Let Justice Be Done Though the Heavens Fall

I think that for a lot of people who adhere to the philosophy of voluntaryism, we are often caught in a battle between the abstract concepts adored by the mob, and what we as voluntaryists view as concrete, as real. To be more specific in context with this essay, between collectivism and individualism.

We are opposed to collectivist concepts such as nations, governments, societies, civilizations, or even wholly subjective and arbitrary concepts such as “the greater good,” not only, again, because there is no way to define these objectively, but because they are fundamentally immoral. When our adversaries are incapable of understanding that these have no existence in reality, it almost becomes counterproductive to engage with them in conversation.

A statist finds few positions more repulsive than a voluntaryist's rejection of collectivist abstractions. We don't care about society, countries, civilization, or the “greater good.” When a statist hears this, since, to them, these abstractions are the alpha and omega of human existence, and all that is noble and worthy of their lives and the fruits of their labor, we are often accused of being nihilists – of not caring about anything at all.

Obviously, we care. For most of us, the principle of voluntaryism is supplemented by the maxim, Love, and let love do what it will. We teach love, we live love; there is no greater love, to us, than to leave the individual free to live his own life, to succeed or fail as he may, to make and learn from his own mistakes, to traverse a world not only full of danger and risk, but also of opportunity and reward. To us, this is the human condition. Unlike most animals, we are capable of so much more than simply surviving long enough to procreate. Yet this is the condition these collectivist abstractions have inflicted upon the vast majority of humans: surviving for the sake of keeping their bodies alive.

So, of course, though, if you're like me, you are too often distracted by this, voluntaryism from a utilitarian perspective is absolutely irrelevant and absurd. Yes, we know that individuals voluntarily interacting with each other free from coercion could create a global civilization most people are incapable of imagining; a Golden Age. Yes, we know that the roads would be built and how, or, more imaginatively, that roads would be obsolete. We know how security would be achieved. We know how crimes against persons or property (the only crimes there are) would be dealt with. And we know that there would be less crime, if for no other reason than the entity most responsible for crime – the State – would no longer exist. But none of this is the point of being a voluntaryist, from, at least as far as I'm concerned, a moral point of view.

Fiat iustitia ruat cælum: “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”

And this is where it becomes difficult, as a voluntaryist, to reach individuals who worship the State. I simply don't care if, for some impossible, idiotic reason, humanity abandoned hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge, wisdom, and technology, and reverted to hunter gatherers in a violent struggle for suddenly scarce resources like food and water. It doesn't matter if the shelves became empty, the gasoline pumps ran dry, all commerce came to a halt, the roads and bridges crumbled, and the airports shut down because the pilots were too busy raping and pillaging to fly the planes. Incidentally, have you ever noticed that many people think they know exactly what life in a stateless society would be because they've seen Mad Max movies? I digress.

The principle, fundamental question at the root of the debate, one that we should strive not to be distracted from, is, what do any of your irrational fears and insecurities have to do with my right to be free? Who or what gave anyone the (insane) right and authority to decide that there is such a thing as a “greater good” and to decide exactly what that is, and bend us to their arbitrary edicts; that, ultimately, our lives do not belong to us as individuals, but rather belong to some kind of hive collective? Are we humans, or insects?

Again, this is repulsive to most people, because it is made to seem as if we only care about our selves. And it is true, if we are being honest, that, first and foremost, we are self interested. Even when we help others, we do so because it gives us a sense of self satisfaction. And there is no shame in admitting this. Where we differ from the mob as voluntaryists is, we are first and foremost self interested, free to help and interact with others as we see fit, but we are also, as humans, intelligent enough to know that service to others is often the most effective way to enhance our own lives. The key words here, however, are, “as we see fit.” This cannot, and will not, be decided for us, how we can best serve others, or even that we might want to. It is not only immoral to think that anyone has the right; it cannot possibly succeed. As Mises said, only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. When individuals presume to think they can make decisions for the collective, hundreds of millions of people with their own individual morals and beliefs molded by their own unique experiences, we see the result of that by making an objective observation of the world around us: the more collectivism runs people's lives, the more ruin and decay pervades.

And this, to us, is the only utilitarian aspect of voluntaryism: that for “society” to function and flourish, the individual must be free.