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

[Conspiracy Bob]

Greetings! I used to be a frequent poster here at civfanatics under the name CoolioVonHoolio- though I doubt anybody will remember me.

I am returning to this fine forum today to get some feedback and spread some ideas that are truly important to me. Those ideas concern ethics, politics, and society as a whole. Those ideas are concerning Voluntaryism. I bring them to you here because Civilization was my first real forray into the world of philosophy, and of ethics.

Even if you disagree with the arguments made by voluntaryists, it is important to at least have an understanding of this perspective since it is extremely sensational and growing exponentially in subscribers.

Here's an article which sums up the movement quite briefly.

I hope you'll check it out and leave some feedback.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

OK, I'll bite.
Can you sum up why this is less ridiculous than Libertarianism ?

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

OK, I'll bite.
Can you sum up why this is less ridiculous than Libertarianism ?

That's a question with an irritating hidden premise, quite similar to asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
No matter how I answer, I would have to accept the premise that it is "ridiculous" to some degree, so I won't answer your question.

But I will say that if you actually read the article I posted you will have a facile understanding of Voluntaryism. If you visit the links provided in the article (which would take hours to explore fully) you can acquire a very deep understanding of the philosophy.

 

[Ajidica]

Can you explain how this is different from Randian Objectivism?

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

Can you explain how this is different from Randian Objectivism?

Epistemologically, it is no different.

However, Rand was a supporter of a small "night-watchmen" State which contradicts the non-aggression principle that she claimed to be valid.

Voluntaryism removes that contradiction and universalizes morality.

 

[Ajidica]

So Voluntaryism is Randian Objectivism with an anarchist fetish.
I think I'll pass.

 

[Conspiracy Bob]

So Voluntaryism is Randian Objectivism with an anarchist fetish.
I think I'll pass.

I can see you like to make arguments by adjective instead of careful reasoning, which is not very helpful.

If you see a flaw in the logic or you have contradictory evidence to present then I would be delighted to hear it. I am very interested in the truth and would truly appreciate it if you could correct my position on this (if it is indeed flawed).

I thought this forum was for serious discussion?
Can a mod weigh in on this?

 

[Ajidica]

Randian Objectivism, while a nice thought exercise, completely falls apart when used to formulate a policy. Considering Voluntaryism keeps those same problems and adds very little to resolve them (if anything, it exacerbates them), I see no reason to devote to it any more time than I devote to Randian Objectivism.
I mean, if I am interested in reading critiques of the state I can just turn toward left-anarchism which for the most part lacks the baggage and intellectual onanism as ideologies professing an 'objective morality'.

 

[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.

 

[History_Buff]

Voluntaryism sounds even dumber than Libertarianism.

Both fail when they assume that the moral bounds that apply to people apply identically to the government. The government is not a person, and should not, and historically has not, played by the same rules as a person. Holding it to a personal standard of morality doesn't make any sense.

 

[Cutlass]

From the link in the OP:

Core Values of Voluntaryism

The idea which separates Voluntaryism from political ideologies is that Voluntaryism seeks to abide by objective moral principles. An objective moral principle is one that may be universally applied to everyone at all times without contradiction.

Essentially, if it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor, then it is wrong for all men to steal from each-other. This scientific process of universalizing principles is how Voluntarism sets itself apart, and which is why Voluntaryists reject the State. Taxation, as we all know, is a non-voluntary interaction which is backed with a threat of violence. Since, as a society, we already shun and have specific names for non-voluntary interactions: rape, murder, theft and assault, the voluntaryists take an unsentimental, scientific look at "taxation"- and scoff at the euphemism. Based on all available evidence, taxation does indeed equal theft, and so it is rejected on moral grounds by Voluntaryists. According to these principles, the only fair and just interaction is one that is voluntarily agreed upon.

In other words, these people have nothing of value to say because they insist on a worldview which is demonstrably false. They refuse to be objective, they refuse to be moral, they refuse to accept the real world at all. These people deserve nothing but scorn and derision.

 

[History_Buff]

Next up: taxation is slavery.

 

[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.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

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.

 

[innonimatu]

Both fail when they assume that the moral bounds that apply to people apply identically to the government.

No - they fail by assuming that people will share the same moral bounds!

In fact that's why all anarchy as a social system fails. Only individualistic anarchy "works", and it almost invariably ends in self destruction...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Essentially, if it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor, then it is wrong for all men to steal from each-other. This scientific process of universalizing principles is how Voluntarism sets itself apart, and which is why Voluntaryists reject the State. Taxation, as we all know, is a non-voluntary interaction which is backed with a threat of violence. Since, as a society, we already shun and have specific names for non-voluntary interactions: rape, murder, theft and assault, the voluntaryists take an unsentimental, scientific look at "taxation"- and scoff at the euphemism. Based on all available evidence, taxation does indeed equal theft, and so it is rejected on moral grounds by Voluntaryists. According to these principles, the only fair and just interaction is one that is voluntarily agreed upon.

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?

 

[lovett]

I can't open the link. But when people make outrageous claims about the historical importance of their pet political theory, in my eyes at least, it tends to reduce their credibility.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

God, does he actually try and prove that? I got about 3 minutes in at work before realizing he was quite insane.


I recall a good thread we once had here where the conclusion by the right-wingers was 'all taxation is slavery no matter what'. Which should then prevent taxation even as a course for enforcing property rights or national defense. By the time you get there, the theory is so hopelessly unrealistic it's completely useless.

 

[lovett]

That it lacks utility is not the most important thing to draw from its lack of realism. Better to say simply that it is 'hopelessly unrealistic' and (often, therefore) wrong.

 

[Integral]

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

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

Okay! That's a claim. It's a rather good claim and not a bad starting point. Coercion tends to suck.

But I like my roads, my bridges, my military, my rule of law, my system of courts, and my government grants. Okay, that last one's a bit selfish, but it's hard to deny that a society with a government and rule of law tends to work better than a society without one. I'd rather live in the US than Somalia, even though Somali tax rates are zero. It's cliche, but it's true.

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