Showing posts with label voluntaryism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voluntaryism. Show all posts

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Anarchist School Questionnaire Results

The following image was designed in 2013.

It shows the sixteen possible results of a questionnaire that I designed,
which asks the user several questions,
and suggests the anarchist school or tendency
with which the user likely aligns, based on their responses.




Sunday, April 20, 2014

John Locke, Roderick Long, and Voluntary Taxation

Written on October 6th, 2012
as an e-mail to Panarchist John Zube



   The following was written in regard to Roderick Long's criticism of John Locke's justification for the Leviathan as an endorsement of monopoly government.

   Long uses a three-person desert island scenario to show that it is unfair for one person to wield the ability to always resolve the disputes of others, because that one person might be given too much leeway to resolve potential disputes which concern him in his own favor.

   This leads me to wonder whether voluntary governance can only occur if individuals are required to submit disputes which they cannot resolve among themselves to some - although not necessarily (and preferably not) always the same - neutral, fair, independent, and uninterested arbiter.

   I think it is choice - minimally restrained; restrained to selection from among the existing set of alternatives - that makes government voluntary, more than it is freedom to self-govern which does so.

   This is because an ungoverned person is free to intervene in disputes which do not involve him without others asking, and free to act in a way that affects others without their knowledge and / or consent (anarchy = tyranny / Statism; panarchy is neither anarchist nor Statist).

   This is the argument I make to defend the notion that my taxation plan is truly voluntary, because to create perfect competition requires that persons become insured against harm to personal and property harm, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that most public goods provision would be linked to - and resemble (as in the Agorist formulation) - insurance.


   My understanding of Konkin's and / or Robert Murphy's views on the topic is that self-governance should not be prohibited, but that society would boycott uninsured / ungoverned individuals due to the risks involved.




For more entries on justice, crime, and punishment, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Criticism of the Secret Ballot Voting System

Written on December 8th, 2011
Edited in April 2014



   Any candidate for public office whose campaign does not emphasize the abolition of the secret-ballot voting system - whether Democrat, Republican, or independent - favors a secret, private government; one which rests on power which is maintained through aggressive, violent force and the threat thereof, rather than on consent, voluntary association, and duly-delegated decision-making authority.

   Secret ballots make for secret government; government which is - by force and power disguised as "law" - unaccountable and irresponsible to the people of which it claims exclusive dominion.

   Irresponsible, exclusive dominion is indistinguishable from the right of private property; these politicians literally own us. Why should we elect a politician who does not make it an issue that he will only use his violence-defended power but once, in order to release us from his ownership?

   Show me the document that proves you ever authorized one of your elected representatives to make decisions on your behalf. You can't do it because the secret-ballot system makes this impossible and "illegal".

   "All votes shall be by secret ballot." - Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, Article III, Section 3.

   Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.




[The remainder of this entry is a response to someone's comment that "The secret ballot protects my right and yours to vote for whom we choose without intimidation or force. Abolishing the secret ballot would be abolishing the most crucial element of a democratic republic. It's an idiotic idea."]:


   It’s fine when people agree to use the secret ballot, like when they freely join labor unions, and vote on issues in them. But we’re talking about the government here. Take the State of Wisconsin for example.

   The land of Wisconsin was conquered (stolen) and secured through force. Nobody ever unanimously consented to be governed and protected by the Wisconsin government – especially the people who had the right to the land – and now people have no choice as to who protects them.

   Governments have a monopoly on the provision of security, and a “monopoly of legitimate violence” (which Obama has supported). We are forced to pay them taxes, which gives them the power (but not the authority, by which I mean authorization) to defend us against real enemies, as well as any enemies they feel it necessary to invent.

   But even if any group of people had ever unanimously consented to be controlled by a government which operates under the secret ballot, those people’s consent would not be binding upon we individuals today. We are absolutely sovereign to control our own destinies, and our ancestors cannot compel us into supporting a system which we wish to have no part in.

   Being that we must consent to be controlled by the government which claims the exclusive, monopolistic right to protect us within the territories over which they exercise jurisdiction, the secret ballot only entrenches the government’s power to do things that we do not wish them to do, including to hide the results of the elections from us, or at least from the majority of us, and only show those results to unaccountable bureaucrats.

   The secret ballot does not protect us against intimidation and force; the secret ballot is the basis of government intimidation and force. We are not free to resist the government, and that is why all voting is done under duress. We are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and we are never free to choose that nobody control us.

   If any one of our politicians were asked to produce a list of the group of people who delegated their authority to him, he would legally not be able to do it. Our politicians can also not produce written evidence that they ever swore an oath to support our government’s founding document.

   They are not accountable to the people, they are not accountable to a piece of paper, they are accountable to nobody but themselves. Clearly the secret ballot is the problem. Whether and how an open ballot system might be the solution remains to be seen.

   I say it’s worth a shot.




For more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-voting-is-not-necessarily-evil.html

For more entries on government secrecy and N.S.A. surveillance, please visit:

Questions About Ayn Rand

Written on September 28th, 2011



   Rand criticized altruism as the precept that one should give up his life and welfare for others while demanding that others do the same.

   She said, “It’s fine to help other people if you want to” “when and if those others mean something to you selfishly”, and she did not consider reciprocating gifts to others – even those whom one loves – as a moral duty.

   In light of these comments, it appears that what Rand most abhorred was not the act of giving to others so much as the promotion of the idea that one should feel obligated to give to others.

   She also characterized reciprocal altruism as “an exchange of… presents that neither party wants”.

   Did Rand fail to take into account the free-market principle of subjective value; i.e., the idea that transactions which are mutually voluntary are always mutually beneficial by the subjective standards of all parties to the transactions?

   How can those who subscribe to Rand’s philosophy – evidently equating the feeling of moral obligation with coercion and force themselves – simultaneously advocate the abolition of obviously coercive Statist social-welfare programs while actively discouraging charitable giving to those disadvantaged whom they do not know and expect the disadvantaged to receive any benefit from the moralistic capitalist system which Rand recommends be practiced?

   How is the Randian capitalist who – when asked to participate in a mutually-voluntary transaction (which would not take place unless each party found the transaction to be in his mutual interest and benefit) – feels it appropriate to actively discourage charitable giving to the disadvantaged (even at the risk of their prolonged suffering and death) any different from the socialist laborer who consents to have profit extracted from him by a capitalist entrepreneur, and then unionizes his fellow employees, and actively encourages workplace democracy as well as the eventual violent overthrow of the capitalist system?




For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Friday, February 22, 2013

Agorism and Mutualism: Summaries, and Compare and Contrast

   Agorism is a system in which free and voluntary society is pursued through competition with the State and counter-economics.
   Counter-economics is market action which is either forbidden by the State (black market) or unapproved or unintended by the State (gray market); for example, "under the table" interactions, tax-dodging, trading-out, sharing, gifting, bartering, and trading.
   While minarchism expresses the notion that the State should only secure and defend people, protect their property, and provide essential military, police, and justice systems; Agorists view each of these services as a market in which there should be competition.
   Agorism would therefore see the State monopoly on the provision of those goods replaced by multiple syndicates (or companies, agencies, organizations) which compete against one another for customers.
   Additionally, Agorism seeks to specialize services typically provided by the State, causing its functions (such as personal security and defense; detention and arrest; detection and investigation; dispute-resolution / arbitration / adjudication; restitution; and property protection and insurance) to be split-up into separate industries.
   Significant contributors to Agorist thought include Samuel E. Konkin III (basic theory), J. Neil Schulman (counter-economics), Wally Conger (class theory), Robert Murphy (private law and defense, and insurance), Brad Spangler, Gary Chartier, Charles W. Johnson, and Mike Gogulski.

   Mutualism is an ethical philosophy and theory embracing mutuality and reciprocity, as well as an economic theory. It intends to be the “synthesis of community and property”, and is associated with the phrases “anarchy is order without power” and “property is theft”. Mutualists support titles to landed property, as long as it is continually occupied, used, and accessed.
   Proudhon favored possession of land, workplaces, and means of production by individual workers and peasants, or by collectives thereof; and desired that access to land not be arbitrarily withheld from those who desire to labor on it.
   Mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon described himself at various times as an anarchist and a federalist, favoring a federation of voluntarily-associating co-operatives (or workers’ associations). He also favored a national bank which would give loans at a minimal interest rate, its administration costs funded by income tax on capitalists and stockholders, and also by the minimal interest rate.
   Although Mutualists oppose income derived from loans, investments, ground rent, and interest on capital, Proudhon wrote that he would not support legal prohibitions of those practices. Mutualism is based on the labor theory of value, promotes a system in which trade represents labor, and supports workers earning the full product of their labor as property.
   Many Mutualists disagree with the notion that having wealth gives one a right to accumulate more wealth – especially through rent, profit, and interest – viewing such practices as forceful, fraudulent, and / or coercive.
   Significant contributors to Mutualist thought include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (articulation of ethical theory into anarchist theory), Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and William B. Greene.

   Disputes between Agorists and Mutualists typically revolve around:
- Whether unoccupied, unused landed property should be protected as a right (especially in regards to the Lockean proviso, which gives that homesteading is permissible only when one adds his labor to it, and enough land is left for others)
- Whether value should be thought of as subjective, or objective (such as value and trade based on labor)
- Whether exploitation of labor by capital for profit is coercive (and objectively unethical), or merely hierarchical (and subjectively unethical)
- Whether the Non-Aggression Principle of voluntaryism and the ethical imperativeness of  reciprocity are valid expressions of the Golden Rule and / or an objective ethics (if such a thing exists)
- Whether Agorism and Mutualism are tactics, or philosophical theories
- Whether revolution, insurgency, or reform are feasible or ethical tactics
- Whether internationalism, nationalism, federalism, municipalism, and panarchy are feasible geographical organizational structures

   Agorists and Mutualists generally agree that:
- Monopolies of many or all varieties should be opposed
- The right of contract should be supported
- Voluntary cooperation should be promoted
- Counter-economics / social counter-power / dual power, and gradualism are feasible and ethical tactics
- Anarchy is a form of order (articulated by Austrian economists as catallaxy; spontaneous orders include catallaxy [associated with market-anarchism] and stigmergy [associated with social-anarchism])
- Most varieties of capitalism and socialism are insufficiently supportive of individual rights



 Approximate figures regarding topic of argument,
"Agorist-Mutualist Alliance" group on Facebook






For more entries on banking, the treasury, currency, inflation, and business, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...