Voluntaryism is the largest philosophical movement in history, do you know about it?

[ParkCungHee]

According to these principles, the only fair and just interaction is one that is voluntarily agreed upon.

See I agree with this notion, but I don't see how people can say things like that without realizing what they're suggesting. This seems to imply that you're not just throwing out taxation, but the entire idea of property, the idea of self-defense, the idea of non-voluntary punishment etc.

[Angst]

I entered the thread because this voluntaryism was supposed to be the "largest philosophical movement in history", but if it's subject to Rand's madness, it's simply not widespread.

Originally Posted by Algeroth

Their proof that taxation is theft is a little gem. But I'll have to leave dissecting it to people in more favourable timezone.


link to video.

Uh. That's not what we call the social contract in Denmark. His definition is all weird.

[Valka D'Ur]

This sounds like those agrarian communes that didn't flourish because nobody had to work if they didn't want to. Consequently, only a few people did, and the commune went hungry. Things really went downhill after that...

Taxes are a necessary evil. The trick is to figure out how to stop them from becoming egregiously evil. Like Canada's GST. Formally it stands for "Goods and Services Tax." Informally, it's been called "Government-Sanctioned Theft" and "Goats and Swine Tax."

And it helped bring down the largest Conservative Government in Canadian history, in 1993. Unfortunately, the party that promised to abolish it never did, and now a whole generation has grown up with it and finds it normal. I nearly cried the day a little girl wanted to buy something at my craft booth and asked if my prices included GST. Those are 3 letters no Canadian child should ever have had to learn about...

But if you want to build stuff like a school, hire teachers, have teaching materials, be able to do maintenance, etc. ... how do you accomplish all that without taxation? I've never objected to the share of our property tax that goes to the school system, because without it we would get far fewer educated students. The less educated the next generation is, the progressively dumber the society becomes.

We here in Canada see it happening in the U.S. We would rather it not happen here.

[Atticus]

I'm curious about this "taxation is theft thing". You probably know Proudhon's slogan "property is theft", isn't that as reasonable statement as this taxation thing?

Other thing I don't understand is "the objectivbe moral pronciple". The article seems to define it as "An objective moral principle is one that may be universally applied to everyone at all times without contradiction". Now can't we have a principle "Everyone has to chant Mary had a little lamb once a day"? This principle can indeed be applied universally to everyone at all times (whether it is not reasonable or not). Is it an objective moral principle then?

The above question is not nitpicking, it's an example why I don't think this definition works. If you agree that the definition is no good, can you present some better one?

If voluntaryism is not spoken in schools about because it's opposite to state's interests, then why Marxism is?

[Angst]

To be fair, it might be because marxism is so ridiculously influential (esp in regards to materialist history which is kinda prominent ) contrary to this Batmobile blueprint.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Cutlass

The biggest problem I have with Randian Objectivism is that I have yet to encounter an Objectivist who was willing to see the world objectively.

But you do? I don't, and I've never met or even heard of anyone who does, so I have to say that I'd be curious to hear how you learned that trick.

[MagisterCultuum]

Originally Posted by ParkCungHee

Sounds like good stuff. But if it's wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor, I'm sure you're down with abolishing property?

See I agree with this notion, but I don't see how people can say things like that without realizing what they're suggesting. This seems to imply that you're not just throwing out taxation, but the entire idea of property, the idea of self-defense, the idea of non-voluntary punishment etc.

Opposing theft does not have to mean opposing all property. Personal property is fine. It is the monopolization of scarce natural resources that is the problem.


When I was listening to one of his videos a while back I was surprised to hear him actually admit that Land cannot be property. He agreed with the Lockean notion that only improvements which are the products of human labor are truly property. (He kept calling the improvements as opposed to the land "real property," which was confusing because as a technical term that denotes land and fixed structures as opposed to personal property.) He did not actually credit Locke, but copied his arguments more faithfully than most right libertarians do.


However, he still chose not to address the Lockean Proviso. His view seemed to be that the homesteading of natural resources is fully justified by the fact that it is a necessary prerequisite to the creation of property. He seemed to assume that the creation of wealth is always good for society, even if significant portions have no access to the new wealth or even the natural wealth they would need in order to create their own new wealth.

He has this odd view that you cannot steal something unless it clearly belong to one specific individual. He made a comparison to someone throwing out an old piece of furniture and telling two of his friends that they could have it. He then claimed whichever one claimed it first should own it. He did not consider the slower person as having lost anything or as deserving any compensation for having what could have been his taken away. Claiming it a split second sooner apparently justifies using force to defend the property from another who could have made just as valid a claim. He clearly considered this principle to be so obvious that there was no need to rationally justify or analyze it. If he had, I don't see how it could have passes his criteria for universally preferable behavior.





He actually has made some videos in which he rejects the idea of non-voluntary punishment. He explicitly stated that he had decided not to use any punishment in raising his daughter. He claims that her behavior has actually improved when he explains that things are wrong purely on moral grounds and does not impose any negative repercussions for misbehavior. He has recommended taking the same approach in all personal relationships, and suggested that most people do otherwise due to childhood traumas.

However, he remains firmly in favor of private property and the right of the individual to use force to defend it from aggression, and to hire private defense companies to punish violators.


@Valka D'Ur

There is no reason why education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, ect., must be provided by a state. Private schools exist, as do private toll roads. There is good reason to think that such things could be handled much better if funded by the actual users with the ability to shop around, provided that the users had access to enough funds. The problem is that the poor are denied access to the natural resources they need to support themselves because "the rent is too damn high." There isn't much that can be done about the magnitude of economic rent, but we can change who collects it so that it benefits the community rather than privileged individuals. The state could collect rents through land value taxes and use them to fund things like education or infrastructure, but we might well be better off if they just redistributed the funds to the people directly and then let the free market handle it.

[Angst]

The problem is that people that go by the brand "objectivist", as objective in the name of a cool-sounding idealism, kind of have the necessity to see the world objectively. As Cutlass isn't one such, he doesn't intrinsically have to be objective.

(Am I using "intrinsical" right here?)

[Traitorfish]

I don't even know how Lockean property is supposed to work unless you adopt a labour theory of value, which most of these guys are utterly loathe to do.

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

The problem is that people that go by the brand "objectivist", as objective in the name of a cool-sounding idealism, kind of have the necessity to see the world objectively. As Cutlass isn't one such, he doesn't intrinsically have to be objective.

(Am I using "intrinsical" right here?)

He describes Objectivists as being unwilling to see the world objectively, which implies that they are capable of doing so, and simply refuse. His apparent view of this refusal as being intellectually irresponsible further implies that Cutlass himself has made the choice to see the world objectively.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Atticus

I'm curious about this "taxation is theft thing". You probably know Proudhon's slogan "property is theft", isn't that as reasonable statement as this taxation thing?

Proudhon wasn't opposed to property rights persé, and indeed, he also said "property is freedom". His point was that he supported a market economy (albeit a non-capitalist one) in which every individual could enter the market with some leverage, in order to avoid the excesses he saw as inherent in capitalism.

Most libertarians that support deontologism (as opposed to utilitarianism), oppose taxation on the grounds that property rights come indepently from the government and state, regardless what role these may play in the enforcement of these. People possess in an innate right to property, so taxation is seen taking away property they have earned (or theft).

[Angst]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

He describes Objectivists as being unwilling to see the world objectively, which implies that they are capable of doing so, and simply refuse. His apparent view of this refusal as being intellectually irresponsible further implies that Cutlass himself has made the choice to see the world objectively.

I do not know whether Cutlass believes that he sees the world subjectively or objectively, but the point is that I don't think it matters in regards to his point. It has nothing to do, to me, to whether objectivists are intellectually irresponsible, or whatever phrase you might use: The problem is that objectivists have to look at the world objectively, and if they don't, they're not consistent with their ideals. Or is that what you'd call intellectual irresponsibility?

All humans have a subjective reality and I replied believing Cutlass thought the same. I do not see this as an objective truth or that it has to do with any sort of objective potential I could possibly have.

"Objective" is just a buzzword you say about your points when you want to show that you're right.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Cutlass

I never really studied the forms of logical fallacies, but I think he gets pretty quickly into several of them. Reductio ad absurdum starts at about 2 minutes in.

Haven't watched the video, but reductio ad absurdum isn't necessarily a logical fallacy. It might lead you into the territory if you take your opponent's reasoning unreasonably literally, but otherwise it's a fair way to make an argument.

Originally Posted by Integral

So it's radical Austrian economics mixed with Randian moral philosophy?

I thought that was libertarianism?

I don't have the patience to read through proclamation websites or watch videos, has anyone been able to figure out the differences to libertarianism already?

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

I entered the thread because this voluntaryism was supposed to be the "largest philosophical movement in history", but if it's subject to Rand's madness, it's simply not widespread.

But its most important philosopher has the LARGEST RADIO TALK SHOW ABOUT PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSE!

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

But you do? I don't, and I've never met or even heard of anyone who does, so I have to say that I'd be curious to hear how you learned that trick.

He didn't claim he does, though.

And I always thought Objectivism was called that because Beingalwaysrightism was too unwieldy in the long run.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

He didn't claim he does, though.

He described Objectivists as not being "willing" to see the world objectively, rather than being simply unable. To me, that implies that he regards himself as possessing an at least partially objective viewpoint.

And I always thought Objectivism was called that because Beingalwaysrightism was too unwieldy in the long run.

Funny thing, Rand originally wanted to call it "Existentialism", but then realised that some actual grown-up philosophers were already using the name, and had to settle for "Objectivism".

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

I thought that was libertarianism?

I don't have the patience to read through proclamation websites or watch videos, has anyone been able to figure out the differences to libertarianism already?

Not all supporters of Austrian Economics are libertarians. Early Austrian Economics was focused on promoting marginalism and was pretty ideology-neutral. It was only when marginalism became mainstream, and people such as von Mises and Hayek arose that Austrian Economics became tied with Libertarianism.

While closely related, Objectivism and Libertarianism are distinct: Libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy opposed to (big) government, while Objectivism is also concerned about such blabla as art, religion and considers it indistinguishable from its political part. Since Objectivists are by definition die-hard Atheists, and many (but not all) Libertarians such Ron Paul are often quite religious at a personal level.

EDIT: Coming to think of it, China's parallel's with 17th century Euromercantilism are rather astounding.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

Most libertarians that support deontologism (as opposed to utilitarianism), oppose taxation on the grounds that property rights come indepently from the government and state, regardless what role these may play in the enforcement of these.

There's a seed of other important question: How do property rights exist without government's definitions. If they need a state to exist, taxation surely can't be crime.

Locke's right which is earned by labour is problematic in itself, I think, plus mostly it's requirements aren't met (to leave as much and as good to others).

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Kaiserguard

Not all supporters of Austrian Economics are libertarians. Early Austrian Economics was focused on promoting marginalism and was pretty ideology-neutral. It was only when marginalism became mainstream, and people such as von Mises and Hayek arose that Austrian Economics became tied with Libertarianism.

Yeah, right, but I thought while not all supporters of Austrian Economics are libertarian, Austrian Economics are usually supported by libertarians.

[Kaiserguard]

Originally Posted by Atticus

There's a seed of other important question: How do property rights exist without government's definitions. If they need a state to exist, taxation surely can't be crime.

That depends on the sort of libertarians you're dealing with. Some (like von Mises) do indeed believe property right cannot work without government and so support it alongside taxation. Soft-core Libertarians like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek also defend taxation for welfare provision, so they could be considered mainstream Liberal Democrats as well. Anarchists like Rothbard claim property rights come from natural law (which itself comes from the innate human desire not to cause harm), and thus view government isn't really necessary to define property rights, and the defense of property rights is provided by society as a whole which may or may not be through private protection agencies as middleman, but not the state, of course.

Originally Posted by Leoreth

Yeah, right, but I thought while not all supporters of Austrian Economics are libertarian, Austrian Economics are usually supported by libertarians.

True. But in the most strict sense, Austrian Economics just believes marginalism can be applied everywhere and anywhere and that's what's distinguishes it from other economic schools of thought. It's not even a prescriptive economic theory but a descriptive one, meaning that strictly speaking it only has observations, no policy perscriptions. Its popularity among libertarians is mainly because its observations lend greatly for defending laissez-faire.

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

But you do? I don't, and I've never met or even heard of anyone who does, so I have to say that I'd be curious to hear how you learned that trick.

Everyone may have their own worldview, and that worldview colored by their own biases which prevent them from being entirely objective. I'm no different in that. But it does not track from that that there are not things objectively knowable in the world. The Earth orbits the sun. That is objectively knowable. When I see Objectivists making claims about what goes on in the world, what I see is a lot of statements that are objectively false.

Maybe some of the things I believe are objectively debatable, or even wrong. If so, provide evidence. When I've seen people try to provide evidence to people claiming to be Objectiviists which disputes their worldview, the evidence is ignored.

Originally Posted by MagisterCultuum

@Valka D'Ur

There is no reason why education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, ect., must be provided by a state. Private schools exist, as do private toll roads. There is good reason to think that such things could be handled much better if funded by the actual users with the ability to shop around, provided that the users had access to enough funds. The problem is that the poor are denied access to the natural resources they need to support themselves because "the rent is too damn high." There isn't much that can be done about the magnitude of economic rent, but we can change who collects it so that it benefits the community rather than privileged individuals. The state could collect rents through land value taxes and use them to fund things like education or infrastructure, but we might well be better off if they just redistributed the funds to the people directly and then let the free market handle it.

In may not be inherently necessary for these things to be delivered by the state. But only the state will ever do these things well or for the whole of the populace. For, after all, most of the users will not have enough funds if there is private property and no taxation.

[lovett]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

I don't even know how Lockean property is supposed to work unless you adopt a labour theory of value, which most of these guys are utterly loathe to do.

Lockean labour theory of value needs only to apply to use value. Labour theory of value is usually taken to apply primarily to exchange value.

To whit, the economic labour theory of value (usually) holds that the exchange value of a good -how much a good is worth on the market- is essentially linked with the labour
that goes into producing that good.

But Locke need say nothing about the market value of goods. He believes that the use value of goods increases primarily because of the input of labour. Labour magnifies the utility (interpret utility as you will) garnered from the use of a good. Cultivated land is much more valuable than uncultivated land. Because the increase in use value is so great, Locke thinks, mixing our labour with things in the world gives us rights over those things. Most of their use value comes from our labour and, since we own our own labour, we own that thing (or the vast majority of its use value).

[Algeroth]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

I don't even know how Lockean property is supposed to work unless you adopt a labour theory of value, which most of these guys are utterly loathe to do.

I think that founding his system of property and (self)ownership on the fact that we are owned by god is bigger problem.