Messages

1

The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will / Re: Help me understand a Voluntarist society

« on: November 04, 2016, 06:21:21 PM »

I have long considered myself a minimalist libertarian. I believed that government was necessary, however only for enforcement of an infringement of somebody else's rights. In other words, I have trouble understanding how the world could run without some laws and law enforcement that establish punishments for somebody who infringes on my rights. I would love to believe that we could have a society without government, but every time somebody brings up this argument I have never heard the argument go past the whole, "The market will demand protection, so somebody will step up to fill that void" argument. I hear it come up quite a bit when somebody tries to explain anarchism, but the other person never drills into that statement with, in my view, the right questions. Often they drill into with questions that don't make any sense and are easily explained away. One question that I feel is not asked is...

Let's say somebody is raped, and hires somebody on the market to look into the matter. What gives the free market vigilante the right to infringe on the rapists rights? Many times cases of rape are actually just cases where two people both drank too much and somebody regrets or doesn't remember what happened due to being intoxicated. I have actually seen this scenario play out many times. Maybe the defendant is not really a rapist, but the person who was hired isn't paid by the defendant so they will not want to listen to them. What if the rapist really is a rapist, but pays the vigilante even more money to leave him alone? It is a free market society after-all, and the highest bidder wins. This is where I see the problem. I feel like there has to be some agreed upon system in place to handle situations like this. In a utopia nobody would ever get raped, but I don't believe in man-kind that much.

Can somebody help me with this question? I would love to be able to back up a complete voluntary society argument, but until I believe in it 100% I will not be able to. In my view, we should not advocate for something until we have at least most of the answers. This is why I support Gary Johnson. I believe getting America away from this oppression will take many years, and must be done slowly. It can't be done in one term of a presidency. Maybe 2, but more likely 5-6 in my view. I believe in baby steps, but I don't believe in supporting Donald Trump just because he is not "establishment". It would be one step in the right direction to get people away from the establishment, but six steps in the wrong direction. If we choose somebody who could potentially make things worse it will only hurt the cause. We all know if a Trump presidency fails that the citizens will elect a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton next election cycle (a huge step in the wrong direction). I hope I don't get bashed over this as I truly am just trying to make sense of things here. I am on your side! I promise!

I would say the flaw in trying to defend a "voluntaryist" society is that there is no one model an anarcho-collective society would fit.
I find a common "flaw" among anarchists I meet is the immediate reversal of the core belief due to self interest.
My throw away definition for anarchy is "leave me alone and i leave you alone".
The first thing I see so many self declared anarchists get hung up on is "what about them?".
To which I can only reply, "what about them?".
They only become my "problem" or "issue" after they have violated the first premise, "leave me alone".
Until that point, what they are doing is not only none of my concern but I violate my own principles if I make what they're doing my business.(doubly so if I need to go out of my way to find out what they are doing so I can be bothered by it)

Anarchists shouldn't be wasting time, effort, and moral ground trying to influence "them" to all agree with us. Let me tell you, it is never going to happen.  If they want lords and laws and governments I have no leg to stand on if I feel the need to alter their own voluntary interactions. My beliefs, which allow me to freely interact with my fellow man, also allow them to freely interact with their fellow men.

A voluntaryist society would reflect the common value judgements of the members which made it up.

The only way I feel you can honestly answer your question is to become a part of a voluntaryist society and then use the methods which your society arrives at as one example of how it could resolve the questions you ponder.