Why I'm a Voluntaryist, Part I

I've been looking forward to this post for a while. I've named it "Part I," but I don't in reality know if there will be other parts. I would rather do it this way though, instead of covertly editing my post later on.

I am going to number each of my points to make them slightly more digestable, but first, an explanation of Voluntaryism:

First of all, anything that I will be writing is explained better tenfold by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.com. Second, if you'd like to get a head start, here is the Wikipedia entry for Voluntaryism.

Voluntaryism is an ideological viewpoint that essentially rejects all coercive force. Anything that is not achieved by voluntary means is most definitely NOT justified by the end. Contrary to mainstream ideologies, Voluntaryism is deeply rooted in human nature, morality, and objectivity. It is synonymous with little-l libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, though both terms have been corrupted by misuse. Voluntaryism necessarily denies the justifications for the state, otherwise known as the government.

That should be good for now - onward!


1. A Voluntaryist system is tolerant of all ideologies, so long as they don't involve coercion.

I feel that one of the simplest ways to explain my position is by saying this: I know what's good for me, I don't know what's good for you. Thus it's important to have the freedom and capacity to pursue curiosity, and a society that rewards responsibility, ambition and cooperation.

If you are a socialist or a communist, you should rejoice if you find yourself in such a society. Feel free to set up your voluntary community of individuals and get your whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing going on. But don't think about trying to use force to achieve your goals - because not only is it a crime, but it disproves the validity of your ideology for the millionth time and your own morality as a proponent. Fortunately, the rest of the voluntaryist society will be waiting, with ample opportunity for you to make a good living.

2. There's nothing that governments can do that private industry can't do better, except for the things that shouldn't be done in the first place.

This is not only one of the most important arguments for voluntaryism, but it is also one of the most loaded. It is especially significant because without the state, there is no central banking (and inevitably fiat currency), and without central banking, expensive, devastating, exploitative, opportunistic military campaigns are impossible. Of course, even if such excursions could be funded without government and central banking, private defense companies and the like wouldn't engage in them because of a necessary transparency that they possess and the government (especially the CIA) does not. Even if that weren't the case, it is still much more costly to attempt to steal resources from the developing world than it is to employ people and trade instead, if you can't print your own money.

3. People are required to act responsibly, governments aren't.

If the FDA aaaaaccidentally allows some pain medicine contaminated with HIV circulate among the general populace, what happens? A slap on the wrist, some evasive posturing from official spokespersons, a rotation of leadership? Say Hope Steffie calls the police for help one night and is forcibly strip-searched by six or more cops, all the while pleading for them to stop? Nearly two-hundred people have died from taser use across the United States, and yet cops still go straight for the taser if they have trouble removing a student who asked 'the wrong question' from an auditorium. Thousands of atrocities are committed in senseless wars by people following orders or simply by acting on the dehumanized new shell that military training has equipped them with. Government doesn't have accountability. It's not set up to. Every time something goes wrong, if anything is done, some figurehead is swapped out for a different sociopath, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.

4. Monopolies of force are inherently abusive.

Some argue that power corrupts, I argue that the power structure is already corrupt, and the evils that emerge are simply implicit in its nature. There is no reasonable justification of a monopoly of power like the state and it's forces. If people are mostly bad, a state cannot exist, because it would be populated with all of said bad people who will use this unrivaled power to their own selfish ends. Of course, if people are mostly good, a state simply does not need to exist. Competition is a very powerful tool of balance in performance and accountability, and voluntary association ensures the best quality product at the best possible price.


5. The ideology is founded on morality and empirical evidence of human nature.

For this one, Stefan Molyneux does the best work by far of explaining. The morality part is pretty obvious. Violence and theft are immoral. These are counter-productive to society and damaging to individuals, so obviously it is incorrect, and immoral to create a giant governing body that's existence is the utter reverse of these accepted moral truths. The human nature part is evident to me, but a little more tricky, perhaps.

Mainstream ideologies do not even address morality, they just skim the surface of trite bills and "hot button" topics like abortion. So, in order to illustrate my point, I'll compare two radical ideologies.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the estranged marxist cousin of anarcho-capitalism or Voluntaryism. Both are "radical" "utopian" ideologies. Neither recognize the supposed superiority, and thus justification, of the state, but the two ideology necessitate very different views of human nature. Both seek to deconstruct the state as a first phase. However, anarcho-capitalism takes what is already evidenced by human nature (self-interest), general good nature, and structures society in a way that these can be manifested positively. Anarcho-syndicalism necessitates an additional phase in not only seeking to alter the structure of society, but also seeking to alter human nature. The way I think about it is that anarcho-capitalism takes reality and thinks of the best way to modify it, while anarcho-capitalism takes a fantasy and thinks of a way to make it reality.

Self-interest often gets a bad rap because of the power-disparities we have created for ourselves through government. In and of itself it is a neutral human-quality, or rather it can be either good or bad. The key is not legitimizing a system where self-interest can be unapologetically abused. When you give someone power, they use it to their advantage. Duh. If anyone thinks that business can be truly exploitative without a little mutual backscratching with the government, you have some reading to do. If you think business is exploitative simply because of the presence of a hierarchy, you have been misled by Marxist rhetoric.

6. It's practical

The practical arguments for voluntaryism have been around for a long time. I'm not going to address them all here because they have been explained many times by far more eloquent authors, even entering mainstream discourse from time to time, but are never heeded. Historically, the closer a society comes to the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, the realm of corporatism, statism, socialism, the more blatant and abhorrent the abuse of power. One needs only look at the most horrific events and despotic regimes of the past century. Not only are socialist and government approaches immoral, but they are terribly impractical. They don't work. In fact, they systematically make the situation worse. For example, right now we are trying to combat problems created by irresponsible lending and spending with irresponsible lending and spending. In trying to alleviate poverty the good ol' government way (throwing money at something), we've not only created disincentives to work, but we've increased debt for future generations by stealing from current ones. In the developing world, this kind of aid can actually create a kind of stagnation in which any local farmers cannot ever hope to compete with intermittently appearing free food.

7. The nit-picky details that people always get hung up on are virtually irrelevant

Since becoming a voluntaryist, I'm continually baffled by the unending and often creative questions that are posed to me as an indication that my ideology might not work. This is, of course, a very healthy practice, and I wish it were afforded for many psuedo-intellectual exercises that it is not. The part that baffles me is that such a violent, half-baked, self-contradictory ideology like Marxism is so socially acceptable and afforded so much benefit-of-the-doubt. Of course, I get it, having embraced moronic ideologies of my own in the past, notably neo-conservatism.

The thing is, though, at the end of the day, what is there to lose? Why be apprehensive to accept the ideology? Combine all of the random events that could happen - the tiny percentage of psychopaths, spontaneous deaths, complications involving road construction with private property, anything you can think of. Now put that on a scale beside the unbelievably violent atrocities you can barely stand to think of resulting from wars, oft-overlooked economic policies resulting in destruction of wealth and savings, sanctions preventing alleviation of sickness and hunger, institutionalized hate and persecution, endless police brutality, political and judicial corruption, incredibly counter-productive prisons and prisoners of victimless crimes such as walking across an imaginary line (Mexican immigrants). Don't forget the environment as well - I mean, they test A-bombs in the oceans for Christ's sake. The latter is going to be pinned to the ground on the scale 'o death 'n destruction. By a long shot. The voluntaryist society may be a little more spontaneous, but a system that rewards innovative thought, dynamic evolution and cooperation creates a better life for everyone. Societies that don't institutionalize violence and teach that it's right when you're wearing a blue costume or work in a white building will tend not to propagate more violence.

For the self-professed socialists, If you're so adamant about socialism, how can you afford a computer? I'm living the legal extent of my ideology, and I'm helping people too. Given the countless failures (and I am very generous to use that term) of socialist theory, how can you in good conscience even argue for it? The reign of Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao...all those assholes! How many more people have to die before you give it up, seriously?! And you still have the nerve to say that I'm not compassionate. Puke.

If you really hate corporations, the only way to get them on a leash is to cut off their government buddy-system. If you really want a fair life for all human beings, stop letting the government toy with their futures. Advocate programs that emphasize success, not lowest-common denominators. Be charitable, don't force others to be. because at the end of the day, any given person in the government doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing. And they sure as hell don't care about you.