http://c4ss.org/content/10528
How can statism still exist in voluntaryism if voluntaryism is the complete opposite of statism?
C4SS is one of the worst libertarian websites. They are left-libertarian if that explains anything.
oh realy left libertarian? I am a right marxist an anarcho statist....No I am actually a capitalist communist... ?
From what I bothered to read his problem was with the word 'voluntaryism' as a descriptor of the stateless order. Ie, rather than read the whole piece, you can read his reply to a commenter and save 5 minutes of your life to something that's actually interesting.
To boil my understanding of his position down to a sentence; The word voluntaryism is deceptive because humans are completely ruled by learned behavior and social conventions and thus have no free will, therefore no action is truly voluntary.
I would recommend that he has a listen to Sam Harris on free will. Then he will see that voluntary action does of course exist.
No person says that someone should be able to beat up a random person or their wife. The means of dealing with it would be to appeal to a dispute resolution organization or for the society to ostracize said violent person. But no one ever says that the husband is a-okay because of 'voluntarism'. That is a strawman.
Spontaneous order is not nihilistic. It prescribes two limits, and thus is moral in nature. One is that planning mechanisms will fail because of their inability to attain information in real time and their tendency towards shaping behavior into it the planning by fascistic means. But it also says that there is a separation between the intention and creation of society, and so eliminates certain totalitarian schemes or traditions that depend on the former. Really what Kenyon is saying, in reverse, is that such planning schemes -- and thus their coercive power -- are necessary to defeat nihilism. And in that way is really justifying the state. Spontaneous Order is also not used in absentia of a 'moral order', but is really an observation that necessary before going forward with how to think about a society. Saying it is nihilistic is like saying elementary logic is nihilistic, because it doesn't say anything about how to behave. Well, you have to build up to such a system.
I have heard this same person say that preventing rape is 'coercion', which is bad enough. And shows ignorance of that concept before moving on to more difficult applications of it. He says that property is something to be respected or else you meet their gun. But what type of people are trying to disrespect property rights... those who want to harm the owner and/or take over their the title to their property. Which requires the same, whether it is a mob or an individual who wishes to steal the property. So that is self-defeating. If ownership is illegimate, ancaps have said that expropriation is legitimate. But it is not legitimate when it merely contradicts itself or wishes to appease the lunatic principles of anarcho-primitivists.
Left-libertarianism is misguided for three reasons:
Leftists see it as a backdoor to promoting 'evil capitalist ideology' and not an attempt to hold their hands, as left-libertarians like to think in their infinite condescencion. No amount of pretending to read leftist and feminist authors is going to change the fact that you are still bourgeois ideologists in their eyes. They will see it like corporations using 'zen' or 'yoga' in the office.
All of the proponents are garbage in terms of philosophy or other matters; at best they are well-read in political economy and that's it. This is why their definitions are always screw-y and they flirt with moral relativism. They haven't even picked up basics in the history of philosophy, even while they repudiate it (for the benefit of leftist alliance). They inherit from liberals the sort of dilettante quote mining approach to philosophy.
Libertarianism holds liberty as the highest value, as per it's name, and not equality. Egalitarians hold equality as the highest value. The highest value then trumps secondary values like liberty. Because of this, they generally attack liberty as vulgar. This is fine within the context of their position, but they should not pretend that their opinions lead to libertarianism. Egalitarianism always leads to the idea that liberty must be curtailed, either through the state or majority opinion, to promote equality above all else. It also acts as a bias, first and foremost, in which you look for things to promote what you desire rather than the truth. Libertarians nor egalitarians oppose equality or liberty out right, even though egalitarians like to think that libertarians oppose 'real liberty' and 'equality'. Libertarians believe that equality and liberty supplement each other, but that liberation and the conscious of the individual is integral before there is a definition of equality. They don't believe that it is unimportant, as propagandists often suppose in their smear campaigns. Since equality can often be unjust if it is for it's own sake (or the sake of some ruling ideology which supposes people 'equal' to mask it's own power, such as the state), instead for the growth of human beings and their liberty. Which it often is, since it is easy to hold liberty as a lower or non-existent preference if one holds equality as the highest value. Especially when seeing them as antagonistic. Since equality without liberty is conformity.
In reality, instead of equality or liberty, truth (using a coherent methodology) and self-knowledge (understanding one's own processes of thought) should be the first values. Since they are necessary to exploration into liberty and equality and into free will itself. But no one will say that. They will say "you want liberty to get your voluntary slaves for nothin' and your poached chimps for free, man!" Or "you love the market, because the market will make black people back into slaves, you neo-confederates!" Of course, such people do not even examine the methodology for truth, nor do they have much self-knowlege. It is just rehearsed reactions.
excel:To boil my understanding of his position down to a sentence; The word voluntaryism is deceptive because humans are completely ruled by learned behavior and social conventions and thus have no free will, therefore no action is truly voluntary.
In that case, why advocate for anything to change? Qué será será, right?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jack Roberts:I would recommend that he has a listen to Sam Harris on free will. Then he will see that voluntary action does of course exist.
I'm 15 minutes in. He's just said that free will doesn't exist because everything we do, experience and believe is predetermined. Then he says that we don't have free will because our thoughts can't be predetermined. (Ie, we don't know what our next thought is going to be).
18 minutes in he makes no sense. "The brain" decides something before "you" do? Ok... Is he making the case that the "I" exists as some magical elf inside the brain, but is separate from it somehow?
26 minutes in: Determinism is necessary for free will...
28:22... I now choose to close down the video, because this is a waste of time. Either I have a completely different idea of what free will is compared to Sam Harris, or I'm way too stupid to understand what he's talking about. Probably both.
Jack Roberts:oh realy left libertarian? I am a right marxist an anarcho statist....No I am actually a capitalist communist... ?
Where have you been?
Freedom4Me73986:C4SS is one of the worst libertarian websites. They are left-libertarian if that explains anything.
That's too bad. You know what you should do? Stop visiting websites. Websites are of course a product of technology, which you of course shun. In fact, the computer you're using right now to read this is technology. So you should probably destroy it, since it's a product of civilization and is therefore evil, and the State is only using it to spy on you and control you anyway.
Perhaps you should go live in the woods where Reddit and C4SS can't bother you.
Perhaps you should go live in the woods
I'm going very soon. Happy yet?
Freedom4Me73986:Perhaps you should go live in the woods I'm going very soon. Happy yet?
Considering I read that two months ago. And four months ago. And five months ago. And 8 months ago....no, it's not very reassuring.
Give a date.
Freedom4Me73986:Perhaps you should go live in the woods I'm going very soon. Happy yet? Considering I read that two months ago. And four months ago. And five months ago. And 8 months ago....no, it's not very reassuring. Give a date.
July.
Of what year?
Left libertarianism is just socialism disguised as libertarianism. It's collectivist and supports mob rule/democracy. Kevin Carson, Charles Johnson and most others at C4SS call or would call themselves socialists.
What year do you think?
Freedom4Me73986:What year do you think?
Okay seriously what the crap is this. What is with the constantly answering questions with questions. Just answer the damn question. You've been saying the same thing for over 8 months now. I linked to several of them. Obviously we have no idea what year you're talking about. Obviously when most people hear the word "soon", they don't think it means over 8 months from now. But evidently to you it can.
So tell us. When (exactly) are you actually going to stop using the technology you shun and go live in the woods?
If I knew, I wouldn't ask. Care to answer the question?
Do what the Almighty says.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
omg I'm totally using that.
I'd support that. I've been meaning to use it for a couple of weeks (the last time I saw the film).
I could say the same about you. Why are you always asking me about survivalism/moving into the woods instead of answering the things I post which are unrelated to survivalism?
Freedom4Me73986:Why are you always asking me about survivalism/moving into the woods instead of answering the things I post which are unrelated to survivalism?
Freedom4Me73986, did you see my post?
Further, did you read John James' post?
Did he not advise you in how to avoid negative posts before recommending the surest means of doing so (the one to which you usually allude in some way or another)?
John James @ Freedom4Me73986: When (exactly) are you actually going to stop using the technology you shun and go live in the woods?
ThatOldGuy @ Freedom4Me73986: Do what the Almighty says. (Don't change the subject. Just answer the fucking question.)
John James @ ThatOldGuy: omg I'm totally using that.
Freedom4Me73986 @ John James: I could say the same about you. Why are you always asking me about survivalism/moving into the woods instead of answering the things I post which are unrelated to survivalism?
Are you fucking serious.
I'll be living free next month. Now will you respond to the original C4SS article I posted at the start of this discussion?
I'm starting to think you have a personal vendetta against me. You are acting like the state.
The writer of the article seems to be a very confused individual. He presents a straw man of voluntarism, not even a very good one at that. I don't see much need to reply to it because the people in the comment section of C4SS has already destroyed the article.
I have come to find voluntaryism to be... propagandistic at its worst
That seems to be his thesis statement, but I don't get the significance. I mean, sure, it's a deceptively positive term that its proponents voluntarily adopted. So? Is that not the case for any other such term? Might as well write an essay about how Bounty isn't really the "quicker picker upper." For that matter, "In 'n' Out Burger" does not accurately convey what it takes to buy a hamburger.
Freedom4Me73986:I'll be living free next month.
Before we get to anything else, I want to be clear. Will you please explain what "I'll be living free next month" means, exactly.
Freedom4Me73986:I'll be living free next month. Before we get to anything else, I want to be clear. Will you please explain what "I'll be living free next month" means, exactly.
What do you think? I might be living off-the-grid IN THE WOODS or something close to it. I have to hope I'm not arrested for it.
What are YOU doing to advance liberty?
Freedom4Me73986:What do you think?
I might be living off-the-grid IN THE WOODS or something close to it.
Call me crazy...but I could have sworn you just said "will" in your last post. So first it was "will be living in the woods soon enough" (For 8 months that's what it was.) A few posts ago "[I'm going in] July." A few posts after that it was "living free next month". Now it's "might be living off the grid in the woods or something close to it."
a) tell me how you get "close" to "living off the grid in the woods"
b) when you say you'll be doing this next month...does that mean you're just going to be there for some time next month, and then a few days/weeks later you'll be back in the civilization you shun, using the technology you shun to come onto the Mises forum and tell us all how technology and civilization is evil and how you just got done advancing liberty by living off the grid in the woods for four hours?...
Or are you actually going to go and actually live in the woods and actually never use technology or interact with any sort of civilization ever again?
OK what your not understanding is, living off-the-grid (in the woods) is ILLEGAL in most places. If I came out and said "I'm moving to the woods" the state would cage me.
Are you going to comment on the C4SS strawman article or not?
http://offgridsurvival.com/livingoffthegridcrime/
Are you going to answer everyone's question or not?
You said you'll be "leaving" in July. You were asked "[July] of what year". As usual you responded to a question with a question. Finally you said "I'll be living free next month." I ask what that means, and you say it means you "might be living off the grid and in the woods or something like it." That could literally mean anything. So one more time:
By living in a friend's home close to the woods, until I know I'm safe from the feds.
I'll be living there permanently. I'm leaving this forum soon anyway.
Now will you respond to the C4SS article?
Holy shit, why are you all so occupied with where the fuck Freedom4Me is going to live? Can we stop filling up threads with this bullshit now?
NonAntiAnarchist:Holy shit, why are you all so occupied with where the fuck Freedom4Me is going to live? Can we stop filling up threads with this bullshit now?
Ya seriously, just because he's a survivalist doesn't mean that every single time he makes a fking post you have to bug him about it.
I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. You're just making this difficult. Living at a friend's house permanently and "leaving the forum" still doesn't mean much to me. Living in a friend's house still says "civilization" to me. It still says "technology" to me. And I "leave the forum" every day. That honestly doesn't say anything about you actually living the lifestyle you espouse and refraining from the technology that you claim is evil and the government is using to control you.
When you you say "leaving this forum soon"...
Does that mean you will never visit this website (let alone post in this forum) ever again after July 1, 2012 CE? Or does it mean you'll wander off into some trees for a few hours and then get back on your computer, hook into the Internet so that you can tell us how evil technology is and that the Internet is just a tool for the govenrment to control you?
And just fyi for anyone else, this is the kind of evidence I was talking about here:
Freedom4Me73986:By living in a friend's home close to the woods, until I know I'm safe from the feds.
NonAntiAnarchist:Can we stop filling up threads with this bullshit now?
Um. I think Freedom4Me73986 is the only one who can answer that question. As has been shown countless times, he refuses to abide by multiple requests from multiple members (and even demands from moderators) to do exactly as you say: "stop filling up threads with his bullshit". Not only does he continue to make threads, and refused to stop when asked by mods, there have even been multiple attempts to create a single thread for his crap to try to keep his bullshit confined to one place. Be obviously he still refuses to abide by this.
So ask Freedom4Me73986 when he will stop filling the forum with this bullshit because only he will make that happen.
Buzz Killington:Ya seriously, just because he's a survivalist doesn't mean that every single time he makes a fking post you have to bug him about it.
This is much more than that.
John,
I don't want to debate, so I'm not going to go past this post.
Um. I think Freedom4Me73986 is the only one who can answer that question. As has been shown countless times, he refuses to abide by multiple requests from multiple members (and even demands from moderators) to do exactly as you say: "stop filling up threads with his bullshit".
Freedom4Me is consistently spouting bullshit. I understand that. I don't understand why we have to go to the extent of having mods message him in the first place. There is an easier answer to this problem: ignore him. That's all you have to do. And what's the worst thing to do, if not repeatedly engage him? And yet it seems that's exactly what more than a few members seem to be doing.
NonAntiAnarchist:I don't understand why we have to go to the extent of having mods message him in the first place.
I / we didn't "have" mods do anything. As far as I know their posts to him were completely of their own volition. So I don't know where you get off implying that community members are whining to mods and urging them to do something about it.
There is an easier answer to this problem: ignore him. That's all you have to do. And what's the worst thing to do, if not repeatedly engage him?
You're open to your opinion.
And yet it seems that's exactly what more than a few members seem to be doing.
Evidently "more than a few members" don't share your opinion.
So here's a thought. There's an easy answer to this problem: ignore all of us. "That's all you have to do."
Fair enough on your other points, but what is the purpose of this?
That's too bad. You know what you should do? Stop visiting websites. Websites are of course a product of technology, which you of course shun. In fact, the computer you're using right now to read this is technology. So you should probably destroy it, since it's a product of civilization and is therefore evil, and the State is only using it to spy on you and control you anyway. Perhaps you should go live in the woods where Reddit and C4SS can't bother you.
And the purpose of engaging him repeatedly afterwards? You obviously have a different opinion on how to stop his bullshit: is this thread an example of it?