Themselves (sovereignty, independence, freedom ) and give their allegiance to the People and Serving them as State Citizen (not state National), and that is why The People then are the Master, because they decide if indeed that person (not legal fiction) is good or if they are to removed and prosecuted.
http://annavonreitz.com/justthefacts.pdf
Why stop at the state level though? Why should Richmond rule over Charlottesville within Virginia? Who made those people my rulers? Why not go further and and further all the way to the individual?
Yes, he lost me in the first sentence. An endless chain of “who appointed these people?” I didn’t sign shit. The constitution does not apply to me. It does not apply to Trump or any other presidents in the past. Or Supreme Court justices or congressmen. They are all frauds. And so at the state level too. There is no federal government and there are no state governments.
The Local Rules Over the State, the State over the Federal, the Sovereign Rules over the State Citizen, who rule over their positions, whos positions keep the Federal in check. The state cannot rule over the local because it serves the Local. Nobody is a Ruler over Anyone, the American government is anarchism perfected. If Richmond rules over Charlottesville is because there is NO rule of law/Government and it's pure ANARCHY (no rules, not no RULERS-AKA Re-Public)
Government isn't defined, by function what would be defined as the government in the context of agorism, what would it do/service?
BTW, would it surprise you to know that government defines taxes as voluntary and taxes legally are there because of using certain benefits, the maxims of law that deal with Benefits enunciate that since time immemorial: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html#Benefits.
Agorism is a process of replacing government functions by ignoring the government option as much as possible and seeking free market alternatives. Ultimately, this results in no government.
I generally define government as an institution claiming and generally exercising the prerogative to tax, seize through eminent domain or civil asset forfeiture, and conscript.
Yes, so what would those functions be that you want to replace, it's certainly not Conscription, Asset Forfeiture/Immanent Domain or Taxes., so what would the functions of government be under agorism?
I don't believe government is necessary at all.
Anything currently handled by government institutions can be handled better by the free market, including security and arbitration, even punishment if we manage a shift in mass opinion from expecting government to punish those who need punished to realizing it need to be done by the community directly. For example, a private arbitration service could determine that someone is guilty of murder. Instead of expecting a government entity to handle this, the community should execute him directly.
There is no such thing as Private Justice though. Think hard how a Private could ever serve for Impartial Justice? Market Forces? Supply and demand? We already have due process, it requires neither government or their force, it requires Sovereign People electing a Judge to serve under the American Common Law where they are judged by a jury of their peers with the judge only there to offer clarification of the laws and precedents, and ultimately wisdom, but the jury decides unanimously. In a way that itself is governance, yet it's lawful because it's directly voluntary and works from the bottom up, with the judge, the sheriff and the deputies directly working for the Sovereign and never blurring the lines between Master and Servant or they get brought to the justice of the people. Yet it cannot happen without the people, aka militia nd the Jural Assemblies.
What was the Law of Slavery?
Congratulations @elijahjhenry, you have decided to take the next big step with your first post! The Steem Network Team wishes you a great time among this awesome community.
The proven road to boost your personal success in this amazing Steem Network
Do you already know that awesome content will get great profits by following these simple steps, that have been worked out by experts?
Good job! You're story is in a way similar to mine, as I've been an order-follower too, though not in the US military, and eventually I became an anarchist.