More
6

By "Voluntarily", I mean nobody is putting a gun to your head demanding that you do or don't do something. Nobody is outright taking your shit or attacking you. And nobody is lying to get you to do something.

The problem most people tend to have with this viewpoint is that they believe there are circumstances where it is appropriate to do this to people, for any reason other than stopping someone who is already doing it or is planning on doing it (self-defense). Usually, this is meant to justify a government's use of involuntary force, although sometimes it might be other involuntary organizations.

So let's go through a list of things a given person may or may not justify being done by coercing others:

  • Tax collection for public services (roads, schools, police, military, etc).

  • Punishing victimless crimes (degenerate sex, drugs, opinions that are deemed wrong, etc).

  • The lesser of two evils: they believe that it's okay for X to coerce against the masses because if they didn't, the boogeyman Y will take over, and they will be much worse than X.

Usually it comes down to those three.

The first two ultimately rely on a core fallacy that these things are inherently 'good' or 'bad', and that because of these qualities, a government or some other institution has a right, if not a duty, to use force against people to suppress or create it. The problem is that words like 'good' and 'bad' are inherently subjective. You can judge things yourself and determine them to be 'good' or 'bad', but you cannot do that on behalf of others. So, an idea that truly is 'good' shouldn't require people to be forced into it, and likewise, something that is truly bad shouldn't have to be made illegal by a coercive institution. The people who agree that something is good or bad can agree, voluntarily, to pay taxes to a certain government and follow certain laws, but nobody has any right to force other people to do the same. Your subjective ideas of good and bad are yours alone, and when you impose them on other people, you are crossing a boundary and violating the free will of another person.

Of course, that forces me to justify why it is 'bad' to violate the free will of another person. Without appealing to any higher authority in the universe, it's simply a matter of convincing you that it is wrong to do so, and we've come full circle. But consider what life would be like if everyone openly justified violations of free will. We would live in a society where the weak, those who cannot fight for themselves, are constantly at the mercy of those who are stronger than themselves. That, in my mind at least, would be hell. It would be something not unlike the lives of peasants in mediaeval Europe, or the outer party and proles in George Orwell's '1984'. Western society has progressed away from (and avoided) that kind of world because we slowly began to see violations of free will as evil, and reject it even when it's done by kings who are ordained by God. It's how constitutional democracies were built, and slavery was abolished. The next step is to reject it once more, even when it's done by a goverment that is voted for democratically.

And therein lies the argument against the third point. History has proven that we don't need a lesser-evil force to protect us from a greater-evil boogeyman, because we, the people, have the power to be the even stronger non-evil force that can do away with both, and it's only a matter of us coming to this realization. It is up to us to decide that no human being should have to suffer the pain of a dog-eat-dog world, by becoming the greater dog and eating nobody.

Go ahead and imagine the society of your worst nightmare, fictional or otherwise. Now imagine how that society could have been established, if it were physically impossible for homo sapiens to aggress against each other. Could it still be possible?

So if you want to become invulnerable to that sort of Tyranny, it's up to you as a member of society to start openly rejecting the violation of free will, and encourage alternative ways to get people to do something. Offer an incentive, appeal to change their ideas of 'good' and 'bad', or just don't force them to do something at all. If everyone did this, everyone would be free, and tyranny or oppression would be impossible.
By "Voluntarily", I mean nobody is putting a gun to your head demanding that you do or don't do something. Nobody is outright taking your shit or attacking you. And nobody is lying to get you to do something. The problem most people tend to have with this viewpoint is that they believe there are circumstances where it is appropriate to do this to people, for any reason other than stopping someone who is already doing it or is planning on doing it (self-defense). Usually, this is meant to justify a government's use of involuntary force, although sometimes it might be other involuntary organizations. So let's go through a list of things a given person may or may not justify being done by coercing others: - Tax collection for public services (roads, schools, police, military, etc). - Punishing victimless crimes (degenerate sex, drugs, opinions that are deemed wrong, etc). - The lesser of two evils: they believe that it's okay for X to coerce against the masses because if they didn't, the boogeyman Y will take over, and they will be much worse than X. Usually it comes down to those three. The first two ultimately rely on a core fallacy that these things are inherently 'good' or 'bad', and that because of these qualities, a government or some other institution has a right, if not a duty, to use force against people to suppress or create it. The problem is that words like 'good' and 'bad' are inherently subjective. You can judge things yourself and determine them to be 'good' or 'bad', but you cannot do that on behalf of others. So, an idea that truly is 'good' shouldn't require people to be forced into it, and likewise, something that is truly bad shouldn't have to be made illegal by a coercive institution. The people who agree that something is good or bad can agree, voluntarily, to pay taxes to a certain government and follow certain laws, but nobody has any right to force other people to do the same. Your subjective ideas of good and bad are yours alone, and when you impose them on other people, you are crossing a boundary and violating the free will of another person. Of course, that forces me to justify why it is 'bad' to violate the free will of another person. Without appealing to any higher authority in the universe, it's simply a matter of convincing you that it is wrong to do so, and we've come full circle. But consider what life would be like if everyone openly justified violations of free will. We would live in a society where the weak, those who cannot fight for themselves, are constantly at the mercy of those who are stronger than themselves. That, in my mind at least, would be hell. It would be something not unlike the lives of peasants in mediaeval Europe, or the outer party and proles in George Orwell's '1984'. Western society has progressed away from (and avoided) that kind of world because we slowly began to see violations of free will as evil, and reject it even when it's done by kings who are ordained by God. It's how constitutional democracies were built, and slavery was abolished. The next step is to reject it once more, even when it's done by a goverment that is voted for democratically. And therein lies the argument against the third point. History has proven that we don't need a lesser-evil force to protect us from a greater-evil boogeyman, because we, the people, have the power to be the even stronger non-evil force that can do away with both, and it's only a matter of us coming to this realization. It is up to us to decide that no human being should have to suffer the pain of a dog-eat-dog world, by becoming the greater dog and eating nobody. Go ahead and imagine the society of your worst nightmare, fictional or otherwise. Now imagine how that society could have been established, if it were physically impossible for homo sapiens to aggress against each other. Could it still be possible? So if you want to become invulnerable to that sort of Tyranny, it's up to you as a member of society to start openly rejecting the violation of free will, and encourage alternative ways to get people to do something. Offer an incentive, appeal to change their ideas of 'good' and 'bad', or just don't force them to do something at all. If everyone did this, everyone would be free, and tyranny or oppression would be impossible.

6 comments

[–] Boukert 1 points (+1|-0)

Being able to move does not substitute a voluntary relationship.

It does, don't like the law of the land you just pickup and move. It's basically how mankind dispersed from Africa and how later mass immigration to the Netherlands during the religious wars and later mass immigration to the US worked. You are just supporting a case for people being stubborn and bound to a region.

and an involuntary government comes along to force him to pay taxes.

Could even be a voluntary government, and you could still refuse to pay taxes..

The farm is a product of the man's labour, and practically part of himself.

Bullshit, he can sell it, it has monetary value so he can be compensated for his "loss".

There was no voluntary agreement made where the government was given the right to impose itself upon the man, it just came in, invaded his life, and taxed him anyway.

You have this upside down, the state was there before the farm. Citizens know the rules, laws, taxes and risks involved in living in the region they chose to live beforehand. These people are not bound to a system of serfdom and have the freedom to sell and move away.

it's an invasion of another person's sovereignty.

It isn't, the man can stay as sovereign as he wants to. He just needs to voluntarily pack up and move to Dubai, where you have no income or corporate tax.
[–] Mattvision [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

...later mass immigration to the Netherlands during the religious wars and later mass immigration to the US worked.

So one could claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is Voluntary because the people living under it can move to Europe? And I guess someone should have told the French peasants that if they don't like the estate system, they could just move to the U.S.

You are just supporting a case for people being stubborn and bound to a region.

Yes, because the region in question is their home. I believe it is something that belongs to them (usually), and they have an inaleinable right to live there without being forced to do anything.

Could even be a voluntary government, and you could still refuse to pay taxes..

You could, but that would be fraud, and there's an actual case to be made for forcing them to pay taxes, or exit the agreement.

It's like if you walked into a grocery store, and took a bunch of stuff without paying. That's obviously theft because the grocery store never agreed they could have that stuff for free. On the other hand, if someone's delivering a bunch of stuff to my house and charging my credit card for it, even when I never agreed they could do that, then that's also theft. The only difference is which party is doing the stealing.

Bullshit, he can sell it, it has monetary value so he can be compensated for his "loss".

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so please forgive me if I misunderstand. If you mean to say that because his farm has monetary value, the state can tax him as much as they want and simply compensate him somehow (through the use of public services maybe?), then I would argue that planning to compensate someone for a loss you imposed upon them against their will doesn't make your actions okay. I could break into your home and steal your furniture, and then leave you however many Britain monies I felt the furniture was worth, but that doesn't make it all better. The bottom line is that I broke into your home and took your things without your permission. Even if you didn't experience a monetary loss because of it, I have still wronged you.

If you mean to say that because he can sell the farm and stop being taxed by the state (or that particular state), he is free, I would argue that it doesn't. Again, he made the farm. It is his property, and his right to control that property just as he controls his own body is non-negotiable. So if someone comes in and starts harassing and threatening him, it isn't justified simply on the basis that he can sell his farm, keep its monetary value, and go somewhere else. If it were, the state could also say that it's going to tax you as long as you still have your particular kidneys. You could sell your kidneys and get new ones if you don't want to be taxed, so it's voluntary. But it isn't, because that is an obvious violation of your own autonomy.

You have this upside down, the state was there before the farm. Citizens know the rules, laws, taxes and risks involved in living in the region they chose to live beforehand. These people are not bound to a system of serfdom and have the freedom to sell and move away.

You're thinking of the state as though it were an omnipresent entity, like a giant invisible blanket that covers the region it claims.

The state is really just people. Human people like you, me, the farmer, the tax collectors, every king or emperor or president, etc.

In what way did any of those people own the land before the farmer tilled it? Does it belong to the state merely because it lies within the region they claim belongs to them? Well, any human person can go around making claims willy nilly. I own the entire Southern half of Austrailia. Now, I can't do anything with that claim because it's complete nonsense. I've never even been to Austrailia, let alone have I invested any of my labor with any of the land in question, nor have the people who do own that land voluntarily given it to me.

However, if I have a bunch of guys with guns who will do whatever I say, and I start violently imposing myself as the ruler of Southern Austrailia, then I'm doing exactly what the state is doing. I have nothing to back up my claims other than the violence I am using against the people who oppose my claim.

So back to my first scenario, where a guy builds a farm, and the government starts taxing him to live there. The president, congress, and supreme court, and the armed tax collectors who showed up at his door, have likely never even laid eyes upon that particular piece of land, let alone did they invest any labor into creating it, unlike the farmer. The state only has a right to it in the sense that they are planning on coercing against people who don't act like they have a right to it. And thus, the entire relationship is involuntary. Here's a quick video that basically summarizes the whole argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

It isn't, the man can stay as sovereign as he wants to. He just needs to voluntarily pack up and move to Dubai, where you have no income or corporate tax.

He wouldn't be sovereign in Dubai either. As long as there's some involuntary entity that can force him to do one thing or another against his will, he is not free, nor is he sovereign.

As a Voluntaryist, I think sovereignty is a universal human right. Not just a right that belongs to states which have been recognized by other states, but a right that belongs to all people simply on the basis that they are human. Nobody can truly be free until they have absolute control over their own self, and to deny them that cannot be described as anything other than Tyranny.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae