Oh! The anarchy!
Imagine getting to keep everything you work for. Not in part, but in full. This is simple and basic human dignity.
Imagine the market providing virtually limitless solutions and mechanisms to help you with your problems in life.
Imagine self-responsibility, where no one is obligated to serve you, and you are obligated to serve no man.
As it stands, there are violence-backed limits placed on what you "may" and "may not" do, but other humans who have arbitrarily assigned themselves the "right" to wield authority over you, the "civilian," are not themselves constrained by these rules, as if they were superhumans, or "gods." I reference, of course, state agents, politicians, police, etc.
I don't know about you, but I am not a "civilian." I am a human being. My body is mine, and so is my money. It is morally illegitimate for any other human being to use violence or a threat of violence against me in the interest of taking ownership of my body or my property.
What's shocking is that billions and billions of "humans being" on this planet have accepted such immoral coercion as the norm. As "the way it has to be."
Foolish Utopianism is a dead end.
- If we just get the right individuals into positions of power, everything will be okay!
Two problems here. One is that anything non-consensual is morally illegitimate. Thus, to have a position of power available which allows for non-consensual rule of another human being is a morally illegitimate position, even if said individual is a "good person," by all estimations.
The second problem is that these positions of arbitrary power inevitably attract abusers of said power, and outright sociopaths/psychopaths.
- Taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society! Everyone must do their part!
First, taking people's money under the threat of violence to pay for things without their consent is not a civilized practice. It is barbaric. Second, me paying for drones to bomb infants in the Middle East is simply me funding murder. I certainly must not do "my part" insofar as possible, to the same extent I should try not to be mugged on the street by a serial rapist.
- People are evil so we need government to keep them in line!
Governments are made of these same people you call evil. Why should we afford such reprobate, evil beings seats of massive power and brutally coercive, legalized violent influence? This is an idiotic position to hold. It is immediately self-detonating, logically speaking.
Non-coercive, private property models (anarchism) are realistic, universalizable, and sensible.
If our goal as humans being is to create the most peaceful place possible here on this planet, a few things are necessary.
There must be a recognition of individual self-ownership. Each individual is his or her own authority and has highest possible claim to his or her body/self.
(If there is no self-ownership, then there is nothing wrong with slavery.)
There must be a recognition of the scarcity of resources on this planet, and our needs as individuals to be able to own these resources as means to flourish and survive.
(If scarcity is not recognized, there is no way to claim one needs something to live or flourish.)
In order to own something, one must have the right to exclude another from using said resource.
(If you cannot exclude others from using your resources or body, stealing, rape, slavery, murder, etc, all have no meaning.)
In order to exclude others from using one's resources, a universalizable property norm must be established, based on the above principles.
(If the property norm is not universalizable--able to be applied to and exercised by each and every individual, the logical fallacy of special pleading comes in to play--i.e. "He's a cop, so he can beat that man and still be in the right!" "He's the king, so it's okay for HIM to have slaves!" "They're the IRS, so it's okay for THEM to take your money by force!")
In order for this norm to be applied practically, it must be enforceable via voluntarily created institutions based on the aforementioned principle of ISO (Individual Self-Ownership).
(If created defense and legal institutions are violent in nature (non-consensual) then ISO is not respected, and slavery is allowed.)
It thus logically follows that in order to have a maximally peaceful society, where the sustenance and flourishing of human life is held as the primary value, it is objectively true that individual self-ownership must be recognized and respected above all other ideologies, dogmas, principles, and philosophical persuasions.
Anything less than this is to deny the nature of reality itself and, indeed, to indulge in dangerous (murderous and brutally violent) delusion.
(Biology itself tells us the story of ISO and "the golden rule," in that each individual human being possesses highest claim and most direct link to his or her self. No other being can move my arms or think my thoughts for me, in a more direct fashion than I can. Engaging in argument with another being is a performative affirmation of the fact that we recognize brute force (the initiation of force/violence) to be an illegitimate practice.)
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
I find the argument appealing and can follow the thought process to the creation of non-violent societies that follow the ISO principle. I find that the use of force is society is not a necessary evil, but something that can and should be avoided.
But often times we run into implementation problems which make things more difficult. If everyone followed the ISO principle, then we're good. But what if we have individuals that don't consent to such agreements and truly believe in the application of force?
How would these individuals / groups be addressed / approached in your framework? I'm genuinely curious.
That's a great question. Self-defense is morally legitimate.
Violators individuals surrender their right to self-ownership when they violate yours, as they have performatively (via the aggressive act) demonstrated they do not respect ISO (the golden rule, nature, etc).
As voluntaryism is an anarchist philosophy, there could be myriad ways different societies take shape all around the globe. Some private property owners may wish to ban alcohol on their connected property, and thus a non-alcohol community would be created. Others might not wish to do so.
As far as how justice systems might work, this video by Man Against the State does an excellent job of explaining a few possible ways it can work.
While I think that self-defense is a good way of protecting an individual from injustice, after watching the video, the justice system problem seems a lot harder to resolve. They provide a very interesting approach and one could conceive of a world where such a system exists. Unfortunately, too many people are content with using force in one way or another where such a world seems pretty distant.
But education is the best path to build a better world. I'll admit that I was pretty skeptical of the whole voluntary world without a government idea. But now seeing how everything might work, it makes a lot of rational sense.
You're absolutely right about it being a philosophical battle, ultimately. All the violent "revolutions" of the world thus far have been little more than a changing of the guard, switching one violent regime for another.
As far as this being a far away goal, I don't really see it that way. The world is flooded with voluntaryists (most people live according to voluntaryist values until the religion of the state is invoked). It's only as far away as people realizing that what we teach kids about not hitting and not stealing should not stop at the word "government."
So happy to hear you're open minded about this. Kind of the rare case ;)
I really agree with what you have described in your post. I just want to add complaints in my view. the whole vision of every human being, depends on every leader who carries out all the affairs of this world. in the recent times, we humans have been living like children without parents. no more guiding us. myself, really feel it. because, almost all leaders in this world only think of their personal interests. i like your post. i always follow you. thanks my friend. by, @boyasyie
Sorry about you, but...its kind akward, no leader of any country should concern about your relationship with your parrents. Lets be onest, why did you leave home ? Why did you moved into larger city? 'Cuz off MONEY! Thats all we want...money and free time. Nobody force you to do anything, nobody put a gun to your head and tell u that if don't do this and that i will...
I'm new on this site but is quit interesting
Outstanding, clear, compelling arguments. You are of course, preaching to the choir...
If only our neighbors would listen and understand.
Thanks, Graham!
😄😇😄
Cheers my friend!
Upvoted & RESTEEMED :]
I teach English in Israel on the phone. I had one student tell me that Prime Minister Benyamin Netnyahu was a " king" according to a certain religious edict and that "he could do whatever he wanted to anyone" in the area because he was "chosen" by the Israeli electorate. I couldn't believe what I was listening to. Anarchism is the answer to this nonsense
Exactly ..we are manopolised by the government... It control everything .. but we as individuals are having the responsibility of making the world a better place to live in..and everyone has the freedom to do and think for his own self..
Just looking at the word "Government " itself tells you a lot... Govern means to Control, Mente from Latin means Mind. Its a system created to control you and your mind. Also very close structure to "Mafia".
Yeah...absolutely correct ...
Exactly ..we are manopolised by the government... It control everything .. but we as individuals are having the responsibility of making the world a better place to live in..and everyone has the freedom to do so..
To have the true voluntary way... The system that keeps everything chained by rule of.. Etc. Now for thousands of years, how does on break free from it 100%? Humans and even animals have superiors above others (pack leaders), it seems this behavior and group status thinking is in our biology. In today's world it seems you must go along for your survival, else you will have nothing. In how far should we take this voluntarist approach and way of thinking? I find it hard taking it to this level logically, because I'm so stuck and used to this way of living, from birth programmed.
Just some questions, that you could take as rhetorical questions.
Do you think slavery is the normal natural state because people ought to be slaves naturally?
How about those who don't want to be slaves, are they going against the laws of nature, according to you because people are meant to be slaves of a group of masters?
And because you and other people say it's biology, do you think I or others (voluntayists) should just accept our slavery because you and other people say so?
Do you see that it is not possible to convince an voluntayist ;) that he or she should just accept his or her slavery?
Peace
Edit
That is totally up to you in how far you take that approach. It's your choice and I guess choice, in a way, is what differentiates us, in at least one way, from animals.
To address this point, Voluntaryism is not opposed to the presence of superiors or leaders, but coercive, violent, non-consensually accepted superiors and leaders.
I think it should be taken all the way as slavery is immoral.
I see in easy words don't abuse others and be a dick :p. You make it sound complicated with your intelligence of words though. Or my English just lacks with tricky words here and there.
Nice one, Graham! We need simple explanations like this to make voluntaryism an easy to understand concept. We need to approach people from their level of thinking if we want to make sense to them. Otherwise we'll only get instant rejections of our beliefs back from them.
Upvoted and resteemed :) Steem on!
I agree man. Gotta keep the basics in view and approach people as people. Much obliged!
Excellent sharing, upvoted
upvote me
It doesn't help society conforms to social belittling and common acceptance through trends and niche types of groups.
You're right though, we do need to own ourselves without giving free reign or right to others.
There is a lot to be changed to get society back on track without the amount of fears sprung on us in this day and age and I personally fear it isn't likely to happen, not at least until we have damaged ourselves greatly.
It's always interesting to read your posts bro and I'm trying to dig more into your thoughts every time. As much as I agree about the idea of self-ownership I'm still wondering what are we doing with those people who just CAN'T do it. The elderly or the sick for example, are we really ready to share willingly with those people who really need it? Without being forced to by some authorities? I don't have the answer yet. Most human beings (including me) are thinking about them first, what should be in our nature of course, but it also makes us very egoistic and often not willing to give to those in need.
Social Health Insurance is a good example, without having an affordable insurance for everybody, many people will lose everything when they discover they are suffering some bad disease which is only treatable when they spend shit-loads of money. So an Insurance system (which -of course- is implemented by force) could be a solution here.
Well, just some of my thoughts, still looking for the right answers myself....
I disagree with this assumption. Most people I know, when they have the resources available, are more than willing and actually eager to help others.
The private sector has been providing and innovating for centuries now, usually hampered by the state. Doctors have been helping patients who cannot afford their care for hundreds of years as well.
Ultimately, though, the question is a moral one. Is it ever morally legitimate to force someone to pay for something under violence/threat of violence? No. That's it.
Take away the red tape and the market would be there in a second offering affordable help and care, and plenty of volunteer work as well to help people. Look at what the state does. It arrests people attempting to help the poor, sick, and elderly (see soup kitchens being shut down in the US), and cages people for possessing plants or collecting rainwater, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, and ruining countless lives.
People are self-interested, first and foremost, and that's a beautiful thing. That's what makes the smart people want to help others--compassion and understanding that to continue living in a plentiful world of give and take (a selfish goal) one must give.
Like I said, most folks that are able are willing to help, and even in the weird case of the one who's not, it's still not moral to violate this person.
"Without slaves, who would pick the cotton?"
Would be nice if you are right with your assumption, but I'm not really sure.
Let me just get back to the idea of heaving a mandatory health insurance. It is against the idea of voluntarism, but as I wrote before it might be the only way to provide affordable health care to everybody.
Without, way to many people would be left alone with horrendous costs they can't deal with alone and the other people wouldn't want to cover. Especially for those people who aren't the most appealing to us. The weak will often be left alone
That is just my assumption. Maybe the world is a better place than I think
If the only way to provide healthcare is at the end of a gun, then perhaps it is better for humanity to expire. Thankfully, I know this is not the case.
In the absence of violence-backed monopolies such as the ones all modern nation states employ when it comes to the medical/pharmaceutical industry, prices decline precipitously as a result of heavy competition, equating to greater affordability for everyone. As it stands now, the market is synthetically cornered.
Statistics even in very poor, violent places support this.
Even war-torn Somalia is doing much better without a state.
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
I look around me and see most everyone I know willing to help others, and willing to make the world a better place.
The state has killed 262 million people in roughly the last century alone, not counting wars.
I dare say we can do much better than that ;)
Yes we can do much better.
Health care is a wide field, it's not only medication, also a lot of technology is involved there. If the free market could be really able to provide those technology to everybody who needs it, I'm with you. But I still doubt it, new innovation will be reserved for those who can pay the price for it, until it might become affordable for everybody a way too long time will pass
About Somalia, even it is not called a state there anymore, but they do have authorities people need to follow if the want to survive the next day
Can you substantiate this claim with evidence? It seems to me that the opposite is true, as historically and economically speaking, every time competition is allowed in the market, new innovations become progressively more and more affordable. State-backed violent monopolies do not work this way.
This is why I can now type this on a tiny hand-held supercomputer called an iphone, but some people cannot afford medicine which has been stuck at the same high price for years and years and years.
Of course they become affordable but only if there is a market to make profit at.
To bring out medicine for some rare disease there isn't really an incentive to do all the expensive research and go through the long process of developing, if the market is only driven by supply and demand.
So those kind of products won't really become affordable for a lot of the people who really need them
nice post my friend, i really appreciate your words, at least self ownership is absolutely important in every human life, in my opinion there are two problems, No.1 the literacy rate in overall is not good in our world, first of all any govt. needs to increase the rate to literacy, so that peoples get education and they at least stand at a place where they can manage at least self ownership and secondly use of power by evil humans, well in this case both govt. and humans has to come out from there comfort zone and fight against such forces, a single human won't impact them much because they normally works in the shape of big syndicates and no doubt it's govt. duty to start crack down against such groups and peoples needs to coordinate with govt. without fear then i am sure such groups will no longer exists, Stay happy my friend and thanks for sharing
Thanks as always for your commentary. I appreciate it. I have to disagree as well, though.
I don't think people need government to be literate. I know of many individuals who are very intelligent and literate that never went to a government school, or were taught by their parents.
Yes, there will be crackdowns, but to me freedom and humanity are more important. Many have already died for these things. I hope my son will have a better world, so I want to try my best to make it better.
yah that's true my friend, no doubt first of all it's parents responsibility they need to develop their child properly so that he or her spent their life with confident, and secondly you say freedom and humanity, yes that's again true before starting any war or crackdown, govt. and peoples needs to start negotiations with such forces and try to solve these issues with peace and love, thanks a lot my friend for correction me.
Great article, it's important that we all understand it's a journey and requires a transition. As individuals keep developing the volunteerist solutions it will be the obvious choice to anyone paying attention.
Well said!
Great post, if all work for the peace of every human on earth. That would be a perfect world but it is an impossible statement considering the nature of man
It's not impossible at all. Nobody is aiming for perfect. Just...largely sensible.
Appreciated work
i hope you vote me....please
Great
Great works, I wish you success
nice work man
Hi i m atik i m new here so plzzz upvote me and follow me @atikukislam and i do the same
and this is my last post link https://steemit.com/nature/@atikulislam/10-amazing-places-you-won-t-believe-exist-on-earth
plzzz upvote and follow @atikulislam
I'll just warn you man, this kind of post is gonna get you flagged on here by folks. I usually consider this type of thing spam, but since you're new, I won't downvote. Just don't spam my comments again, please.
Sorry next time i will be careful
No worries man. Steem on.
İm upvote ur posts, i like you
😁
Many many thanks for upvote our comments. you are a great man.i salute you boss.go ahead.we are with you all time.best of luck
nice post!
It seems a better way is understanding of what we are in the community.
Your thoughts on sovereignty are well taken.
I am taken aback by the fact that a significant percentage of people are not only satisfied by limited freedom, but prefer it, even require it, to society without government by force.
H. sapiens is a social animal, and none of us can truly be happy in solitude, therefore we all are dependent on such limitations on our freedom requisite to a certain degree of social interaction.
Drawing the line at force is appropriate, but, again, there are many people that not only have no qualms regarding use of force to attain what they want, there are some that are incapable of functioning without it.
Sadly, history shows this is a sizable portion of humanity, and that the concatenation of these populations creates powerful institutions that are shown to be very difficult to resist.
Technology is changing the difficulty level, and revolutions in how we store and transact value, produce goods, and interact socially hold much promise in allowing humanity to transcend historical societies.
Have you any thoughts on how to apply new means to this old problem?
Thanks!
They just want power anf they still think that they can fool us like in past centuries when people had no right for toalking their opinions, or if they had and said something wrong, they would probably be killed.
But now everything is changed, because people start to wake up and the goverment will till try to show that they fight for us and protect us trough wars.
In the next few years i believe that it will be some sort of revolution , but we will see how things will evolve :)
At first I thought you take to sustain governments actions, but reading the rest of the article proved me the opposite thing. Great talk about peace and self-ownership!
Great post! Thanks for sharing!
Nice..
Hi @kafkanarchy84. I am so deeply impressed by your world-views. All of the perspectives you have shared are in alignment with me own.
I represent a planetary alliance of people like you... Who are choosing to embody a new way of life on this planet. We are revolutionizing what government and economics looks like on this planet by remaking the most effective elements of the old systems of soul-less corporate owned government into truly decentralized and ethical models that fairly distribute wealth and decision making to all people.
I have liked your post and followed you.
Will you find a moment to read my content and tell me what you think?