30 votes

Voluntaryism and the freedom movement

I am posting here to implore all those who are currently pursuing the cause of freedom through electoral politics and 'limited government', to visit my website and consider the ideas on offer there, which can be summarised as the rejection of government as a necessity or a desired condition, and the embracing of truly voluntary cooperation and non-violence.

Thank you all for your time.

http://consentient.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/the-state-of-the...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Very old ideas that have

Very old ideas that have never gained traction in world history, while minarchist ideals have, numerous times.

Ventura 2012

yeah, limited government is better

Yeah, it's better to re-implement old ideas which have gained traction and led to unlimited government.

because wealth corrupts and

because wealth corrupts and makes people more materialistic/less high-minded and less vigilant, fact of history.

Ventura 2012

Is there something wrong with

Is there something wrong with the words "volunteer" or "volunteering"? There is no word in the English language called voluntaryism.

Wordification

It is how unwords are legitified into words. It is how new words, or nerds, are created. The legitification of unwords into words is called wordification, and the unword is said to have been wordified. It is the quickest and easiest, or rather the quieasiest way to expand your vocabulary. Without wordification we would never have blogs and bloggers, vlogs and vloggers, youtubers, Paulunteers, Tasers and lasers, hackers and malware, or even an internet.

Wordification has a long history of legitification. For instance, way back at King Arthur’s Court the roundest Knight was known as Sir Cumference, and so today we have the word circumference for the distance around a circle. That tidbit of trivia is absolutely true as documented in this very comment. And the word repossession got wordified after the first guy refused to pay his exorcist.

Do you comprehenderstand now?

(Just having a little fun.)

And if you don’t like it, then just remember this: Your calendar’s days are numbered.

Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

From Wikipedia

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.Since voluntaryists hold that the means must be consistent with the end, the goal of a purely voluntary society must be sought voluntarily.

One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

http://vforvoluntary.com/

Well, that's one more

Well, that's one more organization I'll avoid. The spelling error is enough to cause me to question their thinking.

Stick & Order.

reading some comments below triggered some thoughts, = I realized the importance of the stick =(rod, mast), the symbol of authority, or custodian of law.
e.g. the man with the rod was on the mountain, down below some jokers made a golden cow, magical, against the law, - having a party, etc. (Edit: the mice are at play when the cat is away.)

Informed ones on DP probably remember =
~ what happened to the cow when the man with the stick returned.

shish-ka-bob

-@-@-@-@-@-----------

Cow's Kabob.

right & funny. That 'holy' cow got burnt, it was sort of a bank = accumulated wealth, then left with no takers, the party was over, = no refund. Bank~Rupt.
(]:)>

Dear benettfreeman

I have read your essay and posted a critical response at the cited URL where in sum, I disagree with your analysis that a ‘freedom movement’ has not existed.

Otherwise, I firstly contest your conception of Voluntaryism as incomplete ideology on the following points:

Unless public agency is included, ‘the rejection of government’ equates to deficient anarchy. How do you subsequently resolve

i) the issue of rights violation (ex. if someone steals, are matters dealt with as a form of mercenary vigilantism)?

ii) are you likewise advocating exclusively private ownership in worldly affairs (consistent with a popular misconception of Libertarian ideology)?

Secondly I make the case for “volitional” governance where public agency remains intact, yet it is funded by choice and thereby disables abuse and fraud (I similarly use the term “volitional” when referring to the public realm as opposed to voluntary for personal matters)

Will & Willing.

+1. I had to go to Wiki for better understanding -

[[ Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. It is defined as purposive striving, and is one of the primary human psychological functions (the others being affection [affect or feeling], motivation [goals and expectations] and cognition [thinking]). Volitional processes can be applied consciously, and they can be automatized as habits over time.
& Willpower is the colloquial, and volition the scientific, term for the same state of the will; viz., an "elective preference" ]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_%28psychology%29

I'd agree, Najam

that language is important when defining terms--thanks for the tip

Language and Empire:

thanks, just collecting bits. the 2 links below have very informative articles on the role /influence of languages. in the 1st one the author sympathizes with the eastern perspective.
Language and Empire: My Language, Your Prison, by Dr. Thorsten Pattberg
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31078

for an understanding of the financial crisis, the dis'balance, the use of trickery (magic?) & manipulation to usurp people's wealth, read - "The Politics of Language and the Language of Political Regression" - by Prof. James Petras
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31018

caution, its a human (not leftist) perspective, ~ ~

Did you read the links at the

Did you read the links at the top of my site, that explain the core principles of my philosophy?

http://consentient.wordpress.com/are-you-reasonable/

http://consentient.wordpress.com/do-you-agree/

http://consentient.wordpress.com/do-you-have-the-right/

http://consentient.wordpress.com/what-are-we-gonna-do/

If your agency is consentient, then it is not government, it is merely people organising theirselves voluntarily, according to pre-established principles.

If it is not, is unreasonable.

.

1) Did you read the links at the top of my site, that explain the core principles of my philosophy?

Thanks for forwarding the key points to your political platform, where I thus see several persistent issues including organization, force and rights. Before elaborating on those topics and to preclude a possibly incorrect assumption however, could you please directly respond to the posed queries above?

2) If your agency is consentient, then it is not government

Am I correct when assuming that your definition of "consentient" literally means 'the opposite of being unreasonable', or more specifically 'people organising theirselves voluntarily, according to pre-established principles' (or from what I can infer elsewhere 'the express, unanimous consent of all involved')?
For clarity let us also define 'government': I would agree with the description of an embodied apparatus whose function is to distill conscience

What about the sheeple?

Where are the sheeple in your model? Did you genocide them? Imprison them? Cut their tongues and legs and arms off? Convert them?

The sheeple are numerous, demand leadership, demand to be protected from a host of scary monsters and can be quite dangerous when spooked...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

My ideas are not a 'model'

My ideas are not a 'model' but simply a set of ideas based on fact and inference. If these ideas were to be adopted by the majority of people within a given polity, they would gain traction. I reject essentialist labels like 'sheeple' as no matter how dumbfounded a person is, there is a chance that they can change their mind. For some it is more difficult than others, that's all.

I would agree that there are many people that want leaders, and such people MAY never accept the idea of consentient living. But I don't believe in adopting paradigms of social relations based on the lowest common denominator, nor do I believe that such people (the almost unconvincable) are in the majority.

Lastly, there comes a time when a given situation will force people to decide whether or not to accept reality, or to die in ignorance. The present economic, political - and what you might call MENTAL - paradigms cannot be sustained indefinitely. Currencies fail when people WAKE UP to the fact that the medium is worthless. Governments fall when people wake up to the fact that they are powerless (think Prague 1989 or Jugoslavia's non-violent deposing of their government). And minds crack under given circumstances. So those that you call 'sheeple' in order to write them off as no-hopers are still subject to the same objective laws that say "What goes up must come down", and when things crash, most will wake up. Even if they wake up too late, the fact that it is inevitable at some time means that it is possible it can happen by proselytisation in the here and now.

As for the latent danger they pose, I also agree that people often turn to violence. There could be a Maoist revolution in Greece this year quite easily. But nothing is written in stone, and if consentient ideas can be propagated to enough people, then uprisings of the sort we all fear will be a lot easier to deal with.

My apologies...

You are correct. You do not provide a model. A model attempts to explain how a system would work by describing how the agents and objects in the model would interact.

Basically all you are offering is "if people one day decide to be good then society will automatically become good". A mere tautology that says nothing much at all and has no basis in empirical reality.

Again, my apologies for accusing you of presenting an explanatory model... :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

haha well done sir

haha well done sir

Ventura 2012

I'd really like to study your

I'd really like to study your approach in more detail. Would you be interested in a conversation on Skype? If so, please send me an email at: benettfreeman@gmail.com

Re: What about the sheeple?

For Anarcho-capitalism to come about, there must be an understanding and acceptance by the sheeple of basic AnCap ideas like taxation is theft:

http://youtu.be/PGMQZEIXBMs

Impossible task you say? Hardly. When the sheeple learn that something is immoral which they once thought was moral, the new moral idea tends to stick. For example, the sheeple once believed it was moral to enslave other races. Now that the sheeple realize the immorality of slavery, how many sheeple do you see advocating a return to slavery? Now that the sheeple have realized the immorality of not allowing women to vote, how many sheeple advocate a return to disenfranchisement? New moral paradigms tend to stick, even among the sheeple.

As far as fully converting them to all the details, that is not required. Rozeff's Wager: I therefore do not ask for anyone to convert to my way of thinking. I ask only for one thing: Give me my freedom from your government. Correspondingly, I give you the freedom to have your government – with one important stipulation: That neither of us demand that the other remove himself from the country (this land, this place, and this people) that we both cherish.

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi

Aww, what a cute dream! :>

When I said:

"Where are the sheeple in your model? Did you genocide them? Imprison them? Cut their tongues and legs and arms off? Convert them?"

The list of "solutions" to the sheeple problem I presented were all FACETIOUS.

It's ok to pen fiction. Or to even believe a fiction. But that doesn't mean reality conforms to the fiction you've chosen to have faith in. There is absolutely zero empirical or observational data from the real world that it is possible to convert even a small portion of sheeple.

The sheeple have always been there since the dawn of known history and the sheeple are currently demanding socialism on even greater scales.

Perhaps you are a fan of positive thinking, but there is absolutely no evidence from either history or from currently observable reality that the sheeple will ever have some great moral epiphany and embrace anarchism.

With regard to "Rozeff's Wager":

Basically the idea here is that the anarchists will "give freedom" to the sheeple in exchange for the sheeple leaving the anarchists alone in their little communes.

Well, this assumes the ultra-minority anarchists are in any position of power to barter such a deal. Look around. The sheeple and their shepherds vastly outnumber us. They have the most powerful military forces. The shepherds are hungry for more power! The sheeple tell us what to do and how high to jump. Not the other way around.

"Rozeff's Wager" is delusional and detached from the real world and empirical observation. Look around. If you mixed all the sheeple and anarchists together in a map it would be difficult to even see anything but a sea of sheeple. You'd probably have to whip out a magnifying glass to see an anarchist.

The sheeple vastly outnumber us. They have always been there. And no amount of dreaming and no matter how much you wish upon stars is going to change this. Adding a magical conversion to your model doesn't make it happen in reality.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Re: Aww, what a cute dream! :>

@weebles: "There is absolutely zero empirical or observational data from the real world that it is possible to convert even a small portion of sheeple."

I just gave two examples of empirical examples of the sheeple waking up to a new moral paradigm which has stuck from that time to now (slavery/disenfranchisement). You have ignored those empirical examples while demanding empirical evidence, which is intellectually dishonest.

@weebles: "The sheeple have always been there since the dawn of known history and the sheeple are currently demanding socialism on even greater scales."

Thank the state education system/indoctrination schools & government connected mainstream media for that. Just another reason to get rid of the state completely.

Furthermore, you speak of the sheeple as though they haven't changed from the dawn of time until now, except for the worse. Do you see no difference in sheeple that believe that enslaving black people is right and sheeple that later believe that enslaving black people is wrong? Why do you think the white sheeple of today haven't slipped back into their old ways and all started advocating a return of black slavery?

@weebles: "If you mixed all the sheeple and anarchists together in a map it would be difficult to even see anything but a sea of sheeple. You'd probably have to whip out a magnifying glass to see an anarchist."

If [a few hundred years ago] you mixed all the [pro-slavery] sheeple and [abolitionists] together in a map it would be difficult to even see anything but a sea of sheeple. You'd probably have to whip out a magnifying glass to see an [abolitionist].

@weebles: "Adding a magical conversion to your model doesn't make it happen in reality."

The conversion of pro-slavery sheeple into abolitionists must have been a real magical moment in history for you then.

Man has an overwhelming genetic propensity to choose the best means for his most important ends. His most important ends overwhelmingly involve material security, comfort, and prosperity. The best means for that is maximal capitalism (anarcho-capitalism). Once men are convinced of that by economic science, they will choose it.

The state happened to be invented before economic science could reveal the superiority of capitalism. Therefore, people in some societies thought erroneously that supporting a state apparatus was the most effective means to their ends. Thus the first states formed. And given the fact that at the time non-state societies had not YET developed economic calculation and the division of labor sufficiently to become supremely wealthy (keep in mind that anarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and a society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state), state societies were able to produce the means of war to a superior degree, so the latter were able to over-run the former.

Thankfully anarcho-capitalists today have a major advantage in converting the sheeple, as Tom Woods explains:

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods193.html

"Ron Paul has had so much fundraising success because the Remnant had rarely if ever been sought out by a presidential candidate before. Here was a man of intelligence who defied all political convention, taught the public about things they didn’t even realize they should be interested in, and could boast a record of consistency that impressed even the most hardened cynic. That got their attention.

Nock had things mostly right, but I would amend his presentation just a bit. He appeared to speak as if the Remnant were a fixed number of people. They might be sought out, but that’s it. Dr. Paul has shown that the Remnant can be increased, not just found and inspired. Dr. Paul’s commitment to the truth, even when it seemed to yield him only grief, seized the attention of a great many apathetic Americans, and added them to the ranks of the Remnant.

Nock further described the task of finding the Remnant as a largely thankless one, a job for which one would search in vain for tangible results.

'In any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity.... You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness.'

Nock lived before the Internet. Ron Paul now knows who the Remnant are. He has a sense of their numbers. He knows some of the things they’re doing. He knows he has had an impact. Nock didn’t think this was possible. In his day, it wasn’t.

Today we live at a moment of opportunity none of us could have imagined a generation ago. A revolution in information transmission is under way. Anyone can express his ideas before the whole world. All of a sudden, ideas, books, and people shunned by the Biden-to-Romney spectrum can get a worldwide hearing. Next to this, Gutenberg looks like a lazy bum.

Ron Paul did his job. He found and built up the Remnant. And there, rather than in the fleeting passage of legislation, is where genuine, long-term change will emerge."

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi

You are not clairvoyant, nor

You are not clairvoyant, nor can you truthfully say that something that is metaphysically possible is impossible due to some imagined determinism of mind(s).

If you want to maintain your self-defeating misery then do so by all means, but don't claim certainty over things or claim that there is no data to suggest that people cannot be converted, since there is an abundance of evidence to suggest the opposite.

Your argument amounts to a human nature argument. More and more people are waking up to the fact that this a fallacy. Nurture - how you treat people - determines what kind of a reaction you will get.

So don't patronise and call people dreamers in an attempt to project your own fears onto other people.

Finally, I could not let the matter go without pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. You're arguing that people cannot be persuaded out of their acquiescence to heteronomous regimes because they 'are' 'sheeple', yet you want to convert them to minarchy? ;)

You said...

"You are not clairvoyant, nor can you truthfully say that something that is metaphysically possible is impossible due to some imagined determinism of mind(s)."

Where is the necessity for reading minds? I asked you to appeal to empirical observation. I prize empirical observation over hypotheticals that never existed. No matter how sticky-sweet-utopian they sound. The entire history of man is a history of people demanding governance. From the very first writings until today.

Again, mind-reading is not relevant or necessary. Empirical observation rules the day for me.

You said:

"If you want to maintain your self-defeating misery then do so by all means, but don't claim certainty over things or claim that there is no data to suggest that people cannot be converted, since there is an abundance of evidence to suggest the opposite."

Strawman. I never said "people cannot be converted". I said I seriously doubt a critical mass of sheeple can be converted and that the Herd will always be there. You have no evidence, much less "abundant" evidence, that a sufficient number of sheeple can be converted to bring about any kind of anarchical society. If so, please share. (Iceland doesn't count -- it was a tiny community and it soon broke down into squabbling and ended with the implementation of public governance. )

With respect to "self-defeating", I am "self-defeating" with respect to snakes sneaking around in the outdoors. A water moccasin will kill you. They are real. They exist. You should seriously be concerned about them. Even under duress of being the target of ad homs.

I am "self-defeating" with respect to children wandering around unattended versus child molesters. Child molesters exist and will continue to exist in any so-called "anarchy". I suggest strongly against "positive thinkers" being wracked with indecision because they look upon unpleasant thoughts and recognition of the empirically obvious base instincts that surface in persons from time to time as unbearable "negativity".

I am "self-defeating" with respect to leaving valuables out in the open for easy takings. (I know, I know, this is so horrible and defeating of me to worry about thieves. I certainly must have a low opinion of people in general. I must believe ALL humans are thieves.)

You said:

"So don't patronise and call people dreamers in an attempt to project your own fears onto other people."

I will continue to point out that your model (yes, it is a model) is not based on empirical evidence from the real world and history and the "dream" allusion is exquisitely apropos.

If you consider a request for empirical data as "patronizing" then I guess I am being patronizing.

You said:

"Finally, I could not let the matter go without pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. You're arguing that people cannot be persuaded out of their acquiescence to heteronomous regimes because they 'are' 'sheeple', yet you want to convert them to minarchy? ;)"

Again, strawman. I never said people couldn't be converted. From known history and current events I doubt a criticial mass can be converted.

Dude, most of the people I love and would die for are sheeple. :)

I love them although I am perplexed at their level of demand for rulers. And I try to convert them every chance I get. Took me 20+ years to convert my dad. There are a dozen or so teens and college students running around my small town loaded down with RP stickers and assorted libertarain/austrian paraphenalia all because I preached the gospel unto them.

I have no doubts at all that some/many can be converted. I just see nothing in reality that leads me to have hope a critical mass will be reached.

Besides, from an operative viewpoint, we must reach some kind of interim detente' with them in order to make any kind of move towards a more libertarian society. Maybe your hypothesis is true. Maybe a critical mass can be reached someday. In the meantime we MUST learn the nature of shepherding skills and how to persuade them.

You accuse me of being disdainful by using the term "sheeple". Yet, at the same time, you have no problem with flinging all kinds of invectives, slurs and ad homs even at the mere suggestion of minarchism. The sheeple see you doing that! And it appears wholly intolerant, elitist and uncompromising. I doubt you will get many converts that way.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

At least you're now admitting

At least you're now admitting that you can't defeat my argument with reference to facts, only 'doubts'. Feel free to doubt the potential that might lie in other people - I doubt it too. But it doesn't stop me trying to help them wake up, since it is the only possible solution to the problem of social relations. I'd sooner do that than throw the principles out the window and settle for some kind of temporary pragmatist compromise.

Btw, since you seem so obsessed with arguments from history, how can you be so blind as to the precedent examples of how minarchy turned to maxarchy?

And you admit that you were able to change your old man's mind, though you're also (understandably) frustrated by how long it took.

Fact is that people can change their minds. Which raises the question of why convert them to minarchism rather than voluntaryism, if the only reason you're able to come up with for prefering minarchism OVER voluntaryism is that voluntaryism isn't possible because you can't change people's minds?

Really, I'd love to have conversations with you because it would really help me to understand this kind of defeatist illogic in more detail. Hit me up if you're game.

Just look at the bell

Just look at the bell curve...a critical mass of the people can not understand and will not adopt free market economics to the extent required to have a defensible anarchy. Republican Minarchism is good because it allows the "remnant" to use government to protect their own rights from the masses. There is a reason why the masses were not allowed to vote at the founding of the republic...the enlightened ones i.e. landowners were presumed to have SOME insight into how a market economy worked.

Ventura 2012

The Shepherd.

+1. Thanks for reminding, a vital need.