Voluntaryism Wants to Undo Centuries of Progress

Standard

The anti-democratic anarchists are so dangerous. They want to maintain property rights for the rich (enforced by a minority onto a majority,) but seek to abolish anything that would allow the public to properly redistribute wealth.

Nobody truly owns anything. Ownership (ideally) is something the collective group temporarily allows for to make transactions and day-to-day affairs faster and easier.  All ownership can be reassigned at the whim of the voting public.

Voluntaryists who seek to abolish democracy altogether seek to undo centuries of struggle, advocacy, and progress.  The rich owning everything while everybody is disenfranchised will just result in feudal society again where the masses must toil labouriously for rich land-owners.  Inevitably, people will start seeking democracy again only to discover that racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry have all crept back in to such a pervasive extent that rights people already suffered for have to be won a second time around.

Thus, people must nip these anti-democratic, pro-elitist movements in the bud.  One problem is that representational democracy has proven itself to be a total failure, (at least, in my eyes.) Thus, direct democracy alongside things like freedom of speech is a must at this point to avoid descending into another dark age.

9 thoughts on “Voluntaryism Wants to Undo Centuries of Progress

  1. Most of what I could say might not resonate because of your apparent views on property in general. But, I’ll try. For example, your line…

    “They want to maintain property rights for the rich (enforced by a minority onto a majority,) but seek to abolish anything that would allow the public to properly redistribute wealth.”

    Well, I’d want to maintain property for everyone. At the basic level its not a “right” that needs to be maintained (by a violent institution). All people, no matter what, have the natural right to own what they have earned. That is it. What they have earned, have traded for, or are voluntarily given. Anything else is an unjust acquisition of wealth. All people, no matter what label we give them, or what status they have today – objectively own themselves, own their bodies, and own the fruits of their labor. Nothing more.

    Wealth has to be created. And its creation is basically limitless. It is not some finite thing that simply exists to be divided up. And to have any wealth created in the first place, there must be private property. The more society respects the property of everyone, the more wealth can be created. That is a primary. Throughout history when you see the most success for the most people, there is a direct correlation with property being more well respected relative to other places and times.

    The fundamentals of your goals won’t work. I’d start with some Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard for a remedy there (Mises.org). Collectivisation and the negation of property is what leads to mass misery. Its also immoral. Pure democracy, pure redistribution says to each individual, you are nothing. Your dreams don’t matter; your ability doesn’t matter; your preferences don’t matter. There would be no standard of what is good and what is moral. As long as 51% of people will something, all the individuals who make up the other 49% are violently coerced upon. It forcefully negates each person’s right of self ownership.

    “All ownership can be reassigned at the whim of the voting public.”
    Now thats just creepy.

    That’s my rant. Take it or leave it.

    But you are simply wrong about, not sure if by choice or ignorance, voluntaryism in general. It is not a system. It is not politics. It is philosophy. Philosophy for all people. You own yourself. Force, coercion, fraud, violence should never be used by anyone, including individuals, states, corporations; no one. No one, should have more “rights” or advantages than others. Everyone is free to do with their lives what they please, as long as they don’t infringe upon others in anyway.

    We dislike the same people just as much as you do. We want to do away with special privileges, loopholes, tax breaks, deals, favors, and contracts to corporations. We want to do away with corporate welfare. We rail against war, false flags, manipulations, the draft, wars for resources protection, wars for drug trade protection, wars that enrich special interests – in fact all wars. The voluntaryist/libertarian philosophies have become synonymous with these things.

    “In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”” (from your other article)

    No, we don’t. We don’t favor either one! If the philosophy changed, the pull peddlers, cronies, banksters, defense and government contractors, and any coercive, violent elite would shortly cease to exist. Without the state enabling their exploits, their income stream would dry up; we’d all be on an equal field. Their current “wealth” would dry up if forced to actually operate peacefully and voluntarily (something they’re not used to). Honest, hardworking, moral, people would become the norm.

    Hundreds of years ago these people you are angry with didn’t exist. Thats because hundreds of years ago, there wasn’t a world of giant authoritarian states to set up laws and institutions, patents, the very concept of a legalized corporation, etc. etc. Statism breeds evil people to collect in groups and take advantage of others. Back then it was just direct force upon people. But they got the brilliant idea to create institutions to make people think they were serving themselves, working for the common good, and no longer realize they were slaves. This is statism, and its ultimate incarnation, the oligarchic-corporatist-welfare-warfare machine is what we have today. Every time you use a term like “unjustly acquired”, “the rich owning everything”, etc – those things are made possible and brought to you by government, through the illusion of legitimacy to take from the masses and give to their friends, through the illusion of the authority they wield to grant special protections to corporations.

    So no, there is no favoring “the rich”. There is favoring the philosophical principle of self-ownership, for all people, and anyone who violates that, whether a common thief, or a multinational CEO – is immoral, and should be punished, or at a bare minimum, not dealt with (ostracized). Voluntaryists/Libertarians are the people who are most opposed to bigotry – because the basis of our philosophy is that all people are good, are worthy – as beautiful, creative individuals. Our philosophy says rights never should have to be “won”. You all simply have them! To fight for them is to beg a supposed authority, a master to grant us all something we already have.

    There are actually groups and individuals who do support keeping those in power, and maintaining a slave/master world. Some examples – neocons, standard democrats/republicans/liberals/conservatives, all governments, most large corporations, most cable news watchers, defense contractors, public sector employees – in other words, most people DO actually support defending the status quo, DO support the rich and powerful using guns, violence, and “laws” to maintain themselves, and DO support the unjustly powerful to remain that way, with no real recourse for anyone else – So to correct your major point – Voluntaryists/Libertarians/AnCaps are not among that group.

    Like

    • We both know that ppl gained land/possessions unjustly by just “calling it” and enforcing their will on others. If you obtained it through a system of tyranny, then it’s theft. How hard is that to understand?

      It’s like Kim Jong Il saying he owns all of North Korea and you saying that once the state is abolished he’s allowed to keep all of North Korea as his personal property.

      I believe the public can DEMOCRATICALLY allow for private ownership to facilitate trade, spur competition, and simplify day-to-day affairs. However, this ownership can then also be revoked democratically.

      You’re pretending to be all about logic/reason but you can NEVER answer why it was okay for some ppl to call dibs on any given property without consent of the public in the first place. I could say Mars is mine and enforce that long enough that ppl start to believe it. It still doesn’t make it true. On top of that. you should be smart enough to figure that out, so from my perspective you’re using your intellect to lie in order to maintain unfair elitism since an unfairly elitist system will naturally reward you for such once it’s in place and this gives you (unfair) advantage over others – pretty low in my eyes.

      Like

      • I won’t argue the nature of property anymore. But, honestly, you literally ignored my main points because you’re stuck on a confused view of what Voluntaryists think. In no way did I or has any Voluntaryist said anything like…

        “It’s like Kim Jong Il saying he owns all of North Korea and you saying that once the state is abolished he’s allowed to keep all of North Korea as his personal property.”

        Or…”so from my perspective you’re using your intellect to lie in order to maintain unfair elitism since an unfairly elitist system will naturally reward you for such once it’s in place and this gives you (unfair) advantage over others”

        Just no. I thought I was plainly clear. Anyone who uses or has used aggression, manipulation, special advantage, etc. to gain personal success is immoral. Sure, if it is something simple and direct like a dictator owning all the land, that could pretty easily be split up among the people who live in the geographic area. In other cases its so complex, I’m not going to definitively say I would use force to take back immorally acquired property. For example, say some guy starts a business, runs it really well, grows it from the ground up, pours everything he has into it, treats his employees really well, but then one time took some subsidies and tax breaks and a war contract or two, then it gets a little less definitive for me to be able to say we should go destroy that man and “reclaim” his stuff. Who are all the people he wronged to gain success? Who all should get the property that is “taken back”? How should it be divided up? As far as the problem goes, the problem is more the system, than that man. That will be the real change, not the temporary gain of moving around pieces of pie.

        The point is I recognize a society of force, coercion, violence, and elitist special privileges as wrong, and I want an entirely different society where that is not possible in the first place.

        And you ultimately just ignored what I said, imagined what I think, and created your own narrative. I would gladly like to see all nation states done away with, Voluntaryists don’t want to see any elites. All people are equal. In a moral society based on on the non-aggression principle, we can all treat each other with respect so that there never are any unjust economic actions from that point onward. Thats where the name comes from, all transactions between anyone can be free and voluntary. There is such thing as a deal where no one is taken advantage of and both parties agree and gain value. Change the ideas and the philosophy and we see positive change. Continue using force, only in a different way, nothing really changes.

        When you say…”you can NEVER answer why it was okay for some ppl to call dibs on any given property without consent of the public in the first place”. Sure I can answer. You didn’t ask. The only property that can be claimed is land. Anything else must be created. I DON’T think it is ever okay to come in and declare vast amounts of land yours. And again, lets think who does that?…Governments. They came in, rampaged across North America, seized land, murdered Native Americans, then divided up or sold of that land to their “citizens”. That shouldn’t have happened. And it shouldn’t happen anywhere in the world, where people are displaced, land seized, states enlarged, resources given to friendly corporations, etc. In a moral world a private family, without the backing of any privilege or certificate or anything from their violent government, could go out into the frontier, find out who lives in the area, and strike a voluntary deal for a plot of land to build a home. Beyond original settlement scenarios like that I’m not sure what you’re looking for. In modern times, some corporate/crony institution that owns lots of land, buildings, facilities, etc. – did not claim that land in its original, unimproved state. They acquired it and built it up, probably over many years, from many previous owners, (each of whom probably gamed the system in some way), aided by the system they were working within, with corporate advantages, tax breaks, lobbied for zoning laws, building codes, laws and edicts to keep down any competition, etc. And of course that is all made possible by the force of government, and authoritarian law. The only entity that calls dibs on land is government, especially massive area of land, and sea, and space. In their psychotic system, they are actually the ONLY landowner, charging us all, poor and rich, yearly rent in the form of property tax, forever. If you don’t pay it, they take their land back and resell it to someone else.

        Look into the ideas Voluntaryists are typically into – decentralization, localization, agorism, permissionless innovation, working outside the system, providing systems of accountability, seeking to monitor and audit those in positions of authority, ending the FED, bitcoin, community efforts, local farming initiatives, farmers markets, natural health, civil rights, crowdfunding, peer to peer technology, the sharing economy, open source, etc. Its just not what you think.

        Look into some people like Hans Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Rothbard, Jeffrey Tucker, Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneux, and others for some more detailed views on a lot of this.

        And thank you for having a dialogue with me. I enjoy discussing these ideas.

        Like

          • Its funny I’m apparently using pathological tactics to silence others – yet in response to my comments on your posts I’ve received a string of personal insults, an ignoring of my arguments, and general attempts to cut off the conversation.
            I’m arguing what I think is right. Good ideas sometimes require longwindedness. If our point of view is based on feelings, opinions, slogans, twitter sized arguments – well there’s not much there.
            Good luck and I hope you do consider some new viewpoints.

            Like

    • Yup. You don’t have anything the collective group isn’t kind enough to grant to you, IMO. Anybody ENFORCING their “godly” opinion of what belongs to them and what doesn’t on others is not only being unfair, but will cause so much conflict and disagreement (since ppl can’t seem to agree on anything nowadays,) ppl will end up having to vote on the issue anyway. There is no way everybody going in different directions will suddenly agree with each other.

      Perhaps you think you have the right to start auctioning off pieces of the moon. The group doesn’t think so. You can try to convince society why you should be allowed to do that, but at end of the day, they still must grant you that privilege.

      Some societies don’t respect women’s rights. Women in those societies need to use the same tools of advocacy to slowly change group mentality until sexism is overturned.

      Certain rights are fundamental but must still be granted by a collective majority in order to be accepted by society. How else will such things be accepted?? Enforced by an arbitrary elite of people with similar mentality like yourself? Psychically?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s