Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.  (Read 12659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« on: July 21, 2010, 12:54:02 PM »

I thought I finally out my true thoughts on the matter of human order rather than sitting on the sidelines anymore. As many here remember me as ladyattis, that early on I was a minarchist up until 2006ish where I began to study the work of Rothbard (and later on Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, and etc). But as I started to explore other ideas, especially those from Asian thinkers (Confucius in particular) or Asian influenced thinkers (Schopenhauer) I've made a made a decidedly unusual conclusion: that voluntary social order itself is a contradiction.

I won't go in-depth in this post about why I made this conclusion, but I'll summarize. The base component of human societies is the family as the human species procreates sexually instead of asexually, thus males and females take on different biological roles that are essential to the continuation of the species. This biological version of the division of labor even extends to the couple's division of responsibilities. Men care for the physically challenging work, women focus on other tasks like child rearing. Sometimes the division of labor varies as I've seen in anthropological studies of certain ethnic minorities throughout the world, but the division regardless of how it is setup is always there. This is key because often such division plays to the biological strengths of each sex while shielding their given weaknesses. The more one examines this trait of playing to strengths and covering weaknesses in the human family, it becomes clear that none of this is ever chosen freely as much as a person is not free to fly to the moon on a whim. It takes some thought (although, some of this is quite spontaneous in its genesis) to organize even the smallest of families, thus it's common that decisions in a family are done by its elders (the parents themselves, or their parents). This is not done out of malice or wish to dominate, but that it is done out of the fact that those who have lived the longest have the best knowledge of what to do in most situations. If the family elders don't know, they oftener will seek out answers, and puzzle out the right questions to ask to clear up their own ignorance of a matter.

Anyways, all of this means that societies being built on top of the family unit then follow a similar division of labor where each institution stands out of either history (as accident) or necessity (as heuristic or principle). This includes the State. Now, this doesn't mean the State is in the latter category of necessity, but it does mean that those organs within the State may be necessary and wanted. And it may be to the best interests of all human beings to see those organs of necessity liberated from the State as to better their function, rather than demanding their demise at the whims of zealots (like Ian). It is this particular point of view that I take which I see as both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from Voluntaryism as the very idea of a purely voluntary society stands in conflict with my view that some social institutions and orders are not only a matter of fact, but of a matter of fulfilling the very definition of a society. And more importantly, that these institutions and orders do not necessarily derive their power from authority, but rather from function, as it is authority (or what I like to call the dominance complex) is the seed of tyranny and not functionality.

This distinction between my view on society and that of Voluntaryism means more or less that I am not a Voluntaryist in any degree. And moreover, that I have views which are more aligned with that of left-libertarians and other anti-authoritarian philosophies. I'm not sure that Voluntaryists are a problem, but I do see their philosophy as fundamentally weak as it cannot integrate both the essential nature of the human family as the genesis of social order nor explain why something being purely voluntary is in itself sufficiently good.

TLDR-Version: Society has some properties of being not voluntary, therefore Voluntaryism is contradictory in the assumption of achieving a purely voluntary society.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 01:30:24 PM by Level 20 Anklebiter »
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2010, 04:17:52 PM »

Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

davann

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2010, 04:29:54 PM »

Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2010, 04:37:41 PM »

Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?

This is a false question because that which not voluntary is not necessarily coercive. For example, one must retain some means of income to survive in a modern society. Be it a job, inheritance, business, and so on. You could argue it's a choice, but that which is chosen is not voluntary (a choice can be coerced) it's simply chosen.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 04:39:51 PM by Level 20 Anklebiter »
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2010, 04:41:08 PM »

Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling

That's fine, but you'll be surprised how much in terms of mathematics and navigation Western scholars 'borrowed' when we were lagging behind (and they were lagging behind in the development of the scientific method, which Western Scholars offered to teach).
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

atomiccat

  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1142
  • Anarchy will Reign when pigs fly... Look a pig!
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2010, 04:47:21 PM »

Social orders and orders of the family have changed rolls and will change, On this I feel that the family role in peoples lives, with the increase in technology will become smaller, families had a role in the older days for the general protection and well being of each other, and is or will no longer be a boon to people with current or future technologies.

if government were to collapse right now it would be bad, but it might be better than what we have right now.

 You need a shift in the general thinking of people, to that of violence is bad and no man is above another and for people to stop idol worshiping for voluntarism to work. Many of the freestaters have adopted theses values and more will adopt them as they come into the liberty message, if the word of liberty continues to grow stronger, it will only be a matter of time before a truly voluntary society is possible

And on a non issue of this topic...

If people From say NH were told that the people of mass were evil and they were told to take up arms to take over mass, but the people from NH knew that most people are generally good and if they did take up arms against theses people they would be committing Grievous crimes and would gain little to nothing because the leaders of NH would take it all and possibly lose theirs lives, none but the evil would come to the call of arms and would die at the feet of the mass people, whom would all be armed if they were allowed arms to defend them selves.





Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 04:54:11 PM »

I don't think it's a matter of getting voluntaryism to work. In the vast majority of situations it is the default state which human beings enjoy. But the family unit offers to unique features: origin of the next generation, and a chance for a person to learn and grow (and flourish). And it's these two features that no tool or device can capture or mimic. A robot that has no mind is not a parent. A computer terminal with no network access is not an outlet for social curiosity. No matter how one slices the problem, the family is a permanent feature of human beings regardless of historical accidents. And it is from the family that liberty will come, and not from some campy libertine activities dressed up as civil disobedience (In reference to the crap that recently happened in Keene...), as it is where everyone starts and learns.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2010, 04:54:57 PM »

I missed the part where the family structure, which varies exponentially more wildly the more technologically advanced and prosperous a country is, somehow dictates the appropriate structure of government.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2010, 04:56:18 PM »

I missed the part where the family structure, which varies exponentially more wildly the more technologically advanced and prosperous a country is, somehow dictates the appropriate structure of government.

It doesn't, but it does predicate how one views what is necessary and sufficient for a society.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

atomiccat

  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1142
  • Anarchy will Reign when pigs fly... Look a pig!
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2010, 04:59:57 PM »

Teach the children about liberty, and from each successive generation more liberty will come.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2010, 05:04:15 PM »

Teach the children about liberty, and from each successive generation more liberty will come.

Exactly.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

MaikU

  • musician
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • anarchy is uto...oh well. It is not.
    • View Profile
    • my music
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2010, 05:05:59 PM »

I only disagree (so far) with OP about the family. My views are quite controversial. Family doesn't have to be involuntary too, at least, not all time. If you can support yourself, I think one can be free to leave his family. No problem.

I am not quite sure where OP stands on gay families issue, but in my opinion, their families are not a problem too and can raise healthy child just like heterosexual family can raise a healthy child (which later can become gay, haha, but srsly).

What I mean by this is that to me a FAMILY is not a women and a man. To me family is at least one person raising a child. it can be group of persons, but it doesn't matter their sexual orientation or skin color.

that's my few bucks on this topic.
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2010, 05:26:57 PM »

So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it. 

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2010, 05:33:48 PM »

Ok, so who has the gun?

Which institution, what social function in your estimation, gets away with the initiation of coercion?

This is a false question because that which not voluntary is not necessarily coercive.

So voluntary interaction doesn't work because of ... gravity?

Quote
For example, one must retain some means of income to survive in a modern society.

Maybe it wasn't obvious.

Voluntary means how people interact.

I am a "voluntaryist" because I interact with the people around me in voluntary ways, without coercion.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

davann

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2010, 05:40:30 PM »

Never ever trust anything from the East, especially their philosophy.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Kipling

That's fine, but you'll be surprised how much in terms of mathematics and navigation Western scholars 'borrowed' when we were lagging behind (and they were lagging behind in the development of the scientific method, which Western Scholars offered to teach).

Ah, but who first made this claim of borrowing and lagging behind? I suspect the claim originated from the East, thusly I can not trust it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 31 queries.