“The career of a politician mainly consists in making one part of the nation do what it does not want to do, in order to please and satisfy the other part of the nation.” (Auberon Herbert)
I love the Austrian Economic insight that a transaction done voluntarily means increased value for both parties involved. People being able to act and exchange freely is what everyone actually concerned with the rights of the weak should advocate.
Great to see Mises, Hoppe, et al. gaining more traction. Articles like this are a big part of that.
I'm sure you've been asked this before, but what is your distinction between voluntaryism and anarchism or anarcho-capitalism? Or is it just a preferred phrasing?
Thank you for your kind words. It’s a collective effort and I’m honoured to be part of it.
For me, volunteerism is the moral position, as mentioned here. Anarchy or anarcho-capitalism are descriptions of social organisation based on the moral position of voluntaryism. That’s why I don’t mention them at all in this article. They don’t matter because they are just descriptions. Especially considering that the words anarchy and capitalism are grossly deliberately misinterpreted and leaded with false meaning. Marxists are good with that sort of gaslighting. Now they are coming after the term voluntaryism.
In the Rothbardean sense, yes. But the term “libertarian” today has be so eroded and infected with loaded meaning that you have your Trump worshippers and socialists alike calling themselves libertarian with a straight face
Completely different argument altogether. I make the case for how to motivate people TO DO what you want them to do. It assumes you don’t have any right to force them to do what you want, you imagined I said no threat of reciprocal violence in case they threaten you first.
Again you fail to grasp the distinction between motivating someone TO DO something (alter his default state) and safeguarding yourself from potential violence. This should address your concerns: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence
Breaking a promise to perform pursuant to an agreement is in essence fraud, which is the same thing as using force against an individual. The injured party has by definition performed on his promise (or else the whole agreement could be voided by either party without incident) and has been harmed. The only legitimate purpose of government (unless you’re an anarcho-capitalist) is to lawfully wield force in the protection of individual rights. Voluntarism does not oppose the protection of individuals or their rights.
well done!
This is an interesting article.
Thank you. I hope you check others just like it:
https://sotiris.substack.com/p/state-vs-statelessness
“The career of a politician mainly consists in making one part of the nation do what it does not want to do, in order to please and satisfy the other part of the nation.” (Auberon Herbert)
100%
I love the Austrian Economic insight that a transaction done voluntarily means increased value for both parties involved. People being able to act and exchange freely is what everyone actually concerned with the rights of the weak should advocate.
Yes. You reminded me of this quote allegedly by Einstein:
“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.”
I read another great Einstein quote recently. I didn’t know that he was such a proponent of freedom.
I think he was, but he also wasn't; being the beneficiary of state funding is enough for most to sell out
Great to see Mises, Hoppe, et al. gaining more traction. Articles like this are a big part of that.
I'm sure you've been asked this before, but what is your distinction between voluntaryism and anarchism or anarcho-capitalism? Or is it just a preferred phrasing?
Thank you for your kind words. It’s a collective effort and I’m honoured to be part of it.
For me, volunteerism is the moral position, as mentioned here. Anarchy or anarcho-capitalism are descriptions of social organisation based on the moral position of voluntaryism. That’s why I don’t mention them at all in this article. They don’t matter because they are just descriptions. Especially considering that the words anarchy and capitalism are grossly deliberately misinterpreted and leaded with false meaning. Marxists are good with that sort of gaslighting. Now they are coming after the term voluntaryism.
Isn't this just libertarianism?
In the Rothbardean sense, yes. But the term “libertarian” today has be so eroded and infected with loaded meaning that you have your Trump worshippers and socialists alike calling themselves libertarian with a straight face
But people lie.
You must love Elon and Vivek wanting to reduce the government by 75%.
They don’t, though. Don’t believe everything you hear. Even if they did, I don’t idolize people.
What about those who don't consent to refrain from initiating force?
Even voluntaryism relies on people being forced to be bound by their agreements.
Completely different argument altogether. I make the case for how to motivate people TO DO what you want them to do. It assumes you don’t have any right to force them to do what you want, you imagined I said no threat of reciprocal violence in case they threaten you first.
> I make the case for how to motivate people TO DO what you want them to do.
Your approach relies on them already being motivated to keep their agreements.
You are off topic.
No, I'm not. Your approach takes contract enforcement for granted.
Again you fail to grasp the distinction between motivating someone TO DO something (alter his default state) and safeguarding yourself from potential violence. This should address your concerns: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence
Breaking a promise to perform pursuant to an agreement is in essence fraud, which is the same thing as using force against an individual. The injured party has by definition performed on his promise (or else the whole agreement could be voided by either party without incident) and has been harmed. The only legitimate purpose of government (unless you’re an anarcho-capitalist) is to lawfully wield force in the protection of individual rights. Voluntarism does not oppose the protection of individuals or their rights.