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

[warpus]

According to wikipedia

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is generally considered to be the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.

I'm sorry, but if you are already a part of society.. the only way for you to disassociate yourself from it would be to move out into the desert or the tundra.

You can't really live in a city or even out in the country without being affected by society in some way and making use of some of the benefits society gives us (such as for example, roads, sewers, etc.)

As such, I don't mind nomads living in the arctic somewhere partaking in this strange philosophy, but they'll soon figure out that they have to cooperate if they want to survive out there too.

There really is no avoiding association with your neighbours and society at large.. We're wayyy past that point.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This kind of black-box-reasoning where one thinks purely in the dimension of moral principles but not in the dimension of how those principles will actually play out when enacted is IMO never a good idea.
For instance, I agree that taxes are theft. I think they pretty clearly are. It rests on a social contract which is plain and simply enforced upon you by the threat of physical force. Just like mafia boss may enforce a "Protection fee" upon your buisness. That you get something in return doesn't make a contract you have to enter any less theft-like. If somebody steals my purse but gives me a lollipop in return, the police isn't going to tell me "Well- you exchanged goods. Hence no theft. Good day Sir". Getting something back isn't what defines theft. What defines theft is that you loose property by force. Hence taxation is theft.
But... so? Why must this theft be wrong? Because theft is wrong and that's it? No matter the circumstances? Why??? Makes. No. Sense.

 

[lovett]

I'd venture that the issue of 'theft' is raised because 'theft' is a normatively loaded concept. Theft is not simply the taking of property without permission. If I take back the lawn mower I learnt to my neighbour two weeks ago without his permission, I do not steal it. That is because I have a right to it, not he. I can legitimately take it back.

Rather, theft is the prima facie illegitmate taking of property without permission. It is the taking of property which in someway violates someone's rights. If I simply take my neigbour's lawnmower, I violate his property rights in that lawnmower.

This is why the right-libertarian is so concerned to call taxation theft. By so doing, he (it's usually a he, isn't it?) embeds the idea that taxation is illegitimate. If we accept the point that taxation is theft we have already given up far too much; we have accepted that taxation is prima facie illegitimate.

We need not do this. Theft is prima facie illegitimate just in case it constitutes a prima facie violation someone's rights. My lawnmower antics in the second paragraph are theft because my neighbour has a right that I do not use his lawnmower. Property rights, in general, involve the ability of the rights-holder to prevent other individuals from using that which is owned.

But the state is not an individual, and stands in a quite different relation to the individual property-owner as that owner does to another individual. Plausibly, the state has certain rights over property within its confines. Property rights are not basic and natural, they are given with terms. And one of these terms, quite plausibly, is the acceptance of certain bounds of reasonable taxation. The property-owner has no rights against such taxation. But in this case no rights are even prima facie violated by taxation. Thus, taxation is not even prima facie illegitimate. And if it is not at least prima facie illegitimate, it can hardly be theft.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

But that person didn't agree to his claim, so he's abandoned the principal that interactions should be voluntary. By definition, the only way he can voluntarily own a couch is for everyone, everywhere, to agree that is is his couch.

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.

Yes, I'm interested in knowing what his policy would be if I shot his daughter.

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.

Why? Have these violators of private property agreed to his use of force? Suppose I do not agree with these Private defense companies?

 

[History_Buff]

@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.

Is there really a reason to think that? In the past, many of those such things tended to be operated privately. And they tended to either suck, or be restricted such that most people had no access to them.

The actual reason those services are public now is because a large group of people realized the system wasn't working, and asked the state to do a better job.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@lovett
You chose to assume that the same entity which guarantees property can legitimately take away property. Be my guest to assume so, but I may just as well assume differently, making theft suddenly prima facie illegitimate. Point: legit is whatever the hell you want it to be. Thus, the legitimacy of taking away property doesn't actually tell you what theft is, but just degrades theft to a normative statement.
But as I understand the notion "taxes are theft", it does operate with a different understanding of theft, with one that is only relative to the notion of property. Relative to property means that theft is defined as taking away someones property without consent, no matter how legit or illegitimate one views this. And in my opinion that is a more useful way to understand theft, because it doesn't carry the heavy and arbitrary burden of legitimacy and all the assumptions this requires and hence makes communication more easy and effective.
Hence, I would also label it theft if you have to compensate someone for say having cut off his limbs. This demonstrates how I diffused theft from any normative angle, as I don't actually believe this kind of theft to be bad.

 

[warpus]

For instance, I agree that taxes are theft. I think they pretty clearly are. It rests on a social contract which is plain and simply enforced upon you by the threat of physical force.

It's not. It's a social contract that you don't have to accept if you don't want to - by moving to another society with a different contract - or to a place where none exist.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That would only start to make sense if livable land was infinite.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not. It's a social contract that you don't have to accept if you don't want to - by moving to another society with a different contract - or to a place where none exist.

Why should you have to move? It's your land as much as anyone's.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

I'm so happy to see all the feedback I've gotten on this thread! Here's an attempt at some answers and rebuttals.

What are the voluntaryist mechanisms for promoting property rights and rule of law?

Those would be ostracism, both economic and social. A free society can only exist when the majority of the people believe that the initiation of force is wrong and that property rights are valid. Now, before you say "the majority of people could never decide something like that!" THIS IS THE EXACT SAME as our relationship as a society to slavery. The majority of the people reject slavery and thus slavery as an institution has been abolished.

A voluntary society does not claim to be utopian: crime will never be reduced to zero, of course. But what we can do is at least realize that giving a small group of people monopoly priviledge to commit crimes is a fundamental error and can never ever solve social problems effectively- since it itself is a social problem.

Is there really a reason to think that [competition improves quality]? In the past, many of those such things tended to be operated privately. And they tended to either suck, or be restricted such that most people had no access to them.

If free markets and competition doesn't improve quality then explain to me how my computer is half as expensive as the last one I bought and at least 10x faster.

But that person didn't agree to his claim, so he's abandoned the principal that interactions should be voluntary. By definition, the only way he can voluntarily own a couch is for everyone, everywhere, to agree that is is his couch.

This destroys the concept of "voluntary" because you are forcing people to interact with others in order to decide ownership. Ownership is not a social process, it is a creative process. One or more individuals may mix their labor with unowned material and create things which they own. I think this answers your question, then.
Also, the statement "Private property is theft" is meaningless. "Theft" is the coercive taking of somebody's private property. For theft to exist, private property must exist.

I'll keep poking through the thread looking for more to respond to, and again, I really appreciate the responses.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, the statement "Private property is theft" is meaningless. "Theft" is the coercive taking of somebody's private property. For theft to exist, private property must exist

So I can't steal from non-privately owned property? Like, for example, I can't steal the chains from a public swingset, or steal cattle that belong to a family?

 

[Ajidica]

If free markets and competition doesn't improve quality then explain to me how my computer is half as expensive as the last one I bought and at least 10x faster.

Because of further research and technological innovation, neither of which require a free market. The sucess of the Soviet space program should be a fine example.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

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?

No, we can't. That could not be applied universally. What about people in comas? Or the people who don't know the song? Or people who are mute? They would be doomed to be "evil" because they broke a moral rule (the same category rule as "rape/murder/theft is immoral". Why should those people be condemned? And please don't say "they can be exceptions" because then it's not universal.

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

Could you provide the definition you have in Denmark?

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.

Moral rules are, by definition, enforcable. If we can't exercise force in self-defense (in rejection of another individual's initiation) then it wouldn't really be immoral to initiate the use of force, since we wouldn't be free to reject unwanted advances.

 

[Traitorfish]

IAlso, the statement "Private property is theft" is meaningless. "Theft" is the coercive taking of somebody's private property. For theft to exist, private property must exist.

First, "invalid" and "meaningless" are not synonyms. You really want to get that sort of thing straight if you're going to go proselytising.

Second, it isn't obvious that the claim "property is theft" is a self-contradictory description, because it could also be a description of self-contradiction. In the latter interpretation, it represents the claim that the institution of property is inherently self-violating, and therefore incapable of legitimacy.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

So I can't steal from non-privately owned property? Like, for example, I can't steal the chains from a public swingset, or steal cattle that belong to a family?

Parks and park equipment would be privately owned in a free society, a "family" can privately own the cattle.

If you stole anything privately owned it is theft, obviously- that's a tautology. We agree on my definition of theft then?

Because of further research and technological innovation, neither of which require a free market. The sucess of the Soviet space program should be a fine example.

And how prosperous was Soviet Russian society? Sure, a State can dump enormous amounts of resources into something but they've done it by force. You do know that millions of people died as a result of Communism, right?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Moral rules are, by definition, enforcable.

Well, even if we buy that notion, that kind of undermines volunatrism doesn't it? How do you enforce people to do things willingly?

If we can't exercise force in self-defense (in rejection of another individual's initiation) then it wouldn't really be immoral to initiate the use of force, since we wouldn't be free to reject unwanted advances.

Yes we would, we just wouldn't be repel it by exercising force ourselves.
Also, if it is not immoral to initiate force when people cannot repel that force, doesn't that mean insuperable violence is always morally correct?

I mean, if I hold a gun to your head, and you say in order for it to be a moral law that I should not shoot you, it must be enforceable, am I not justified in shooting you since you have no means of enforcing your moral law?

Parks and park equipment would be privately owned in a free society, a "family" can privately own the cattle.

Saying publicly owned property would be privately is not an answer to a question. Am I entitled to hotwire police cars and steal a policeman's pistol?

And family ownership is a very distinct concept of ownership from the peculiar English institution of private property. Private property is owned by individual persons, Family property is owned by an abstract social institution, with fluctuating membership.

 

[Traitorfish]

You do know that millions of people died as a result of Communism, right?

Nobody died "as a result of Communism". They died as a result of famine, or of government incompetence, or of state violence, but not of "Communism". Abstract concepts can't kill people, as I seem to spend altogether too much of my time saying around here.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

First, "invalid" and "meaningless" are not synonyms. You really want to get that sort of thing straight if you're going to go proselytising.

Second, it isn't obvious that the claim "property is theft" is a self-contradictory description, because it could also be a description of self-contradiction. In the latter interpretation, it represents the claim that the institution of property is inherently self-violating, and therefore incapable of legitimacy.

Self-contradictory statements are invalid and meaningless. I may not have made a statement identifying it's invalidity but I did try to demonstrate it. I wasn't sure how familiar people were with such technical terms.

Could you explain that second intepretation to me a bit further? How could property be self-violating when it is an effect we have on material reality that can be measured and verified?

 

[Traitorfish]

Self-contradictory statements are invalid and meaningless.

Not at all. "I do not speak any English whatsoever" is a self-contradictory statement, but it's not meaningless. It's meaning is crystal clear, that I do not speak the English language to any extent, it's merely self-refuting because I must at least speak enough English to make the claim. A meaningless statement would be one like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously", because it makes no intelligible claim about reality. You see the difference?

Could you explain that second intepretation to me a bit further? How could property be self-violating when it is an effect we have on material reality that can be measured and verified?

The claim is that property is ethically premised on certain ideas about self-ownership and voluntary cooperation, but that because property is exclusive and non-negotiable in practice it necessarily violates those premises in practice. Only by abandoning exclusivity and non-negotiability would property undo these contradictions, but in that very transformation it would cease to be property and would become instead communism.

I'm afraid that I don't really understand what you mean when you say that property is an "effect on material reality" or that it can be "measured and verified", so I may not be responding in quite the way you wish. If you'd be able to elaborate on this claim, we might be able to communicate more fully.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

Nobody died "as a result of Communism". They died as a result of famine, or of government incompetence, or of state violence, but not of "Communism". Abstract concepts can't kill people, as I seem to spend altogether too much of my time saying around here.

So you're saying that the group of people who wanted to implement the idea of Communism wasn't responsible for the attrocities?

The communist party caused the famines by forcing people onto communal plots. They murdered people and even called them "insane" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union) for rejecting the *IDEA* of Communism.

We are run by ideas. Historically, whoever has controlled the moral narrative has controlled the masses. Philosophy will take it back and define morality objectively once and for all, the same way we've come to define knowledge objectively using the scientific method.