Okay, so voluntaryism has a strong association with anarchocapitalism/free market anarchism, being most are both. But it’s principles are not entirely clashing with some ideas of left anarchists.One can gather in a egalitarian effort without coercion.
I’ve heard there are left voluntaryists. Are there, and whom?
Honestly, if there was any ideology which could unite anyone who favors statelessness, it would be voluntaryism. I can’t imagine how a consistent anarchist of any persuasion can disagree with voluntaryism. If anarchists were united by this idea, once a state of anarchy occurs, different ideas would be tested. Without governments, any voluntary effort would be tested out pretty quickly. We must remember that governments can only force a bad idea to continue, a non coercive group of people would abandon what doesn’t benefit them.
I’ve met one communist voluntaryist. It was on a forum, he was debating with some conservatives. He seemed kind of friendly though, usually from my experience social anarchists go bat shit insane whenever they debate and attack you. Out of curiosity I PMed him and asked him what he thought of Market anarchism. To my surprise he said he considered me a comrade, and that all forms of anarchism can co-exist, he would just prefer to live in a communist society but wouldn’t force others to join.
Voluntarism is incompatible with private property. If Rothbard owns all the water then he can sell it to Chomsky for $1,000 a glass and exploit him because Chomsky has to drink water.
Voluntarism is also incompatible with self ownership because of Rothbard is the only surgeon around and Chomsky needs emergency surgery, Rothbard can make Chomsky his slave because Chomsky has to get the operation.
Voluntarism is also incompatible with any ideology because the leftists who want to attack Rothbards are forcing him to help Chomsky involuntarily.
Rather, voluntarism arises when there is material abundance and enough competition to keep prices down. But I bet if prices got down so low that I could eat for a lifetime by selling rights to my posthumous kidney, the hard left would still complain about it.
The guy above me is right. Many of them are crazy and incredibly violent. I have never heard them advocate seasteads or peaceful secession. Its always been about shooting people who use currency and dragging their bodies through the street during the glorious anti authoritarian revolution. It makes me glad that the mises institute and forums are so professional and civil.
Voluntarism is incompatible with private property. If Rothbard owns all the water then he can sell it to Chomsky for $1,000 a glass and exploit him because Chomsky has to drink water.
I’ve seen you say this before, but I must not know the differences enough in voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism to understand. How is voluntaryism incompatible with private property? How would the scenario above differ if it was an anarcho-capitalist society instead of a voluntarist one?
My general point is that voluntarism is chimera. You can’t have a voluntarist resolution to the Water scenario. Someone either agrees to become enslaved under extreme physical duress, or attacks the water man.
Any serious academic voluntarist probably uses voluntary to mean within a certain set of rights, but the actual layman meaning of voluntary doesn’t mean that.
Voluntaryism is necessary, but not sufficient part for anarchism. I am ok with people calling themselves “voluntaryists”, because I assume, that most of them wouldn’t take it into extreme. It’s a handy word and has less garbage than “libertarian” or “anarchist”
“If Rothbard owns all the water then he can sell it to Chomsky for $1,000 a glass and exploit him because Chomsky has to drink water.”
“Owns all the water”? Monopoly? No, that ain’t happening via the free market.
“Rothbard is the only surgeon around and Chomsky needs emergency surgery, Rothbard can make Chomsky his slave because Chomsky has to get the operation.”
No, A isn’t making B do anything. B has a choice. There is no threat or gun leveled at his head coercing him. If B chooses to do whatever it takes (voluntary exchange) with A to get a service he wants, then he isn’t a slave at all.
Either I’m missing something or your earlier points were nonsensical. I dunno, maybe defining your terms would help.
You view voluntarism as whenever people act within their libertarian rights. The point leftists make is that the agreement is made under extreme duress, and is therefore not “voluntary” in the normal sense of the word.
Honestly, if there was any ideology which could unite anyone who favors statelessness, it would be voluntaryism. I can’t imagine how a consistent anarchist of any persuasion can disagree with voluntaryism. If anarchists were united by this idea, once a state of anarchy occurs, different ideas would be tested. Without governments, any voluntary effort would be tested out pretty quickly. We must remember that governments can only force a bad idea to continue, a non coercive group of people would abandon what doesn’t benefit them.
Once the state of anarchy occurs?
Voluntaryism is a specific approach to achieving said state, obviously an anarchist could disagree with the usefulness of a non-political approach. Its not like leftists, anarchists, or left-anarchists must be anti-violence, particularly when it could be utilised to meet their desired ends. Being leftist entails that the ends sought are more than just statelessness it seems like they’d be less inclined to allow different ideas to compete.
I’ve always been surprised that communist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists haven’t worked together more. Since many people (especially progressives) are so confused/misled/brainwashed when it comes to economics, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for all anarchists to work together defending their anti-state stances to the masses, and then the debate on economics could come afterwards?
I’ve always been surprised that communist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists haven’t worked together more. Since many people (especially progressives) are so confused/misled/brainwashed when it comes to economics, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for all anarchists to work together defending their anti-state stances to the masses, and then the debate on economics could come afterwards?
I think the economic and underlying social and political philosophical disagreements are far more important than any agreement on the necessity of the state and shouldn’t be brushed aside.
proceeding from the will or from one’s own choice or consent–> Libertarian
unconstrained by interference :self-determining → Leftist, because the natural condition of man interferes
: done by design or intention :intentional <voluntary manslaughter> → Libertarian
: of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary behavior> → Libertarian : having power of free choice → Depends what you mean by free… Man is not free from the human condition
provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization> → Just a bad definition…
acting or done of one’s own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation → Dunno what valuable consideration means.
The whole point is that the difference between holding a gun to someone’s head and denying them some life-essential service the same thing in the practical sense. The libertarian distinction is a moral one.