Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

[davann]

NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.

But again, what is the logical justification for NAP? Consequential? Or something else? I tend to think NAP is a logically non-consequential statement of the fact that humans are beings of harmony. And despite all the assumed stories of conflicts, wars, and violence that humans are more often able to get along even if there is still unclarified issues.  What is important is that NAP by itself doesn't justify or impede the formation of other institutions, or that these institutions themselves are not given (default mode).

One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you don’t know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that don’t want to live that way.

It's not so much a matter of forcing anything, but it is a matter of accepting such acts. If NAP is coupled to moral nihilism, then everything goes and NAP becomes self-refuting. But if NAP is coupled to a non-nihilist moral theory (probably moral realist in nature), then it can sustain itself and be part of a larger family of moral statements. This means that not only is NAP moral (and necessary to the human condition), but not all moral statements are predicated upon NAP. And that NAP and these other non-NAP predicated moral statements are predicated on some universal principle that ties them together. NAP by itself simply doesn't cut it, if you get what I'm saying.

Yeah, you kinda lost me a little. I think the key is in the accepting that others might not behave as you do. And that they don’t is okay as long as their actions do not cause you harm.

I don’t think everything has to tie into each other. Taking NAP to that sort of level is kind of like making into a religion. I don’t think it is. It is merely a good way to live, IMO. 

[MaikU]

interesting discussion has evolved here... I also noticed that many anarchists (in mises.org, for example) who believe in NAP are also moral relativists or  nihilists. I don't know which is worse, but they both are extreme cases which then refutes the whole NAP idea. Without objective (or rational, or natural, whatever you call it) morality NAP is worthless, IMO.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

NAP is something I follow. So it follows that I can not initiate others to do as I do. One has to accept that others are going to behave differently than you do.

But again, what is the logical justification for NAP? Consequential? Or something else? I tend to think NAP is a logically non-consequential statement of the fact that humans are beings of harmony. And despite all the assumed stories of conflicts, wars, and violence that humans are more often able to get along even if there is still unclarified issues.  What is important is that NAP by itself doesn't justify or impede the formation of other institutions, or that these institutions themselves are not given (default mode).

One also has to accept that maybe the most abhorrent thing, like genital mutilation, you can think of might be common practice by others. One also has to accept that you don’t know everything so there might be a very good reason why others are practicing genital mutilation. What would be wrong would be forcing your life philosophy, morals or societal practices upon people that don’t want to live that way.

It's not so much a matter of forcing anything, but it is a matter of accepting such acts. If NAP is coupled to moral nihilism, then everything goes and NAP becomes self-refuting. But if NAP is coupled to a non-nihilist moral theory (probably moral realist in nature), then it can sustain itself and be part of a larger family of moral statements. This means that not only is NAP moral (and necessary to the human condition), but not all moral statements are predicated upon NAP. And that NAP and these other non-NAP predicated moral statements are predicated on some universal principle that ties them together. NAP by itself simply doesn't cut it, if you get what I'm saying.

Yeah, you kinda lost me a little. I think the key is in the accepting that others might not behave as you do. And that they don’t is okay as long as their actions do not cause you harm.

I don’t think everything has to tie into each other. Taking NAP to that sort of level is kind of like making into a religion. I don’t think it is. It is merely a good way to live, IMO. 

That's a good pragmatic clarification.

[Zhwazi]

I want to add in my three cents on why I'm not a voluntaryist as well.

The short version is, voluntarity is a nice rule of thumb for detecting aggression but it is not the solution to it. It is being extended outside its useful scope for the sake of being moralistic and indignant (which while fun, and is 70% of the reason for me making this post, should only be done when it does not grow your ego to eclipse your ability to explore new ideas).

Now for the long version.

Everybody with a brain (i.e. not the war economists) can see plain as day that aggression and force are destructive and should be considered a last resort if it should be a resort at all.

You've got your pacifists that won't use force even in defense, and another group of people that won't use force except in defense, but won't use it for restitution, another group that will use it only to get restitution, and another that will use force for restitution or retribution. This is all only after the fact that aggression has taken place, and it assumes that aggression has taken place.

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs. Being an anarchist I obviously don't think there should be only one group of magical people that can do this aggression.

It is not immoral to not push somebody's stalled car off the tracks with your bumper and thereby cause hundreds of dollars of damage to their car, if a train is coming and greater damage is about to occur. You may (thought I doubt it would be the case) be responsible for the damage to the car. However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.

It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will". It's not acceptable to go around killing cops on the grounds of this, unless you believe a specific officer has a personal vendetta agaisnt you and would try to kill you as soon as they had an opportunity. But against groups like Al-Qaida, you don't want to wait to be attacked before you attack them.

All of this stuff is still perfectly within a stateless anarchistic moral viewpoint. The aggressors are still handled as aggressors, though they now get to enjoy the benefits that pre-emptive aggression can, in rare cases, bring. Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist. Furthermore this is not a prescriptive statement but a predictive one of what would happen in the real world when these situations really do occur and not everybody is a dystopian mind-clone of all other people. I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words. That perspective however is bullshit, I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.

[BobRobertson]

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

While I agree, it comes down to proof.

It's easy to prove the rapist was attempting to do their deed without the rape actually having occurred. What did occur, however, was the attempt. He was NOT simply walking past on the sidewalk and smiling.

Similarly, person A drawing a gun and pointing it at someone's head is, to me, "proof" that the person so threatened (or a 3rd party who intervened) acted in "self defense" even if person A never actually pulled the trigger. What did occur, however, was a direct and specific action, not just someone checking to make sure their pistol was seated well in their holster.

So while it is arguable that both instances of violence are "pre-emptive" self-defense, the proof is the fact that both only happened due to actions on the part of the erstwhile rapist and murderer.

They acted to involve someone involuntarily, first.

I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs.

Which really has nothing to do with "voluntary" or "involuntary", and everything to do with proof.

Prove that the person you just took out was in fact a direct threat to you.

The real beauty of non-statute law and adjudication (not "enforcement") is that each case really is treated as the unique coincidence of individuals and circumstances that it is.

Being an anarchist I obviously don't think there should be only one group of magical people that can do this aggression.

That would seem to me to be the definition of an-archy. Rules, without rulers.

However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.

This may be the crux of this whole "morality" thing. Looking back, I see how saying I abide the NAP, and interact with people on a voluntary basis, has been labeled "moral relativism" and "nihilism".

Yet your example of moving the car is not an interpersonal interaction. It is an interaction with an object, with an express objective of saving lives and property.

If you want to get into "voluntary" interaction, put a person on the tracks who says, "Don't save me, I want to die."

If I were an agent of the railroad, I would intervene because I am protecting property I am responsible for from damage, even if that means acting against the will of the suicidal individual, because they're trespassing.

It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will".

Proof. By your statements, that is exactly what you are saying also. Some one or some group has already involved you involuntarily, so you're acting in self defense.

So I'm left to wonder what it is about voluntary interaction that puts you off so that you assert you are not a "voluntaryist".

Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist.

I hope I have pointed out how I can, and I do.

Just as a person can be both peaceful and prepared for self defense, a person who chooses to deal with others on a voluntary basis is not being hypocritical to respond "involuntarily" to someone who has initiated "involuntary" interaction.

It may be that you believe "voluntaryists" haven't thought of this. If you do believe that NAP abiding voluntarily interacting individuals are such fools, then all this "I'm not a voluntaryist" stuff finally makes sense.

I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

So what tough questions? Lifeboat scenarios? Trolley cars that can only be stopped by pushing a fat guy off a bridge into its way, thus saving a dozen lives by sacrificing one?

What I have seen, in contrast to what you have seen, is people so hung up on what they think the funny words mean that they concoct twisted plots and outlandish schemes and then demand that everyone else see how impossible it would be to be decent human beings in such situations, and therefore simple decency just doesn't work in every day life.
 

Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words.

Then you haven't understood it at all.

That perspective however is bullshit,

Of course that perspective is bullshit, because you just made it up.

Now get this: You now go on to say that,

I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

By what leap of ignorance do you think I don't oppose stupidity? Or Jim over there, or Sue over there, or the vast majority of other people in the world?

Here's how that voluntary interaction thing works: You get to oppose all the stupidity you want. So do I. You might see stupidity I don't, and I may see something you don't, and so on and so on, with millions of people all working together by the simple fact of each opposing the stupidity that they themselves see.

Some may not see any. Some may go overboard and over-react. But the vast majority simply do what they always have done, because the psychopath is an extreme minority and always has been.

Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.

Ah! I was right, you really just don't like the word.

Neither do I, which is why I still use anarchist, or rational anarchist to hopefully distinguish myself from someone who throws bombs.

[Zhwazi]

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

While I agree, it comes down to proof.

It's easy to prove the rapist was attempting to do their deed without the rape actually having occurred. What did occur, however, was the attempt. He was NOT simply walking past on the sidewalk and smiling.

Similarly, person A drawing a gun and pointing it at someone's head is, to me, "proof" that the person so threatened (or a 3rd party who intervened) acted in "self defense" even if person A never actually pulled the trigger. What did occur, however, was a direct and specific action, not just someone checking to make sure their pistol was seated well in their holster.

So while it is arguable that both instances of violence are "pre-emptive" self-defense, the proof is the fact that both only happened due to actions on the part of the erstwhile rapist and murderer.

They acted to involve someone involuntarily, first.

It's not about "proof", it's about "I'm convinced enough that I don't care if I get charged for aggressing because I'm going to be worse off if I don't." Proof is far too elusive a target to bother with.

I am not saying that those who do aggress in such a pre-emptive manner should not be held responsible for their actions. But if they decide that the costs of being responsible for their aggression now is less than what they stand to lose in future aggression (which doesn't even have to be deliberate, and can be accidental) then they should aggress and bear the costs.

Which really has nothing to do with "voluntary" or "involuntary", and everything to do with proof.

Prove that the person you just took out was in fact a direct threat to you.

The real beauty of non-statute law and adjudication (not "enforcement") is that each case really is treated as the unique coincidence of individuals and circumstances that it is.

No, it's not about proof, it's about what you think is right. I did not say "proof" anywhere in my post because that's not what it's about. You don't need proof, you only need to be ready to deal with the consequences of your actions.

However, moving the car off the tracks is the moral thing to do. To stand idly by and watch just because the owner of the car isn't around to grant permission to move their car (possibly looking for a gas station) is immoral itself.

This may be the crux of this whole "morality" thing. Looking back, I see how saying I abide the NAP, and interact with people on a voluntary basis, has been labeled "moral relativism" and "nihilism".

Yet your example of moving the car is not an interpersonal interaction. It is an interaction with an object, with an express objective of saving lives and property.

If you want to get into "voluntary" interaction, put a person on the tracks who says, "Don't save me, I want to die."

If I were an agent of the railroad, I would intervene because I am protecting property I am responsible for from damage, even if that means acting against the will of the suicidal individual, because they're trespassing.

It is a person's property which is an extension of themselves according to my understanding of what you probably believe. You are damaging their property by moving it. Is it not a crime if I break your window while you aren't home?

It is also not immoral to use aggression against threatening groups who you believe will attack you or your family. Note I didn't say "may", I said "will".

Proof. By your statements, that is exactly what you are saying also. Some one or some group has already involved you involuntarily, so you're acting in self defense.

So I'm left to wonder what it is about voluntary interaction that puts you off so that you assert you are not a "voluntaryist".

It's absolutely NOT about proof. This isn't an instance of you having been threatened. This is members of a church that preaches death to infidels forming a group that is conspicuously armed which is totally seperate from the church. It doesn't matter what you can prove, it matters what you're willing to take responsibility for, you only need proof enough to yourself to do what needs to be done.

Force still should be a last resort and never the first, but the option is open and this is something that Voluntaryism is not able to handle. If you adopt this facet of my view on things you cannot fairly call yourself a voluntaryist.

I hope I have pointed out how I can, and I do.

Just as a person can be both peaceful and prepared for self defense, a person who chooses to deal with others on a voluntary basis is not being hypocritical to respond "involuntarily" to someone who has initiated "involuntary" interaction.

It may be that you believe "voluntaryists" haven't thought of this. If you do believe that NAP abiding voluntarily interacting individuals are such fools, then all this "I'm not a voluntaryist" stuff finally makes sense.

This is about interactions where nobody has acted in an overtly aggressive manner that could be termed aggression but you are nonetheless convinced that a threat is imminent and that taking action now is both possible and will stop the threat before it becomes immediate.

I don't have to make up crap answers to tough questions and act all morally indignant and superior because I stick to principles which are being misapplied in counterproductive ways which totally misunderstand the actual reason for the principles to begin with in the way I see anarchocapitalists and especially those calling themselves voluntaryists do.

So what tough questions? Lifeboat scenarios? Trolley cars that can only be stopped by pushing a fat guy off a bridge into its way, thus saving a dozen lives by sacrificing one?

What I have seen, in contrast to what you have seen, is people so hung up on what they think the funny words mean that they concoct twisted plots and outlandish schemes and then demand that everyone else see how impossible it would be to be decent human beings in such situations, and therefore simple decency just doesn't work in every day life.

I have seen that also. On the flipside, I've also seen idiotic statements like "If there's a road monopoly we'll just build helicopters" and "Nobody will transact with the terrorists!", terrorism being one of the situations that can't be easily handled by a voluntaryist or otherwise non-preemptive policy toward violence.
 

Aside from that there's a whole realm of morality outside the scope of voluntaryism. Some understandings of voluntaryism take the form of "Whatever is voluntary is good, otherwise people would not choose it, and whatever is involuntary is bad, because people wouldn't freely choose it" in an attempt to fill in this gap to entitle the claimant to think they have the answer to everything in the vast complicated world of morality in 5 or fewer words.

Then you haven't understood it at all.

I've understood it as I've seen it presented by a lot of other people and they include these ideas. If your version of it doesn't include this then that's fine, but don't say I don't understand when I've spoken with people who claimed to be voluntaryists and have explicitly said what I quoted.

That perspective however is bullshit,

Of course that perspective is bullshit, because you just made it up.

Now get this: You now go on to say that,

I didn't make it up, I just didn't hear it from you. Don't get all offended that somebody actually dislikes a label you choose for yourself and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it because other people are ruining the name for you. Unfair as it is, you stick by a label that's shared with idiots, you deal with consequences. That's true of every label anybody would voluntarily adopt, and no less true of voluntaryism.

I oppose stupidity whether it's harming other people or not, I will not suspend my judgement of non-aggressive behaviors due to their being non-aggressive, and truly malicious people don't need to be asked for consent before being dealt with.

By what leap of ignorance do you think I don't oppose stupidity? Or Jim over there, or Sue over there, or the vast majority of other people in the world?

Here's how that voluntary interaction thing works: You get to oppose all the stupidity you want. So do I. You might see stupidity I don't, and I may see something you don't, and so on and so on, with millions of people all working together by the simple fact of each opposing the stupidity that they themselves see.

Some may not see any. Some may go overboard and over-react. But the vast majority simply do what they always have done, because the psychopath is an extreme minority and always has been.

Whatever, it's not your position, I undertsand that it's not everybody's but it is SOME people's positions and this is addressed to them, not you. So ignore it, unless you're hellbent on defending a stupid name.

Besides, the word absolutely SUCKS. Using vowels together like that is really awkward. Who cares if "voluntarist" already has a meaning, nobody cares that capitalism already has a meaning, you might as well use the version of the word that doesn't have two incompatible suffixes (-y to indicate an adjective and -ism or -ist to indicate a noun) and just go straight for tacking the noun suffix onto the root like most reasonable english words do.

Ah! I was right, you really just don't like the word.

Neither do I, which is why I still use anarchist, or rational anarchist to hopefully distinguish myself from someone who throws bombs.

I really really really don't like the word. But the ideas are also wrong in their own right. Not just the ones that don't apply to you, but your apparent infatuation with proof like it will remove all responsibility from you for your actions somehow. Because the last thing I advocate is that anybody is free from responsbility for their actions. If you use pre-emptive force go right ahead but your punishment for not finding a more diplomatic solution is that you will be an aggressor and treated appropriately. Proof doesn't factor into the equation anywhere.

[Bill Brasky]

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

Evolution, man.

[Zhwazi]

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

Evolution, man.

I also don't really like seeing people get 'selected out' unnecessarily.

[Bill Brasky]

I share the concern for minimizing the effect of aggression and force on society, to make the world a better place and destroy less of what we've worked to create. But this doesn't necessarily mean that waiting for aggression to take place is the way to minimize it.

Sometimes you can see that agression will take place before it actually happens. Sometimes a little aggression against anticipated sources of aggression will prevent larger aggressions from taking place. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and whatnot. This should be done when this is the case.

Evolution, man.

I also don't really like seeing people get 'selected out' unnecessarily.

Nor do I. 

I have a general disposition that some things are necessary.  I don't like to propose the big lengthy arguments about what is, and what isn't.  Because that usually results in a big backlash, and I'm kinda tired of that. 

[ForumTroll]

blah blah blah

[Turd Ferguson]

I think everyone should be forced to be a voluntaryist.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0

It doesn't mean that I supported socialized medicine. All I stated is that she should be able to transition. It seems you like grasping desperately for things to make others into villains. Also, it doesn't make any sense to reference an old ass thread as an argument against my current thread here and how I think currently. Again, you're playing desperate, if not fallacious, tactics. Please focus on the issue at hand.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Would you say that a father kicking out a daughter who has had or will have an abortion constitutes coercion?

No. He is removing his consent.

Coercion would be if he literally "kicked". That's assault.

Is the literal kick permissible when she has no where to go and that she's resisting?

[Cognitive Dissident]

The video's gone, but it was "Lucy: Teen Transexual" a story about a male teen who used socialized medicine for a sex change operation.  This is the thread to which I referred.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13120.0

It doesn't mean that I supported socialized medicine. All I stated is that she should be able to transition. It seems you like grasping desperately for things to make others into villains. Also, it doesn't make any sense to reference an old ass thread as an argument against my current thread here and how I think currently. Again, you're playing desperate, if not fallacious, tactics. Please focus on the issue at hand.

Go back to the thread.  You defended using other people's money for elective surgery.  I'm "desperate" about nothing.  I merely pointed out you're full of shit, unless of course you denounce your previous stance.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

I'm also for using other people's money to allow me to post this thread. Especially, Ian's.

Also, you haven't proven that I absolutely agreed with socialized medicine, and it has nothing to do with my current position in this thread. Can you focus or do I need to cast an Int buff on you?