Voluntaryism is NOT Pacifism
Voluntaryism is not pacifism. Voluntaryism is the idea that all interactions should be consensual, but this does not imply an expectation that all interactions WILL be consensual. That's actually part of the point. By saying that all interactions should be consensual, we have a standard for knowing when violence is justified.
When the borders of an individual's body are breached without that individual's consent, it is that individual's prerogative to use force to repel the trespass. This is called self defense. The individual has this prerogative because the individual's free will is the best and most legitimate link to their body. This link is non-transferrable in that it was created by the process of conception, gestation and birth. We acknowledge this best link for the purpose of avoiding conflict among individuals over the scarce resource called "human beings".
When an individual uses their body to transform scarce, rivalrous resources into means that are capable of being used in the attainment of some ends, the individual subsequently has the best, most legitimate link to said means. Likewise, we acknowledge this best link for the purpose of avoiding conflict among individuals over scarce means. Unlike the best link between the free will of an individual and that individual's body, the best link between a controlled, scarce means and an individual is transferrable through consensual exchange.
When the borders of these scarce means are trespassed against without the consent of the individual possessing the best link, it is the prerogative of that individual to use force to repel the trespass for the same reason that it's their prerogative to use force to repel trespasses against their own body: they have the best link.
In some cases, individuals may need help from other individuals in order to transform scarce, rivalrous resources into means that are capable of being used in the attainment of some ends. However, individuals may not always wish to share the direct product of their combined labor with those who help them, thus they are willing to give up some other thing they value less and which the helper values more in exchange for their help. This double coincidence of wants is what makes consensual exchange mutually beneficial. All other things being equal, consensual exchange therefore constitutes a legitimate transfer of best link - or title - to the things being exchanged.
In some cases, individuals may need help from other individuals to forcefully repel a trespass. That it is a matter of necessity from the perspective of the individual requiring protection does not mean that other individuals are obligated to help them, thus they are not free to trespass against the bodies of others in order to compel protection, but individuals are still free to help them of their own accord or in exchange for compensation. An exchange of compensation for protection will only occur if the individual requiring protection values what he's giving up less than the protection he receives, and the individual providing protection values what he's receiving more than his own time and lessened state of safety. In some cases, the knowledge that the individual requiring protection is safe and that a trespasser isn't at large is payment enough for protection from the perspective of the individual providing it. This double coincidence of wants is likewise what makes these types of exchanges mutually beneficial.
Some critics, especially relativists, collectivists and leftists (but I repeat myself), may say that this arrangement is indistinguishable from how the men and women calling themselves government operate, but they are overlooking one very significant difference: everything done under auspices of government is underlined by an act of trespass in the form of taxation, and coercion in the form of credible threats of trespass. To equivocate defense against a trespasser with the trespass itself is to render the word "trespass" - and even the very concept of bodily integrity - meaningless. Such an equivocation would thus be logically incoherent.
Again, we acknowledge which individuals have the best link to controlled, scarce means for the purpose of avoiding conflict among individuals over those means. Given that trespass is a form of conflict, this best link can not be transferred through trespass. This is why we are able to recognize theft, murder, assault, rape and slavery as being morally wrong. When this best link isn't acknowledged, there is no means by which to differentiate victims from aggressors and no means by which to demonstrate damages or grievances.
The tyranny experienced by individuals living without acknowledgement of property rights would therefore be indistinguishable from the tyranny experienced by individuals living under the threat of violence posed by those men and women calling themselves government, especially since "government" is a euphemism for expropriation in the name of property protection, which is just as logically incoherent as conflating defense against trespass with trespass.
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
"Some critics, especially relativists, collectivists and leftists (but I repeat myself), may say that this arrangement is indistinguishable from how the men and women calling themselves government operate, but they are overlooking one very significant difference: everything done under auspices of government is underlined by an act of trespass in the form of taxation, and coercion in the form of credible threats of trespass. To equivocate defense against a trespasser with the trespass itself is to render the word "trespass" - and even the very concept of bodily integrity - meaningless. Such an equivocation would thus be logically incoherent."
This is why I let the writers write and tend to read more than post. This is Awesome, and an answer to some of the most recent critiques that I have come across. Keep it up Jared!
I've been seeing these critiques recently myself. Let's say they left me feeling... inspired. Haha, thanks for the feedback!
Most definitely. It's the Non-Aggression Principle, not the Non-Reaction to the Aggression of Others principle.
As with most of these kinds of nitpicky criticisms of anarchy, though, they really don't hold any water once even the most rudimentary thought is applied to them. They're just ways to rationalize a continued devotion to slave society.
I've never understood how people like Kyle Wagner (I mention him only because he's too amusing to forget) conflate self-defense and the defense of others with the coercion of the state. "Defense isn't voluntary to the guy trying to kill you." Yeah, no kidding. If he wasn't trying to kill me though, this would be a moot point; no one would be trying to use force against him.
Like you said @seanobi, even a cursory exploration of that premise would reveal it's incoherent and doesn't make any sense, nor is it anything anyone has proposed except for actual pacifists.
I personally suspect that Kyle is either a sock puppet account on a mission to troll or a complete sociopath.
It is not pacifism but it should strive to be pacifism and should only use force when absolutely necessary, in self-defense.
There is no need to use excessive force, even for self defense, sometimes it's enough if you talk through the situation, and in confrontations, its enough if you disarm the agressor, there is no need to agress further.
For example shooting the agressor in the foot once is pretty deterring, there is no need to use lethal force.
If we have good manners and way to de-escalate conflict then violence will almost never be necessary.
I appreciate your optimism. I'm personally not so sure that there will ever be a time when there's not someone willing to initiate lethal force, which makes me question whether there will ever be a time when the use of violence will never be necessary.
I didn't said it will never be necessary, what I said is that it will almost never be necessary. There will always be the case of lunatic agressor, but in a well civilized world the probability of encounter with such person will be very low. Every other conflict you might have will just have to be resolved in a civilized way. Sometimes by just walking away, there is no need to confront people for no reason.
I don't disagree, thanks for elaborating.
Well maybe in many thousands of years, after humanity maturizes and becomes more knowledge oriented and less instinct oriented.
But in our lifetimes the best we can do is to achieve a voluntary society where the use of defensive force can be used.
"It is not pacifism but it should strive to be pacifism and should only use force when absolutely necessary, in self-defense." I see where you are coming from, and to an extent I totally agree, but it isn't pacifism if you defend yourself. We need 1. Non-aggression principal and 2. (if necessary) the Self-defense principal.
Voluntary association should be the goal at all times. Voluntary association is ALWAYS preferable to violent coercion. Self-defense is not violent coercion though.
For some reason statist just cant see a world without aggression. The way they see it voluntary action is only permissible once the state deems it so.
15,000 hours of indoctrination has that effect on people
Great article. Very thorough and articulated. Love all your stuff man!
Thank you!
Well put. I appreciate the precision of the language.
jerry1 is a semantic monster. its why I started a podcast with him, he makes me think! - Dave
My pleasure, thanks!
As always, you articulate your position well, my friend!
Is there anything people DO understand about voluntaryism?
It is a sound philosophy. Every individual dislikes and naturally reacts negatively to threats of violence or the use of violence. If we take that personal understanding, and realize that everyone else has that same natural negative reaction, we have universalized the non-aggression principal. This is what needs to happen in society for us to reach a voluntaryist society.
We each dislike threats of violence and the use of violence upon us, the real difference is do we extend that to others (voluntaryism) or do we NOT extend that to others (moral relativism) ?
Voluntaryism, the radical philosophy that all interactions should be voluntary. Non-aggression first, and then self-defense. No masters, no rulers.