Voluntarism vs. Libertarianism
I am compelled to write this article because libertarians today are often describing their beliefs of libertarianism through the philosophy of voluntarism. While this may not seem like a big deal, there are differences, and to perpetuate discussion without acknowledging these differences makes our attempt at expanding the libertarian philosophy as a political party futile. For example, there are those of us that believe that taxes should be on a voluntary basis, essentially negating the very need for government – and hence political parties.
However, voluntarism and libertarianism may be connected in a major way, which would possibly make me dwelling on this issue mute, but thats for you to decide. Libertarianism and voluntarism are connected in that in a world without an established form of voluntarism, libertarianism is a means to an end for voluntarisms. As Carl Watner explains, http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/VoluntaryismLib.html:
“Voluntaryism figures prominently in the libertarian tradition in three distinct ways. First, voluntaryism represents the final goal of all libertarians. After all, libertarianism is the doctrine that all the affairs of people, both public and private, should be carried out by individuals or their voluntary associations. Secondly, voluntaryism is a realization about the nature of political society. The voluntaryist approach rests on the crucial, theoretical insight that all tyranny and government are grounded on general popular acceptance. To libertarians, voluntaryism thus represents a means, an end, and an insight. The primary responsibility for the existence and continuation of any political system rests on the majority of the population, who willingly acquiesce in their own subjection. Thirdly, voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists realize that government rests on popular consent, they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is simply for the people at large to withdraw that consent. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, civil disobedience, and non-violent resistance to the State. Only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society, based on the insight that existing tyrannies depend on the voluntary submission of the governed. The purpose of this essay is to elucidate the history, the development, and the actual practice of these ideas within the context of the libertarian tradition.”
Now, consider the following definitions:
-Voluntarism is a philosophy that opposes anything unjustifiably invasive and coercive. Voluntaryism regards government as coercive, and calls for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of other anarchist philosophies, it supports strong property rights which it regards as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion. The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action. The term voluntaryism is often used today as a synonym for free-market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist philosophies. The voluntaryist movement, however, is distinct in its rejection of electoral politics. Because they consider electoral politics to be counterproductive or immoral, voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education, rather than voting.
-Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies. These political philosophies advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from minarchist to openly anarchist.
In considering the definition of libertarianism above, one must remember it to have a broad spectrum of definitions. However, in keeping relevant to our location and cause, the United States typically consists of a particular denomination of libertarianism called “Libertarian Constitutionalists”. Libertarian Constitutionalists are libertarians with political means. I would consider myself to be a Libertarian Constitutionalists because I believe liberty can be perserved through proper interpretation of the United States Constitution – something which would not allow federal incursions on the economy and civil liberties (such as Congressman Ron Paul). Others, even amongst the astute authors here on libertarianviewpoint.com, engage in advocating libertarian denominations such as Geolibertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, contractarian libertarianism, and many more.
Now, I believe an advocacy of libertarian constitutionalism is the appropriate advocacy libertarians should be making. Libertarian constitutionalism ought to be the priority advocacy because I feel it is the appropriate starting point ultimately leading to goals resulting in almost all other libertarian philosophies – it is simple, easy to understand, and not very foreign (even to democrats). As of now, libertarians need to be more moderate in their expression of our ideals because we live in a country unable to accomodate such radical change advocated by less moderate libertarians.
To link back to voluntarism, I find libertarian denominations other than libertarian constitutionalists to be more immediate in achieving a voluntary society, or to just be voluntarism in its plane form – but regardless being more radical than the status quo can take to be recruited. Nevertheless, these advocacies are not representative of what libertarianism is in the context of the United States, and as political party.
But then again, the problem I am faced with in writing this article is, in even advocating libertarian constitutionalism, it still leads to a voluntary society in a much longer time frame given its belief in perserving liberty through a constitutional government.
While this article may be hard to follow, the points I’m trying to make are this:
1. If we want to recruit people to the libertarian party, we have to teach the libertarian philosophy in its least radical and relevant form – Libertarian constitutionalism. A lot of us advocate much more radical forms of the libertarian spectrum, which I believe are ineffective for our primary purpose to expand the libertarian party.
2. As explained above, Libertarianism in all its forms lead to a Voluntary society. As such, a Voluntary society makes political parties, all forms of government, and the United States as a whole, Irrelevant, and thus, abolished. The questions then become:
Is it worth it?
Should government exist?
Would it even be possible?
If a voluntary society is in fact impossible to achieve, or seen to be ineffective, is libertarianism the right advocacy?
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
jonathan says
” If we want to recruit people to the libertarian party, we have to teach the libertarian philosophy in its least radical and relevant form – Libertarian constitutionalism. A lot of us advocate much more radical forms of the libertarian spectrum, which I believe are ineffective for our primary purpose to expand the libertarian party”.
i am not sold. i think that a fine understanding of libertarianism is to the good for persuasion, education and action– including political action.
the voluntary (non-coercive) society would have many advantages over the system we currently live in and even more so than the trajectory we are on for a more regulated, taxed, and generally repressed citizenry. libertarian constitutionalism has its place both in teaching and early recruitment efforts–agreed-, but to focus as though constitutionalism is the end point sells liberty short.
voluntary efforts and constitutional outreach theory/education,practical tools have their complementary uses. both approaches should be employed. a better question to my mind might be how to optimize the mix.
Lptbruce,
Can you clarify as to why your not sold? I don’t understand your reason above. How does it negate the fact the moral majority does not like radical?
You say:
“to focus as though constitutionalism is the end point sells liberty short.”
Well, I agree and disagree. If one were to put liberty in the context of a utopian society, then sure, a constitution would sell liberty short in that liberty is too much for the constitution to handle. At the same time, I disagree because if we concede to living in an imperfect world, posing the need for government, liberty will have to be infringed upon – requiring the need for a constitution to check government and preserve liberty.
You say voluntary efforts and constitutional outreach theory/education should be mixed.
Sure, in some way, shape, or form, this mix can be used for something. However, as a political party, with political means, libertarians should only employ constitutional outreach theory/education because advocating voluntarism contradicts and negate the need for a constitution.
Well Jonathan,
I must say, this was a very well written thesis. Too bad you didn’t expound on your questions and give your view point for an answer to engage the reader to agree or disagree with you. I suppose you want to hear their ideas first. Going on that assumption let me give you my answers and see where it takes us.
Is it worth it?
Yes, maximizing freedom will allow everyone to live with a minimum of coercion (force) or deceit (fraud) being used between people (if not outright abolishment of them).
Should government exist?
Until 100% of the people are responsible for 100% of their actions 100% of the time – yes – government should exist. Please note, this does NOT mean that the people in government go unaccountable – they too must be held to the same standards as everyone else. The “rule of law” is not supposed to be picky; it is supposed to apply to everyone.
Would it even be possible?
Well now, this one is up for debate. I would say it is possible but how long it takes to get everyone on the same page is another story. In our current society I don’t see it happening any time soon. I definitely do not see it happening in my or your life time. That doesn’t mean we should begin the educational process to achieve it though.
Now with all that being said, I agree that the constitution might be a good place to start assuming you take it at its word and not its original usurper’s intent. Many things in the constitution have ambiguous meanings when taken at just face value. I don’t want to get into the theory about what the constitutional means vs. what you interpret it to mean vs. what I interpret it to mean vs. what the administrative supreme court of congress interprets it to mean.
Let us just say we take the current constitution, revamp it with definitions to mean what we want it to mean so that we remove the ambiguity. If we can agree on doing that then we can move forward – otherwise – we will need to hash out all the vagueness that exist here and now. I don’t think that was your intent in the article so I don’t want to go there.
Once the definitions are in place, yes, we can move forward with your idea of Libertarian Constitutionalism. Sounds like a solid basis to begin from. As you said, the “moral majority does not radicalism”. This isn’t because radicals are wrong, it is because the moral majority, as with most people, is comfortable with the here and now and do not want any changes that will upset the proverbial apple cart.
You yourself fall into this category at times, as do I, as does everyone else at some point. Otherwise we would not fight change of the status quo. It usually happens based on some form of “fear of the unknown”. When people are afraid they feel that they are being threatened and will fight against it. The definitions will remove the fear of change and people will be able to see and understand what it means; thus, removing the fear.
Education is a wonderful thing if properly instituted.
Your last question about whether or not Libertarianism is the right advocacy. Hmmm, I would have to say yes.
Although, if you take libertarianism to the ultimate conclusion; you would have a utopian anarchistic society without the need of a constitution or government. Again, I seriously doubt this will ever happen in our life time. As stated before, that does not mean we should not be moving in that direction now. Utopia is where we all want to be but if we never take a step towards it we will never get there.
If we did not promote Libertarianism we would end up with tyrannical governments everywhere. The only thing needed for evil to exist, is for good men to do nothing. So, yes, advocating Libertarianism is the right thing to do.
Yours in Liberty
jonathan you say
” as a political party, with political means, libertarians should only employ constitutional outreach theory/education because advocating voluntarism contradicts and negate the need for a constitution.”
that is part of your thesis not mine. it seems that while (the above statement) may hold a measure of truth(with respect to degree) it is not an absolute , revealed or necessary truth. voluntarism appeals to those (like myself) that are libertarian spirited people (in my case at least congenitally–which impacts on understanding contra-libertarian thought) , now in building a party for the masses it is true that what i (and like minded) represent is not currently mainstream. nonetheless i (and like minded) are a constituency (size–so far– indeterminate).
and you also say
” Can you clarify as to why your not sold? I don’t understand your reason above. How does it negate the fact the moral majority does not like radical?
You say:
“to focus as though constitutionalism is the end point sells liberty short.”
Well, I agree and disagree. If one were to put liberty in the context of a utopian society, then sure, a constitution would sell liberty short in that liberty is too much for the constitution to handle. At the same time, I disagree because if we concede to living in an imperfect world, posing the need for government, ” …
the not sold is answered (i hope successfully in the )above portion of this response. indeed a ” moral majority” is another population subset. your theory (again with respect to emphasis, not exclusivity) may be largely correct for that group. now there may be a need for government– or not– why concede in advance if the goal is to advance liberty?
jim k says
“Should government exist?
Until 100% of the people are responsible for 100% of their actions 100% of the time – yes – government should exist.”
to that i say maybe. after all isn’t government a terrible tool for tyrants to use for their power consolidation? wouldn’t the absence of coercive apparatuses be better for people who wish to be left alone? even (were there a point in history different than our own– technologically, developmentally, spiritually, in understandings of science or philosophy, in terms of material wealth, etc.) what double blind experiment has proven the need for government? i concede it may (but not sold that it is) be necessary.
minarchists, absolute absolute anarchists, minarchist with an anarchist streak (such as myself) in addition to constitutionalists ( in which
camp i also –to a degree– fit) all belong in the party if sufficient libertarian (purity) consistency is present to advance well beyond (or at least in the short term to mitigate the damage of and from the statist duopoly demopublicans generally recognized as two distinct parties democrat and republican) .
Lptbruce,
Since 100% of the people are NOT accepting 100% responsibility for their actions 100% of the time – what would you replace government with?
If you replace it with nothing – how will you carry out justice and maintain peace at the same time (i.e. no ensuing chaos within the society).
I would suggest that anything you replace government with is still government – just a different name. I would also suggest that if you advocate replacing it with nothing yet devise a way to maintain peace and justice at the same time, it is still government – just a different name. Albeit, these pieces may be smaller and work on different intricate levels that you may devise, but a rose by any other name will still smell as sweet.
Our forefathers new and understood this. That is why they supposedly created the constitution. Now, you yourself say you fit into the constitution camp in your response yet; you also say the constitution is not the answer – so which is it? Either it is or its not. Supposedly they recognized that tyranny would reign without a constitution and thus, created one to limit the powers of government and stop them from trampling upon our liberties.
However, you see where we are. Ask yourself, if all the laws of this country were in fact constitutionally bound, how is it that we have such a tyrannical government at this time? Shouldn’t the constitution have prevented that from happening? When asked what type of government the Constitutional Convention gave us, Ben Franklin answered straight out, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
That one saying alone should have warned everyone that the design of the constitution was flawed and that it would be up to the people to hold their government accountable. We have lost that lesson and have lost that republic.
Jonathan is simply pointing out that if we teach people and hold the government accountable to the constitution, which is something everyone can understand, rather then trying to point out the fine legalities of the situation, it would be easier to persuade people to our way of thinking. He of course is right in this idea. Since most people cannot grasp the simple concept of written law, it is much easier to start with a governing doctrine and build from there then it is to argue with points of something they have no concept about.
In doing so, we will garner many votes from both sides of the isle. The presentation of a logical argument touching emotional responses will always win the heart of any listener. That is what marketing is all about isn’t it? So if we market ourselves with more mainstream subjects instead of fringe subjects, he is saying that people won’t think we are such kooks any more.
Ask yourself, how many people have you talked to that would listen, understand and convert to libertarianism based on any of the arguments you presented to them thus far? Now that you have that answer, the next challenge is to reframe some of your arguments in a more mainstream view and try again. Then compare the converts of the two. Which one got you more people? That’s the one you should be using.
Yours in Liberty
Jimk,
So your standard for there being no government is 100% of the people are responsible for 100% of their actions 100% of the time…interesting. I like it.
Now, in terms of voluntarism and libertarianism, would you agree that libertarianism leads to voluntarism? If so, is it bad that as libertarians, we are advocating a society that eventually ends up being impossible to function?
I am glad that you agree that we ought to maintain a strict advocacy of libertarian constitutionalism to build the party.
Lptbruce,
You say:
“that is part of your thesis not mine. it seems that while (the above statement) may hold a measure of truth(with respect to degree) it is not an absolute , revealed or necessary truth. voluntarism appeals to those (like myself) that are libertarian spirited people (in my case at least congenitally–which impacts on understanding contra-libertarian thought) , now in building a party for the masses it is true that what i (and like minded) represent is not currently mainstream. nonetheless i (and like minded) are a constituency (size–so far– indeterminate).”
So, I guess nothing is absolute, I agree, however, I hope what your saying (because I still am not sure I know what your saying) voluntarism and libertarianism are different – meaning if one identifies oneself as a libertarian, then one will advocate libertarianism, not voluntarism.
Then you claim:
“the not sold is answered (i hope successfully in the )above portion of this response. indeed a ” moral majority” is another population subset. your theory (again with respect to emphasis, not exclusivity) may be largely correct for that group.”
I guess you can expand more on why your not sold. Additionally, I understand that my theory is correct for the moral majority, and that the moral majority is a different population from say, the moral minority, but I’m nots sure what you are saying after the fact when you say:
“now there may be a need for government– or not– why concede in advance if the goal is to advance liberty?”
My original point was to disagree with constitutionalism selling liberty short because at the point we concede to living in a world in which we don’t live in a society with 100% of the people taking 100% of the people taking 100% responsibility of their lives, society poses the need for government and liberty will have to be infringed upon – requiring the need for a constitution to check government and preserve liberty.
So I guess your saying – why try and expand liberty in the context of limiting it with acknowledging government needs to exist, but I contend that you can have the best of both worlds with a constitutional government; An enlightened and aware citizenry serves as a further check in having both worlds as well.
hey guys,
I guess this post is kind of a mix between discussing political theory and kind of the practical aspects of how to spread liberty or something. I guess constitutionalism is a good midpoint on the road to liberty. Some of us would stop at the constitution, and some of us would like to dismantle the state even more, but all of us here would like to go in that general direction, so I guess promoting limiting the government’s actions to the Constitution may work for right now to stem the quarreling between the different libertarian factions.
I think maybe what lptbruce is saying is that it may seem unprincipled to some anarchists to acknowledge the state in order to get more people to join the broader libertarian cause. The political theory behind anarchism and minarchism is slightly different too, so anarchists would have to adopt different theories for a while in order to get more people to join the cause, and that may seem like lying. There is a big difference between allowing for a state in your political theory and not having a state.
I guess this kind of goes to Jim’s question, where he asks:
“Until 100% of the people are responsible for 100% of their actions 100% of the time – yes – government should exist.”, and then you guy start discussing from there.
I think this is where there is a fundamental difference between anarchists and minarchists. I consider myself an anarcho capitalist, so I don’t really believe in a government. Like, I think the difference is that minarchists want to maximize liberty, and the state is seen as necessary for that. It is kind of a utilitarian argument. Like Jim brings up the point that people are not all good, that they often don’t follow moral laws and stuff, and may commit crimes.
But an anarchist would say that morality shouldn’t change because people don’t follow moral laws. Like, if you lived in a world where there was no crime, everyone followed the moral code properly, then aggression would be immoral. But when you have a world like ours, then certain acts of aggression are now seen as moral (the ones committed by the government). In other words, morality has changed because of some other people’s actions. In another example, suppose you have a person who lives in a vacuum with maybe 2 people, and one of them murders the other. We would probably agree that it would be moral for him to go and carry out justice upon the criminal. But in our world, people would say that you can’t have vigilante justice, because other people may go too far, and thus, this man would now be committing an immoral act in this world, even though the intent and actual action that he has done would not be different in the two worlds.
Anarcho capitalism is based on the moral statement that the initiation of force is immoral. This includes groups of people who are called the government. If someone says that we live in world where people don’t always follow moral laws, anarcho capitalists would just say that that doesn’t change the moral law. If people are committing crimes, then all that means is that people don’t follow moral laws, not that the moral law is wrong. Anarcho capitalism is not a way to get to some end goal, like peace or wealth. It is just a moral statement.
Anyway, just my opinion, no disrespect intended.
Later,
yahya
Yahya, check your email. Phone isn’t working.
Yahya,
Remember, all my arguments/concerns presuppose that government is necessary, but in any event, I agree with you.
I couldn’t have said it better when you say:
“…anarchist would say that morality shouldn’t change because people don’t follow moral laws. Like, if you lived in a world where there was no crime, everyone followed the moral code properly, then aggression would be immoral. But when you have a world like ours, then certain acts of aggression are now seen as moral (the ones committed by the government). In other words, morality has changed because of some other people’s actions. In another example, suppose you have a person who lives in a vacuum with maybe 2 people, and one of them murders the other. We would probably agree that it would be moral for him to go and carry out justice upon the criminal. But in our world, people would say that you can’t have vigilante justice, because other people may go too far, and thus, this man would now be committing an immoral act in this world, even though the intent and actual action that he has done would not be different in the two worlds.”
The only problem is we don’t live in a vacum to reveal morality shouldn’t change just because people don’t follow moral laws.
Well written comment. Would you agree that libertarianism leads to voluntarism? If so, is it bad that as libertarians, we are advocating a society that eventually ends up being impossible to function?
the impossible to function may not be true. what is true is thus far wealth generated by liberty has been (incorrectly) interpreted by some (entirely too many due to punditry, crocodile tears, wacky political theories like socialism, etc.) been seen as excessive, immoral, damaging to (flavor of the week) good order, moral character, social inequality;danger to the environment, a cause of global (cooling or) warming(or playing safe” anthropogenic – man made-climate change) etc. this type of nonsense needs a fix. with respect to yahya’s comments they seem to be on target when you isolate minarchism from anarchism, but some like me or minarchist with anarchist sympathy or predilection. i do not accept the 100% thesis of you or jim k. i do understand his argument that -the something else- will still be government. yahya (though) gives a valid counterexample with the vigilante.re libertarianism leads to voluntarism that could also be said as libertarians advocate banning the initiation of force as well as a banning fraud from human relations. that is in essence the definition of voluntary society.
Jonathan,
Yes, I guess Libertarianism would lead to voluntarism. It is the basic goal of all Libertarian philosophy. You already said in your thesis how Libertarians view voluntarism and I think that is quite accurate.
As for advocating a society that ends up being impossible to function…LOL…I would certainly disagree with that. I do not think it will not function. If we educate people and get all the people to follow the “voluntary rules” of no force or fraud then the society will function perfectly fine. I just don’t think this is going to happen in our life time. Too many people are too ignorant and greedy at this point to make it function anytime soon. Then again, does that mean we should never work toward it?
Not working towards it is similar to saying that you are poor and you can never become rich why bother trying. If that was the case, why don’t you just stay home and forget about going to school and getting an education to better your self in order to earn a higher income? College educates the masses on particular subjects, sciences, technologies etc. Every person then takes that educate to better themselves and their station in life.
Why not do the same in terms of Liberty and Freedom. Oh yeah, I forgot, if people actually learned that stuff and became responsible for themselves, we wouldn’t need a government – LOL – no wonder government never teaches that subject to people. Can we say they want to remain in control by purposely NOT teaching you such tings? And, if they are in “control” are you really free?
Which do you prefer to be – a free man – or – a slave?
YES, we should advocate liberty, voluntarism and freedom to everyone who wants to be free. Even to those who think they don’t want to be free since they don’t know what freedom really is yet. I bet when they find out they will want it. You, yourself, were happy to go along the government induced slavery train until you met me and starting learning the difference. Once you know the truth you cannot back unless you live in denial. Now that you know, are you seriously debating abdication of your principles or are you just asking these questions to stimulate people’s minds?
Hmm, “nothing is absolute”? I have to disagree with that. Truth is absolute. It always seems to come back to truth doesn’t it? LOL – so find out the truth here and apply it. You will have your answer. Truth will work in EVERY situation you bring up. If lptbruce does not see the truth of the matter, start getting examples from him where they differ and apply the truth to see what comes out at the other end. Once applied, the falsehood of any situation will be peeled away and you will only be left with reality.
Jonathan, Lptbruce, Yayah,
Anarchists, by definition, recognize the state. Otherwise, they would not want to get rid of it. Anarchism will work if everyone follows the “moral code” of no initiation of force or fraud against someone. Even in Yayah’s example, assuming the vacuum and everyone following the moral code as described, the murder he talks about would NOT happen and the vigilantism he mentions would not occur. If it did, then you do not have a true anarchistic society even in the vacuum presented.
The moment you institute any laws, you have government. I don’t care if it is with two people or two quadrillion people. If there is a law, that implies an enforcement arm. To have an enforcement arm means that there is someone else in charge and therefore someone in that society is not 100% free. This of course takes it to the extreme. However, like I said in a previous post, truth is absolute. Apply it and see what comes out the other end.
For Yayah’s definition of anarcho capitalism to be reached you must take Libertarianism to the extreme. It is the ultimate end result of a full society where 100% of the people are 100% responsible for 100% of their actions 100% of the time.
There are anarcho capitalists in our society. Yayah identifies himself as one. I myself am probably more of an anarchist but the realization that such a society cannot peacefully exist, at this time, turns me to Libertarianism in order to work toward such a society. No anarchist wants a state around to tell them what to do, but like I said before, without 100% of the society follow the same moral code (the non-initiation of force or fraud) this is not going to happen – no matter how big or small the group is.
LOL – Yayah made the comment about the actions committed by the government as moral – LOL – are we back to that argument again – LOL. He also made counterintuitive arguments against himself when he says that “morality has changed because of peoples actions” and further on said that “doesn’t change the moral law. If people are committing crimes, then all that means is that people don’t follow moral laws” – LOL
I happen to agree with him on the latter. The moral code, as with all truths, did not change. It never changed; we just simply accept the bad behavior instead of doing anything about it. As for the government, they are not following the moral code and we the people are not doing anything about it to hold them accountable.
If you had an unruly kid who did not follow the moral code what do you do? Do you spank that kid or do you let him get away with it? There is too much political correctness going on in our society. Now-a-days, if you spank a kid you get to go to jail or loose your kid is the government gets called in. People have been trained that government is the answer. To me, I say hogwash. If the kid doesn’t follow the moral code you should spank him. Like wise, if our government doesn’t follow the moral code we should give them a spanking also.
I hope you remember to spank them hard come Election Day.
Vote Libertarian.
Yours in Liberty
Jimk,
As a side bar,
I don’t think truth is absolute, nor do I believe anything is absolute. I think everything is subject to interpretation. If lptbruce, or you, or anyone, does not see the truth of the matter, or ya’ll’s recognition of what the truth differs, then it validates the subjective nature the perception of truth holds. If I believe God exists, and you don’t, there exists a fundamental difference in what we each believe the truth is – voiding the consistency absolution needs to hold water.
There may be a universal truth out there, but I can assure you or anyone eles has not found it. For someone to maintain he or she knows what universal truth is, undermines the individuality inherent in the human race. If the human race ever claimed discovering a universal truth, there wouldn’t be a mechanism to ever check its universality.
Truth is defined as a fact that has been verified. Do you know every fact surrounding freedom and morality? Have you been able to verify all these facts? Are the concepts of freedom and morality factual, or just theories humanly created to live better lives? A lot of us make the mistake in even claiming science to be truth when its not. All science does is produce methods to theorize about the world we live in; even gravity is just a scientific principle, not truth.
You claim truth will work in every situation one brings it up in. In order to identify or reveal the truth in every situation, one will have to know and verify the truth surrounding every situation before even recognizing there is a truth to be discovered. I feel facts are infinite, and the mechanisms to check such facts to be indeterminate.
Even if by some miracle every person on this planet was surveyed, and it was discovered everyone believed it to be true a God exists, there would still be no means of verifying it. There is no scientific method for truth – it is just a means of falsifying what one would consider the truth to be.
Lptbruce,
You claim:
“libertarians advocate banning the initiation of force as well as a banning fraud from human relations. that is in essence the definition of voluntary society.” The problems I have with this are two-fold:
One, I am not sure a libertarian would ever “ban” something, but simply just protect people from force or fraud through law.
Two, yes, the definition of a voluntary society is a philosophy that opposes anything unjustifiably invasive and coercive, however, the goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the State by a voluntary order. As such, voluntaryism differs from libertarianism (in it’s relevant context) in that libertarianism aims to keep an established State/government.
I’m glad you appreciated Yahya’s counter example of vigilantism, however, vigilantism is not a replacement for government. A Vigilante is a person who violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminal. So, to claim vigilantism is an adequate replacement of government is paradoxical because there are no laws to be broken in a world without government. Further, there is no mechanism of consent in a vigilate society.
Jimk, damn, my latest comment didn’t incorporate your latest comment. I guess we were writing at the same time lol. But, for the record, my latest comment above is in response to your second to latest comment.
On your latest, well said. I totally agree with everything you said.
Lptbruce, Yahya,
I would argue a good replacement of government to be technology. I am writing an article about it now lol – Coming shorty!
Jonathan,
Your analogy to God is incorrect. While I do not believe in God, even if you might, that does NOT negate the truth that he exists. The truth of all statements lies in the falsehood of that statement. Therefore, since one cannot prove that God does NOT exist, it is presumed to be until it is proven otherwise. There is NO subjectivity to truth. Truth is, if you interpret it differently then you are simply manipulating the truth for your benefit and rationalizations. Like Yayah said, the moral code doesn’t change, people just don’t follow it. The truth doesn’t change, you just don’t follow it.
If you are worried about the checking of the universality of it all, well, just put it to a test and see what comes out. If it holds up to all tests, then it is probably the truth. If you have to manipulate it to get what you want, then it is not the truth but some bastardization of it. I guess if you want to chalk it up to theory – that’s fine – I won’t argue that point. I can see where you might take things like liberty and freedom as theory.
I would argue though that if someone else forces you to do something against your will, or uses fraud to get you to do something – that is NOT freedom. By definition force is not free – even you cannot argue that with any consistency. When taking the truths behind things, even your arguments, apply them to the situation and see what happens – like you said in an earlier post somewhere, come up with refutable evidence and see how your arguments stand up.
LOL – it is funny how you would apply my “theory” to your case and yet try to destroy it for mine – LOL – what ever happen to being consistent – LOL? Forget the miracles surrounding God, simply logic dictates that since you cannot disprove it then it is presumed to be true. I already stated that the truth of any statement lies within the falsehood of that statement. Your argument simply makes my point more clear as you verbalize it via scientific methods to remove subjugation
Jimk,
Your right, the truth of all statements lies in the falsehood of that statement, but I am arguing on behalf of those that are faith based who disregard something like the scientific method. If I believe the Earth is flat, and you believe the earth is round, we see the truth differently regardless of science and religious impacts. I know this doesn’t make sense when I defined truth as facts that can be verified, however, the definition does not include a mechanism for verifying the facts, as well as what constitutes what a fact is. You always said, make the truth your own, which I would interpret also to mean, make the facts your own. At the end of the day, and after all the science and faith is expanded upon, people make the truth their own – consequently making truth subjective. Just look at the intelligent design vs. evolution debate.
Further, checking universality is not something you can simply put to the test. I argue there are no mechanism to do so. Do you know any? One that can account for the something being upheld 100% of the time in 100% of circumstances? Do you know 100% of the circumstances that can arise?
You say:
“I would argue though that if someone else forces you to do something against your will, or uses fraud to get you to do something – that is NOT freedom. By definition force is not free – even you cannot argue that with any consistency.”
Freedom is a good thing. What makes this statement true?
Force is a bad thing. What makes this statement true?
Answer these to start with.
I don’t get what theory I applied. Which one?
I am not aiming at refuting what your argument – just making discussion – so no worries.
I just believe we can never know real truth, just a humanly creative perception of what truth is.
hey guys,
Jonathan:
“Would you agree that libertarianism leads to voluntarism? If so, is it bad that as libertarians, we are advocating a society that eventually ends up being impossible to function?”
Well, i guess it would lead to voluntarism. By the second part of the question, I am assuming that you are saying that a voluntary society, like anarchism, would not function in that it would have high levels of crime, chaos, etc. I guess I would disagree with you that an anarchist society would function that badly, but we can take your statement to be true. Like i said in the earlier post, the principle that one may not initiate force or fraud is simply a moral statement. If people don’t follow that, and mechanisms cannot be found within the non aggression principle to control crime, then I guess we’ll have to accept that. It just means that people act immorally.
Jim:
“Anarchists, by definition, recognize the state. Otherwise, they would not want to get rid of it.”
Yes, anarchists do recognize that there is this thing called the state which claims to follow a different moral law than the rest of us. But anarchists do not recognize the state in terms of that we don’t believe it is a legitimate institution. Sorry if there was some confusion or something on that.
“Anarchism will work if everyone follows the “moral code” of no initiation of force or fraud against someone. Even in Yayah’s example, assuming the vacuum and everyone following the moral code as described, the murder he talks about would NOT happen and the vigilantism he mentions would not occur. If it did, then you do not have a true anarchistic society even in the vacuum presented.”
&
“The moment you institute any laws, you have government. I don’t care if it is with two people or two quadrillion people. If there is a law, that implies an enforcement arm. To have an enforcement arm means that there is someone else in charge and therefore someone in that society is not 100% free.”
I agree. Anarcho capitalism isn’t about being 100% free. Lots of things limit our freedom. The laws of physics limit our freedom. And moral laws limit our freedom. I don’t have the freedom to enroach upon your property, for example. I think anarchism is about morality, that it isn’t moral to initiate force. Also, you say that the moment you have any laws, you have government. I guess I would agree with that. I’m just saying that there isn’t a difference between the moral law between government and ordinary people. In that case, we could all be called the government. I am a government, and you are too..lol.
You also mention that anarchism would only work if everyone follows the moral code. I guess I would agree. I think any society would only work if people all followed the moral code. Otherwise, you would have varying levels of social discord, maybe more in some societies, maybe less in others. But in my opinion, because anarchism ‘doesn’t work’ doesn’t mean its moral statement isn’t correct.
“He also made counterintuitive arguments against himself when he says that “morality has changed because of peoples actions” and further on said that “doesn’t change the moral law. If people are committing crimes, then all that means is that people don’t follow moral laws” – LOL”
Actually, i wasn’t saying that morality has changed because of people’s actions. I was really sleepy when i wrote the last comment, so maybe i didn’t explain it well. I was saying that it seems to me that under your system, where you implement a government because people don’t follow the moral codes, that that would be your logical conclusion. I don’t accept that conclusion. I only accept the second part of what you quoted.
“I hope you remember to spank them hard come Election Day.”
Very nice. You should make that into a bumper sticker…lol
later,
yahya
Jonathan,
Well, taking it to be that as you say – I guess one plus one really isn’t two then is it. Maybe two isn’t really two maybe “two” is really “fubiblie” but since you don’t know what the meaning of “fubiblie” is there is no way to prove it right or wrong. So in that context what you say would be correct. However words have meaning. If we come to some definition of the words that are acceptable we have what is called communication. With communication we can develop ideas and make them understood between people. When they are understood we can come to a consensus. When that consensus is reached and facts are derived, truths will be known.
No, I do not know every situation that would arise. However, if what is stated as truth works in every known situation, then it remains true until a situation arises where it is not truth. Thus, maintaining the supposition that the truth of all statements lie within the falsehoods of those statements. Since you already agree with that I guess there is no argument there.
You say you argue about things like flat or round. Again, if we come to an understanding of the definitions of flat or round and then see the earth, we can determine it is either flat or round. That truth would then be known unless you refute the definitions and try to bend such truth to be something else. I wont belabor the bending here, I am sure you get the idea of what I mean.
When I say make the truth your own, I did not want you to interpret it differently. What I meant was find out the truth of the situation, recognize it for what it is, thus making it your own. In other words, find out, live the truth, make it your own and no one can change it because the truth is the truth. There is no way for anyone to change the truth in any argument because the truth cannot be refuted. It just is. For someone to say otherwise means they are living in denial in some fashion or another.
If you mean by humanly created truth because of what we recognize, I could agree with that. After all, language is man made. We do not have any other way to see things except as humans, so our perceptions will always be humanly created. It is the understanding which brings about enlightenment of truth. Will anyone ever know ALL truths? Probably not, but I would be willing to bet he would be as close to God as humanly possible if he did – LOL.
For your questions about force being bad or freedom being good and whether or not those are true, one would have to determine what the definition of good is and see if freedom fits inside that definition. The same goes for bad. If they fit, then they are true, if they don’t, then they are not.
So, if we take the definition of bad to be say, something having a wicked or evil character, morally reprehensible. And we take the definition of force to be say, physical coercion or violence. Then we need to question, is physical coercion morally reprehensible? If the answer is yes then the statement is true, if the answer is no, then the statement is false.
I do not wish to get into the definitions of morality here with you either. If you want to argue for arguing sake we can continue to go back and forth on definitions. I don’t think that is necessary, you are a smart individual, as such; again, I am sure you see the point.
The theory – when you said to bring up facts and see how yours stand up against mine (in a different posting) – that is the same thing as apply the truth in all situations and see if it works.
I am glad for your discussion. Stimulating conversation that gets one to think is not often present. This was a good article that, if read and applied, will get people to think. I liked it. It was well written and well thought out. It has the advantage of taking some of the stuff we talked about in other postings and applying them here to see what happens and if the “truth” stands up or not – pun intended – LOL.
Yahya,
Dang buddy, I got your named spelled wrong in the last remarks – LOL – sorry, I didn’t do it on purpose.
I am glad you are here making comments. It does my heart good to see someone as young as Jonathan actually get “it” and understand it all. Now if only we can wake him up too. LOL
Jimk,
I be on that 5 hour energy dawg – you gots no idea how awake I be. lol