Voluntaryist Planet

[error]

I don't often make an issue of voluntaryism. I just point out that having government do things is stupid.

[Russell Kanning]

cool

[memenode]

Noone else has a blog?

Anyway, I've added a number of new ones which I found through blogger.com and wordpress.com by searching for "anarcho-capitalism" and "voluntaryism" tags. I generally picked ones which seem fairly active and sufficiently on-topic. You can see all included blogs under "feeds" in the sidebar. Let me know if you think some should be excluded.

There are a a couple of included blogs which are "heavier", as in having two or more posts in a single day. Let me know if you'd prefer not to have those included in the main feed (I can just link to it). Although, it might not matter as much so long as there aren't that many feeds yet.

I hope anyone finds this useful as a portal to interesting voluntaryism relevant blog content syndicated in one place and per day.

And also, if there's anyone else with a voluntaryist blog, please feel free to submit your feed. Also feel free to comment and make suggestions of other blogs or links.

Thanks

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually I think the term voluntaryism is applied incorrectly... much the same as anarchy.
Anarchy denoted neither order, nor chaos, just the lack of government.

Voluntaryism implies the principle of non-coercion... thus orderly, but not uniform. Nor does it mean, regardless of wikipedia, the abolishment of government... just the abolishment of government monopoly.

An example would be if SS was voluntary. Then an individual could chose to save for retirement under the SS system, a private system, a mutual (group) system... or even to not save for retirement... completely of their own choosing.

It is implied that government may not survive without its monopoly... but not ascertained.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Voluntaryism implies the principle of non-coercion... thus orderly, but not uniform. Nor does it mean, regardless of wikipedia, the abolishment of governmentVoluntaryism implies the principle of non-coercion... thus orderly, but not uniform. Nor does it mean, regardless of wikipedia, the abolishment of government

People hate the combination, but I think Ian is right. I consider myself both a free marketeer and a voluntaryist - I believe that all social order must come from voluntary interaction. Additionally, I believe a social order based on capitalism and building of wealth is the best voluntary society. I would support and defend the establishment of a socialist government that allowed people to opt out without being deprived of life, liberty or property.

That said, when I say "government" I do mean the authoritarian model of government discussed in "The Market For Liberty". By that, government is by nature a coercive monopoly and eliminating the force behind it would actually make it cease being a government, much as giving a triangle a 4th side ends it's existence as a triangle.

[dalebert]

Actually I think the term voluntaryism is applied incorrectly... much the same as anarchy.
Anarchy denoted neither order, nor chaos, just the lack of government.

Voluntaryism implies the principle of non-coercion... thus orderly, but not uniform. Nor does it mean, regardless of wikipedia, the abolishment of government... just the abolishment of government monopoly.

An example would be if SS was voluntary. Then an individual could chose to save for retirement under the SS system, a private system, a mutual (group) system... or even to not save for retirement... completely of their own choosing.

It is implied that government may not survive without its monopoly... but not ascertained.

The semantics arguments about this are endless. The truth is the words take on different meanings depending on who you talk to. I tend to look at it in terms of the origin of the word. All anarchy means is no archons or an elimination of heirarchies, political sameness. Monopoly government violates that. Voluntary government does not. Then again, that becomes another semantics argument, i.e. whether a voluntary government is in fact a government at all. For most indoctrinated people, monopoly government is the only kind of government they've ever known, so if you use the word "government", expect that to be exactly what pops into their head and be prepared to clarify. So I feel a need to make it clear that I'm against that, and whichever words you start with, somewhere along the line your definitions of words are going to diverge and require clarification.

Many anarcho-syndicalists still believe in democracy and voting for making laws and decisions. They just don't believe in electing leaders (archons). It sounds incredibly clunky and impractical to say the least, not to mention an immoral justification for violating individual rights via mob rule, but that's a whole thread by itself. So they're not necessarily against monopoly government per se. It seems to me that is still technically anarchy (no archons) according to the most literal interpretation of the word, so it remains for me to specify that anarchy is not enough IMO; that monopolies, particularly monopolies on violence are unnacceptable if we hope to achieve more civilized societies. I guess it would be technically true then that I am both an anarchist and a voluntaryist and that I need to use both terms, if not more, if I want to fully express my beliefs.

A leader chosen voluntarily, like a labor supervisor (e.g. Jim at Mark's house), is a very useful organizational role and not an archon. Roger can choose to stop following his orders and leave at any time. Roger chooses to follow Jim's orders because Jim has demonstrated that he knows what he's talking about and has earned Roger's respect. In a different situation where Roger had demonstrated superior expertise, like maybe beer brewing, Jim may choose to follow Roger's direction.

True leaders persuade people to follow them voluntarily. If you need to threaten people to make them follow you, you're no leader. You're just a slave-driver.</preaching to choir>

[memenode]

I agree with Kevin and Dale. In short, a principle of non-coercion is the most fundamental one to me and one I don't want to compromise, so I call myself primarily a voluntaryist. If there is a "government" which does no coercion whatsoever, then I am fine with it, but I would not call it a government since, for all intents and purposes the word has come to represent what is basically a coercive monopoly and that's what most people will see it as, at least once you encourage them to pay attention to the force it's initiating (since many are somehow doublethinking it away most of the time).

So I see the term "voluntaryism" as representing "non-coercion" (we could just as much be called non-coercionists too) as very clear. It is automatically anarchism if anarcho represents a coercive monopoly. As a subset to being a voluntaryist I am also an anarcho-capitalist, denoting a more specific kind of order which I eventually see arising once people are free to always act voluntarily - a free market.

EDIT: The formula is basically this:

Make all individuals voluntaryists -> government fades away -> free market settles in led by primarily capitalist tendencies (private property, pursuit of self interest, creation and trade of values).

Cheers