Voluntaryist political issue list - any clever ideas?
I know it sounds crazy, but I'm currently working on a voluntaryist political party website with the idea of putting up a real opposition to the authoritarians that have hijacked this country over the past hundred to two hundred years.
Note:
I've decided to start out with a simple page that tells people how to figure out what the voluntaryist position is by applying basic logic and then address common concerns that I hear from literally everyone and their dog when discussing these things face to face.
Feedback and ideas are definitely welcome but I'm back to working on the site for a bit before heading out to the garden.
At this point, other than the logo the site is looking pretty good and most of the content is coming together nicely other than the page that denotes the issues.
I'm finding it hard to explain that most mainstream (corporate media/government manufactured) issues are non-issues due to the fact that if one believes in self ownership, voluntary cooperation, and not initiating violence then government has no legitimate power to decide one way or the other.
Anywise, at this point I'm still trying to decide how to even start putting an issues page together.
I currently have the following:
The Issues
For voluntaryists, issues that concern most others (Republicans, Democrats, etc.) tend to fall into 3 primary categories: Non Issues, Would be Non Issues, and Valid Issues
The distinction between these relies primarily on whether government has a legitimate right to deal with an issue and, if not, whether there is legislation on the books that claims to give government the power to do so.
Non Issues
These are issues that voluntaryists will vote against, not because they don’t agree that something needs to be done, but because they feel that government has no legitimate power in using force to decide them.
- What can you ingest?
- Who can you sleep with or marry?
- How many children can you have?
- How can/must you educate your children?
- How much of the fruit of your labor can you keep for yourself and your family?
- What can you use to defend yourself from aggression?
- Where can you travel and how can you do so?
These are personal choices that individuals must make themselves.
Others can try to persuade them or guide them but have no right to force them.
Unfortunately, there are not many of these as over the last hundred years government authoritarians have been able to pass legislation affecting virtually every aspect of our lives.
Would Be Non Issues
These are issues that would be non-issues except for the fact that there is already legislation that claims government has the power to do these things.
Voluntaryists tend to find such legislation illegitimate at best, and possibly even criminal.
That being said, new legislation that moves towards personal liberty will generally be supported, even if it is felt only to do so slightly.
A voluntaryist would likely support a reduction in income taxes even though they might see the income tax as simple theft.
We are realists that know we cannot just get rid of most things immediately but will instead need to incrementally reduce them and find creative, non-coercive ways to replace them.
Valid Issues
Valid issues are those that are the rightful domain of legislation, meaning that they do not deal with the individual rights of people but rather with the running of government.
Some examples of valid issues:
- Voting: We need to improve our system of voting if people are to have a real voice in government.
- Problems in Government: Governments claim to be able to legislate whatever they want, tax as much as they want, confiscate property as wanted, and control all aspects of peoples lives.
- Money: We currently suffer under a system where governments borrow money into existence out of thin air from banks on the promise to pay it back plus interest. This causes ever increasing debt and gives those issuing the money undue control over government.
- Poverty: There are people in this country that cannot afford to live. While we don’t believe that theft (taxation and wealth distribution) is a valid solution, we do agree that something needs to be done and that we need to find non-coercive methods of helping to raise up those among us that need help.
- Foreign Policy: We have no right to meddle in foreign affairs. We should strive to be an example to the world and invite oppressed peoples to immigrate here and worthy foreign nations to join us as states of the union. We should also steer clear of any move towards world government. A powerful federal government is bad enough.
However, that seems rather lack luster and I doubt that it will engage many people.
I could take a list of issues from a site like the following:
And cover each from a voluntaryist perspective... but I tried that initially and it was very repetitive.
I was also thinking about listing issues in a more tongue in cheek manner:
Get the government out of my wallet!
People have the right to the fruits of their own labor.
People have no right to the fruits of someone elses labor until such is freely given to them.
Government is composed of people.
Because of this, government has no right to the fruit of anyones labor unless it is freely given.
While we know that many people rely upon social programs, we know that we cannot simply get rid of all government programs that amount to theft.
That being said, we should work on solutions that move away from theft and allow all of the people to keep the fruit of their labor... eventually eliminating the income tax and replacing welfare, social security, medicare, and other theft funded services with alternatives that are based upon voluntary donation and valuable services that people choose to purchase from government.
For example, many large corporations make hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars off of patents and copyrights that are continuously extended by government, which prevent new things from entering the public domain.
For such privilege, what if copyrights and patents were reduced to what they were long ago (7 years or so) and companies had to pay a fee each year after that to maintain them, perhaps a fee that went up by a factor of 5, 10, or even 20 per additional year.
This would do two positive things:
- Promote the release of patents and copyright after a reasonable period
- Raise monies for social programs from those that benefit off of government offered services
That's just one idea. Working together I can think of no reason that we, the people, cannot come up with a better way than stealing from each other to help the poor and/or needy that want help.
Take the proceeds from patent and copyright extension and create a citizens dividend, paying everyone in the country for allowing patents and copyrights to continue beyond a period that would allow creators to profit off of their ideas.
Other headline ideas follow... but I'm just not feeling it when I read them.
- Get the government out of my bedroom!
- Get the government away from my children!
- Get the government away from my property!
- Get the government off of my back!
Anyone have ideas on a good way to cover "the issues" from a voluntaryist perspective in a manner that won't completely make the average persons eyes cross or turn them off immediately?
Maybe just listing a few of the most popular issues people are talking about, covering them in depth, and then telling them to use the basic ideas of voluntaryism to figure the rest out for themselves or, alternatively, to ask about a specific one...
Maybe it's just that I've been up for so long.
And maybe one of you will have a clean, clever, concise method of explaining issues that won't either make peoples head explode or cause their brains to shut off completely.
Either way I'm going to turn in. Maybe I'll come up with something while I dream.
Maybe I'm not the right audience, but points you made just weren't very persuasive for me. You postulate that government does not have legitimate right to deal with certain issues. The main question that kept popping in my mind while I read, is why the hell the government shouldn't deal with education, taxes, and arms trafficking? I just didn't buy your axioms (and I believe many people won't either), so the whole argument fell apart in the very begining. I think you should elaborate more on these whys more than on what follows if the reader does accept these initial points.
Let me try to build an argument in support of government powers. Your might find it helpful to know your enemy. If your article addresses issues before they even arise in the mind of your reader, it might help persuade people onto your side.
So, it goes something like this... On one hand, being an educated civilized individual, I want to live in society of educated people; I want the society to be safe; I see these values as universal and beneficial for all; and I totally agree to pay a share for it. On the other hand, I see human nature, including my own, as weak, slothful and often violent. I am sceptical of people as a whole being able to self-organize into society I'd be willing to live in. Because of that I see it wise to provide the government with rights to apply reasonably limited power and gather reasonably limited taxes. The question is negotiatable, what the powers and taxes should be to be reasonable, but I can hardly believe we should cease them completely.
Analyzing what I just wrote, it seems that the core of my scepticism lies in negative opinion on human nature. This might be a weak point for you to attack.
Anyway, good luck with your project :)
Great post.
Just remember:
I can't disagree with that!
Hello tony check me on Pinterest ( Navala ) we are Also similar to what you envisage !! I think it would make sense to collaborate ? We are in a nutshell about changing the most basic things in the world !!!
Will check it out in the morning. Headed to sleep now though.
Thank you so much for sharing all this information! that's great! All the best! Waiting for more posts! :)
First of all: Your problem is identical to the one faced by all people who generally consider themselves to be: (1) Libertarians (2) Classical Liberals (3) Anarchists (4) Minarchists (5) True Democrats (6) True Republicans (7) Generally Pro-American (8)Individualist (9) Capitalist (10) Constitutionalist. I could continue, but the terms would gradually become more and more "loosely-related." As it is, people's myopic focus on "how they are different" causes them to use different terms for inessential differences.
For this reason, freedom is never attained by creating "issue lists." Or "further categorizing groups according to inessential differences." Issue positions are the stuff of utility to the myopic, totalitarian "major parties" who benefit from arbitrary demographic divisions and "infighting."
The average "libertarian" or "voluntaryist" is going to look at the prior list in paragraph 1, and start "splitting hairs" about how the prior networks are mutually-exclusive. They need not be, but conventional "voluntaryists" or, still worse, "agorists" will claim that they are, because they also have an incorrect model of reality. In the agorist's model of reality, an idealized form of "human philosophy" exists in everyone's mind, and "those who have not yet become agorists simply haven't been exposed to a good-enough explanation of the ideas yet." ...But this will never happen, because the laws of cybernetics (the study of goal-directed systems that includes political systems) forbid it. The amount of information required to "change one's label to agorist" is simply too large, for too little easily-perceived gain. Too few network nodes are capable of making that transition, when transitions exist that seemingly offer "all of the pay-off(s)" at a lesser research cost.
But what is the essential difference that means a Democrat can't work with a Libertarian for constructive change? Answering that question requires them to ask "How are we legitimately similar?" This requires the voluntaryist to ask "How might a Democrat also believe in the same things that make my philosophical position as a voluntaryist legitimate?" ie: "How might the two labels be reconciled to the point where they share compatible goals?"
Most Democrats will claim that they don't want to send people to prison for "victimless crimes." A self-described libertarian will typically hold a stronger version of the same position: "I will refuse to cooperate so long as you continue to use my money to imprison people for victimless crimes." Additionally, the libertarian will have some comprehension of a philosophical framework that explains WHY it's a bad idea to punish people for victimless crimes. Their economic framework/comprehension/perspective/focus might pose the idea that it's "wasteful" and/or "diminishes systemic wealth" to punish people that way.
The prior is not enough for the voluntaryist, so, in typical "libertarian" fashion, he proceeds to produce "a hair to be split." The voluntaryist seeks out a deeper explanation, one which encompasses more of reality, and is consistent with more of human knowledge (specifically, philosophy, natural law, economics, and morality). Perhaps the voluntaryist, (such as myself) is an atheist, and wishes to reconcile his views with biologically-evolved nature. (When voluntaryists are unaware of the great body of research done on sociopaths, they tend to utter inanities such as "human nature" ...as if all humans had a similar "default" moral and psychological nature. Biology now tells us this is not remotely true.)
In any case, a typical libertarian's "economic perspective" will strike the Democrat as "amoral" or "emotionally tone-deaf," if it is explained in isolation from proper morality. The Democrat will view the issue as a moral issue, from a direct personal perspective. "I've smoked pot, and I don't belong in jail. How dare the cops attack me for doing something so harmless!" The Democrat's view will strike the libertarian as myopic, and "unprincipled." The libertarian then typically concludes that "political problems are caused by a lack of sufficient principles" or "short-sighted pragmatism."
But this pitting of "practicality" versus "principle" is a red herring. It's a distraction from the essentials, with no legitimate possible outcome. In fact, the democrat's focus on "practical outcomes" reveals a legitimate criticism of the libertarian position: it is unable to be implemented, so long as it is unattractively presented.
If the "Democrat" is in the Democratic Party leadership, however, they may not even comprehend the moral angle at all. (Which further encourages libertarians to simply discount mainstream party voters as "unprincipled.") Instead, "political leaders" will try to map the issue onto "race" or "racial demographics." Why? Because the leadership of all political parties is primarily comprised of (1) Sociopaths who are willing to lie to demographics whose overlapping memberships are large enough to get them elected (because this is the only effective means by which sociopaths can obtain political power). and (2) the unphilosophical people they manipulate into supporting them, via incentives(offered rewards) and disincentives(threats). Spooner called the prior groups of manipulated non-politician civilians "Dupes, knaves, and cowards." The state's sociopaths try can fool most idiots, but the ones they cannot fool they try to "buy off" or "cow into submission with threats."
It's not just "Democrats" and "Libertarians" that seem to have irreconcilable differences. Given a myopic view, the groups in paragraph 1 above seem very different. They seem like distinct groups. But what might possibly unite them?
Shared History (most people believe that government power should be limited, in some way, and understand that "totalitarianism" and "totalitarian law" is theoretically illegitimate).
Shared Biology (most people are empaths, not sociopaths).
America was actually designed to be a voluntaryist nation. It's not one now because most people who study political science are (1) part of the problem OR (2) unaware of biology, if they aren't part of the problem.
First of all: Your problem is identical to the one faced by all people who generally consider themselves to be: (1) Libertarians (2) Classical Liberals (3) Anarchists (4) Minarchists (5) True Democrats (6) True Republicans (7) Generally Pro-American (8)Individualist (9) Capitalist (10) Constitutionalist. I could continue, but the terms would gradually become more and more "loosely-related." As it is, people's myopic focus on "how they are different" causes them to use different terms for inessential differences.
For this reason, freedom is never attained by creating "issue lists." Or "further categorizing groups according to inessential differences." Issue positions are the stuff of utility to the myopic, totalitarian "major parties" who benefit from arbitrary demographic divisions and "infighting."
The average "libertarian" or "voluntaryist" is going to look at the prior list in paragraph 1, and start "splitting hairs" about how the prior networks are mutually-exclusive. They need not be, but conventional "voluntaryists" or, still worse, "agorists" will claim that they are, because they also have an incorrect model of reality. In the agorist's model of reality, an idealized form of "human philosophy" exists in everyone's mind, and "those who have not yet become agorists simply haven't been exposed to a good-enough explanation of the ideas yet." ...But this will never happen, because the laws of cybernetics (the study of goal-directed systems that includes political systems) forbid it. The amount of information required to "change one's label to agorist" is simply too large, for too little easily-perceived gain. Too few network nodes are capable of making that transition, when transitions exist that seemingly offer "all of the pay-off(s)" at a lesser research cost.
But what is the essential difference that means a Democrat can't work with a Libertarian for constructive change? Answering that question requires them to ask "How are we legitimately similar?" This requires the voluntaryist to ask "How might a Democrat also believe in the same things that make my philosophical position as a voluntaryist legitimate?" ie: "How might the two labels be reconciled to the point where they share compatible goals?"
Most Democrats will claim that they don't want to send people to prison for "victimless crimes." A self-described libertarian will typically hold a stronger version of the same position: "I will refuse to cooperate so long as you continue to use my money to imprison people for victimless crimes." Additionally, the libertarian will have some comprehension of a philosophical framework that explains WHY it's a bad idea to punish people for victimless crimes. Their economic framework/comprehension/perspective/focus might pose the idea that it's "wasteful" and/or "diminishes systemic wealth" to punish people that way.
The prior is not enough for the voluntaryist, so, in typical "libertarian" fashion, he proceeds to produce "a hair to be split." The voluntaryist seeks out a deeper explanation, one which encompasses more of reality, and is consistent with more of human knowledge (specifically, philosophy, natural law, economics, and morality). Perhaps the voluntaryist, (such as myself) is an atheist, and wishes to reconcile his views with biologically-evolved nature. (When voluntaryists are unaware of the great body of research done on sociopaths, they tend to utter inanities such as "human nature" ...as if all humans had a similar "default" moral and psychological nature. Biology now tells us this is not remotely true.)
In any case, a typical libertarian's "economic perspective" will strike the Democrat as "amoral" or "emotionally tone-deaf," if it is explained in isolation from proper morality. The Democrat will view the issue as a moral issue, from a direct personal perspective. "I've smoked pot, and I don't belong in jail. How dare the cops attack me for doing something so harmless!" The Democrat's view will strike the libertarian as myopic, and "unprincipled." The libertarian then typically concludes that "political problems are caused by a lack of sufficient principles" or "short-sighted pragmatism."
But this pitting of "practicality" versus "principle" is a red herring. It's a distraction from the essentials, with no legitimate possible outcome. In fact, the democrat's focus on "practical outcomes" reveals a legitimate criticism of the libertarian position: it is unable to be implemented, so long as it is unattractively presented.
If the "Democrat" is in the Democratic Party leadership, however, they may not even comprehend the moral angle at all. (Which further encourages libertarians to simply discount mainstream party voters as "unprincipled.") Instead, "political leaders" will try to map the issue onto "race" or "racial demographics." Why? Because the leadership of all political parties is primarily comprised of (1) Sociopaths who are willing to lie to demographics whose overlapping memberships are large enough to get them elected (because this is the only effective means by which sociopaths can obtain political power). and (2) the unphilosophical people they manipulate into supporting them, via incentives(offered rewards) and disincentives(threats). Spooner called the prior groups of manipulated non-politician civilians "Dupes, knaves, and cowards." The state's sociopaths try can fool most idiots, but the ones they cannot fool they try to "buy off" or "cow into submission with threats."
It's not just "Democrats" and "Libertarians" that seem to have irreconcilable differences. Given a myopic view, the groups in paragraph 1 above seem very different. They seem like distinct groups. But what might possibly unite them?
Shared History (most people believe that government power should be limited, in some way, and understand that "totalitarianism" and "totalitarian law" is theoretically illegitimate).
Shared Biology (most people are empaths, not sociopaths).
America was actually designed to be a voluntaryist nation.
First of all: Your problem is identical to the one faced by all people who generally consider themselves to be: (1) Libertarians (2) Classical Liberals (3) Anarchists (4) Minarchists (5) True Democrats (6) True Republicans (7) Generally Pro-American (8)Individualist (9) Capitalist (10) Constitutionalist. I could continue, but the terms would gradually become more and more "loosely-related." As it is, people's myopic focus on "how they are different" causes them to use different terms for inessential differences.
For this reason, freedom is never attained by creating "issue lists." Or "further categorizing groups according to inessential differences." Issue positions are the stuff of utility to the myopic, totalitarian "major parties" who benefit from arbitrary demographic divisions and "infighting."
The average "libertarian" or "voluntaryist" is going to look at the prior list in paragraph 1, and start "splitting hairs" about how the prior networks are mutually-exclusive. They need not be, but conventional "voluntaryists" or, still worse, "agorists" will claim that they are, because they also have an incorrect model of reality. In the agorist's model of reality, an idealized form of "human philosophy" exists in everyone's mind, and "those who have not yet become agorists simply haven't been exposed to a good-enough explanation of the ideas yet." ...But this will never happen, because the laws of cybernetics (the study of goal-directed systems that includes political systems) forbid it. The amount of information required to "change one's label to agorist" is simply too large, for too little easily-perceived gain. Too few network nodes are capable of making that transition, when transitions exist that seemingly offer "all of the pay-off(s)" at a lesser research cost.
But what is the essential difference that means a Democrat can't work with a Libertarian for constructive change? Answering that question requires them to ask "How are we legitimately similar?" This requires the voluntaryist to ask "How might a Democrat also believe in the same things that make my philosophical position as a voluntaryist legitimate?" ie: "How might the two labels be reconciled to the point where they share compatible goals?"
Most Democrats will claim that they don't want to send people to prison for "victimless crimes." A self-described libertarian will typically hold a stronger version of the same position: "I will refuse to cooperate so long as you continue to use my money to imprison people for victimless crimes." Additionally, the libertarian will have some comprehension of a philosophical framework that explains WHY it's a bad idea to punish people for victimless crimes. Their economic framework/comprehension/perspective/focus might pose the idea that it's "wasteful" and/or "diminishes systemic wealth" to punish people that way.
The prior is not enough for the voluntaryist, so, in typical "libertarian" fashion, he proceeds to produce "a hair to be split." The voluntaryist seeks out a deeper explanation, one which encompasses more of reality, and is consistent with more of human knowledge (specifically, philosophy, natural law, economics, and morality). Perhaps the voluntaryist, (such as myself) is an atheist, and wishes to reconcile his views with biologically-evolved nature. (When voluntaryists are unaware of the great body of research done on sociopaths, they tend to utter inanities such as "human nature" ...as if all humans had a similar "default" moral and psychological nature. Biology now tells us this is not remotely true.)
In any case, a typical libertarian's "economic perspective" will strike the Democrat as "amoral" or "emotionally tone-deaf," if it is explained in isolation from proper morality. The Democrat will view the issue as a moral issue, from a direct personal perspective. "I've smoked pot, and I don't belong in jail. How dare the cops attack me for doing something so harmless!" The Democrat's view will strike the libertarian as myopic, and "unprincipled." The libertarian then typically concludes that "political problems are caused by a lack of sufficient principles" or "short-sighted pragmatism."
But this pitting of "practicality" versus "principle" is a red herring. It's a distraction from the essentials, with no legitimate possible outcome. In fact, the democrat's focus on "practical outcomes" reveals a legitimate criticism of the libertarian position: it is unable to be implemented, so long as it is unattractively presented.