http://www.dailypaul.com/node/108282

http://www.fr33agents.com/945/why-i-am-specifically-a-voluntaryist/

http://www.facebook.com/voluntaryism

Voluntaryism says “anything goes– but everything (i.e. normal life) you do with someone else, it needs to be free of the use of force”. It says that you change other people’s thinking by persuasion, that is to say, conversations that are centered on logic and reason.

The use of force is an exceptional situation for a voluntaryist, not the norm. There is a broad allowance for use of force “for self-defense”, with a “reasonable person” standard for the understanding of “self-defense”. The whole point of voluntaryism is to say: “An end to sweeping prescriptive statements about ‘what should be’, in society! If you want me to change my behavior, explain to me why. If I refuse to change it, accept my refusal. If you do not accept my refusal, and attempt to make me change my behavior by force, I will match your force with force, and I may get help if necessary. So I recommend that you limit your means of persuasion to logical conversation, which may include a discussion of how you aren’t going to trade with me economically if I don’t change my behavior.” Etc.

I am still nervous about Mike’s criticism of voluntaryism. Maybe it is because he wants to envision the future pattern of society, but I don’t think so. I do agree that I’m not going to go nuts trying to protect Don Rumsfeld from harm, but then again I’m not going to go nuts trying to protect anyone with whom I have no relationship, from harm. Any anarchist that initiates bodily violence against Don Rumsfeld, without at least some sort of orderly trial of the facts of his case, I am not likely to associate with.

If you believe in property I suppose anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism would seem synonymous to voluntaryism, but there is at least a semantical difference. Anarcho-capitalism prescribes or predicts a particular kind of system, no matter how flexible it may be whereas voluntaryism doesn’t go any further from simply saying “let’s not use coercion against each other”. What happens after people stop coercing is then completely up in the air, that is, yet to be seen. We just know that if there’s no coercion there’s no violence so how much better can anything get?

Also I wouldn’t call voluntaryism a political philosophy. That seems to put it in the same category as socialism, state capitalism etc.. Wikipedia says “Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions” and ties its general use to governments. That’s essentially groupthink. Voluntaryists in a contrary believe it’s impossible for groups to decide anything, individuals decide instead and group-talk is merely abstractions.

I think of it as a simply a life philosophy that gets rid of politics and all political notions which fits even better when put in the context of self improvement as the best way of adopting and living it.

Regards

I respect Mike enormously, Adam. I intend no offense.

Yes, Jason, Mike has been headed towards the deep end lately.

LOL I like the anarcho-commies though.

In other news, this is a great post, just don’t expect too much sympathy from the anarcho-communists. To them, you (and I) are capitalist oppressors.

Cheers!

I’m totally behind the “let’s go after the wrong ideas” concept. But I also think it is morally correct to kill in self-defense. I think it can be summed up as: “We expect (and sow) the best, but we prepare for the worst.”

In this sense, what separates Mike from voluntaryism is probably just a misunderstanding, a follicle-sized nuance over when to use violence in self-defense.

Let’s say things get worse and the small circle of liberty permitted us (a noose) is tightened even further. The options for use of mass civil disobedience / satyagraha become suicidal. What would you do?

The basic feeling I got, reading those two blogs, was that Mike does not subscribe to the “we struggle not against flesh and blood” idea that I’ve talked about before, which is to say, I don’t direct my animus against individuals so much as the ideas that hold them and others captive. Why should I dwell on bringing top federal government people to justice? I’d rather focus on building a peaceful society.

But I could be wrong about what Mike was saying.