Voluntaryism vs. Statism

[Darias]

I have created this thread primarily for the sake of not derailing other threads with my long rebuttals to the brief claims and questions of others. I also believe it will be a useful reference point so I won't have to repeat the same arguments.



I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:

• 1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?
  
  2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?
  
  3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state? If not, who else can provide any of them? If another system can, which is more efficient for society?
  
  4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?
  
  5. Assuming there is no good reason for the state to have a monopoly on providing essential goods and services for society, can a voluntaryist society possibly come to be, or would that be an impossible utopia? Is there historical precedence for such an idea?

My response addressing some of these will come in the following post, which may take time considering my lengthy style. I will be responding to questions from other threads which relate to the above.

[Divine Insight]

I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:

I'm not familiar with the concept of "Voluntaryism" so I'm not sure how that is being proposed to work or be structured.

Here is my answers to your questions. (keep in mind that I'm not really into this particular debate above "Voluntaryism vs. Statism") because I'm not clear on how each of these is being defined.

But here are my answers just based on my initial reaction to the questions.


1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?

Possibly. I would think that any civilized society is going to need a structured leadership. What constitutes state/government? Even primitive tribes typical have a chief and potentially a counsel of elders.

I also believe that a state/government that is founded on "We the People" is a form of a society that is self-governing. And in this sense it is also a form of "Voluntaryism" because the people who run for office are volunteering to become 'Public Servants'.

The problem is not with the ideal, but rather with the reality. In reality people who run for office of public servants often end up using their power for self-interests instead.

So this isn't a failure of "state/government", but rather it's a failure of "Voluntaryism". (i.e. the people who volunteer to become public servants often fail miserably.

2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?

I believe that someone has to take charge. And it seems to me that no matter what entity takes charge that entity will end up becoming the "State/government" even if under a different label.

3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state?

I would say that infrastructure does require the "state". If only in the sense that it required a contribution of everyone in the society. In other words. Everyone is going to need to pitch in and agree on where the roads should be built, etc.

So from my perspective here the term "State" still means "We the People". Unless of course there is a dictator. But even then 'We the People' have to pay the taxes to make it possible for even a dictator to do something big.

Where else are the resources going to come from?

If not, who else can provide any of them?

I don't know who else would provide many of these things if not the society in general (and for me that's what "the state" is). Or at least this is what the state is supposed to be in a democracy.

If another system can, which is more efficient for society?

You'd have to propose another source of resources before I could answer this question. And then there's the question of who's going to manage it.

You don't build highways and bridges without major engineering and cooperation and obviously lots of Ca$$$$h. So where is all this going to come from if not the state/government?

4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?

It seems to me that you're going to need more than just voluntary behavior. Your going to need some seat of authority to make the ultimate decisions of what projects to undertake, etc.

Otherwise you could just end up with a bunch of voluntary people arguing about what they would individually prefer to volunteer. If you didn't reach a consensus pretty quick it could result in complete chaos and disagreement.

~~~~

Like I say, you'd need to propose some structure for "Voluntaryism" and explain where the resources are going to come from if not in the form of taxes, etc.

Because I really don't know what Voluntaryism is or how it would work exactly.

Question for you:

Are there any real-world examples of Voluntaryism working where there is NO STATE involved at all? (i.e. not even any mandatory tax money?)

I can see voluntary programs working within a state-structured system. But what would it even mean to have Voluntaryism without any state at all?

I don't understand what Voluntaryism would actually be.

[help3434]

Civilization has never existed without government. It seems like a leap of faith to believe it can. How can there be a legal system without government? I don't want a justice system that operates on the profit motive.

[Darias]

Civilization has never existed without government.

That depends on how you define government. I define it as it is commonly used, (in reference to state programs) rather than as voluntary cooperation, contribution, or the ability to govern oneself (responsibility).

The state is simply the parasite of civilization, in the most literal of senses. It can only exist via theft and it has no binding duty to protect you. I don't think it's far fetched to say that the state is the enemy of civilization, and will most likely be the destruction of our species.

[center][/center]

It seems like a leap of faith to believe it can.

It is only a matter of belief, contrary to evidence, to think that nothing can be done apart from the state.

The government is not responsible for raising grain and distributing bread. How then is society fed?

How can there be a legal system without government?

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

I don't want a justice system that operates on the profit motive.

Then you must necessarily oppose state "justice," which extorts more and more money from you (with your compliance not your consent) in order to pay the salaries of judges, police, prisons and the like. Crime profits and empowers the state, this is why victimless crimes, such as marijuana possession, are crimes.

The difference between systems of law in a voluntaryist society and a statist one is that the latter obtains money from you by force, whereas the former can only exist with your freely given payments. Most people wouldn't put up with the incarceration of countless non-violent persons on their dime if they had a choice.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 4 by Darias]

In many places marijuana possession gets people in jail because private for profit prisons lobby for tougher drug laws. The government taxes people to run the system, but that is not the same thing as billing the victim for working on the case. Among the other problems with the system proposed by the video you linked to, it obviously favors the rich more than the poor even more the the current system. Also, who would pay the firms to investigate murders?

[Darias]

In many places marijuana possession gets people in jail because private for profit prisons lobby for tougher drug laws. The government taxes people to run the system, but that is not the same thing as billing the victim for working on the case. Among the other problems with the system proposed by the video you linked to, it obviously favors the rich more than the poor even more the the current system. Also, who would pay the firms to investigate murders?

Private prisons profit from state laws that profit the state. Without federal and local drug laws, prison companies would still profit from holding violent persons, but they would only be able to make a profit jailing drug users if they could find enough donors who viewed drug use as a crime. Those industries would be competing with others that did not treat marijuana as a criminal substance. A large majority of Americans favor legalization of marijuana, so if money is speech, the incarceration rate for drug users would plummet.

You're also assuming that security insurance would be expensive, but since a free market breeds competition, and competition forces business to continually lower prices or offer better services, it is a mistake to think that only the rich could live in this society. The poor still have to pay taxes today. Nothing is free. Instead of financing things you need + things you hate (like wars, etc.) through taxation, you would end up paying less than what you normally would when paying taxes -- and if the market makes things cheaper, then insurance would be that much more affordable.

The state benefits the wealthy far greater than the free market would. Wealth disparity is severely diminished in the absence of legal protections like corporations, subsidies, and bailouts.

[Darias]

I'm not familiar with the concept of "Voluntaryism" so I'm not sure how that is being proposed to work or be structured.

Here is my answers to your questions. (keep in mind that I'm not really into this particular debate above "Voluntaryism vs. Statism") because I'm not clear on how each of these is being defined.

I don't know if my decision not to define those terms was intentional or not, but perhaps it is best if I see how others define things before I send people off to other websites for definitions and examples. However I will provide you with those at the end of this post.

But here are my answers just based on my initial reaction to the questions.

1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?

Possibly. I would think that any civilized society is going to need a structured leadership. What constitutes state/government? Even primitive tribes typical have a chief and potentially a counsel of elders.

I also believe that a state/government that is founded on "We the People" is a form of a society that is self-governing. And in this sense it is also a form of "Voluntaryism" because the people who run for office are volunteering to become 'Public Servants'.

The problem is not with the ideal, but rather with the reality. In reality people who run for office of public servants often end up using their power for self-interests instead.

So this isn't a failure of "state/government", but rather it's a failure of "Voluntaryism". (i.e. the people who volunteer to become public servants often fail miserably.

Leadership does not necessitate a state.

Voluntaryism isn't the act of volunteering, although that is typically a voluntary decision.

States are not voluntary organizations. I believe you are arguing for social contract theory, but this has been thoroughly debunked.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?

I believe that someone has to take charge. And it seems to me that no matter what entity takes charge that entity will end up becoming the "State/government" even if under a different label.

For most people, the terms "state" or "government" can be just as confusing as the term "god" (as an aside, this is one of the reasons I am an ignostic). Most people make reference to those terms, but are typically talking about completely different things.

I think a broad definition of "state/government" is problematic for debate. First, if it can be everything, organic or otherwise, capable of decision making and leadership, then I'm obviously not going to be able to provide you with any examples of how society can function in lieu of the state, since they both are seen as one.

I have a very narrow and accurate definition of the state, but before I share mine, I would like to address yours.

3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state?

I would say that infrastructure does require the "state". If only in the sense that it required a contribution of everyone in the society. In other words. Everyone is going to need to pitch in and agree on where the roads should be built, etc.

[. . . .]

Where else are the resources going to come from?

If not, who else can provide any of them?

I don't know who else would provide many of these things if not the society in general (and for me that's what "the state" is). Or at least this is what the state is supposed to be in a democracy.

[. . . .]

You don't build highways and bridges without major engineering and cooperation and obviously lots of Ca$$$$h. So where is all this going to come from if not the state/government?

I strongly object to your insistence of the state and society being synonymous. I agree with you that society, as far as it is a collection of individuals, is required for things to get done, but the state is unnecessary.

Secondly, in reality everyone doesn't agree on where the roads should be built. Currently state programs regarding highway construction are funded by involuntary taxation (literally theft upon threat of imprisonment) and borrowing (this means you and your heirs are responsible for federal debt; right now that's $52,917.92 per citizen). When that isn't enough, it also prints money out of nothing, devaluing it, and therefore significantly reducing the purchasing power of your dollar, which in turn increases the price of everything -- gasoline for example.

The state then takes this money and pays private companies to participate in road building projects. The state has eminent domain over any private lands that lie in the path of the government project. So rather than letting the market determine where the roads should go, and how many there should be, central planners monopolize the road building industry and pretend to know what's best for everyone. The state doesn't care if one's home or the graves of one's loved ones mean everything to an individual. The free market must necessarily care, because a deal can't be made if that person's property is more valuable than the current trajectory of the road.

In a voluntaryist society, you would most likely see private roads being built for the sake of charity (free) or profit (toll) by determined people with money and time, most likely via road construction companies or NGOs. These roads would be more efficient than state built roads because the state often builds roads and streets that no one uses. When everything must be voluntarily paid for, you won't see bridges to no where; people won't pay for things they won't use. No theft of property, threat of imprisonment, nor compulsion is required.

This is a North Korean highway, probably near Pyongyang:

[center][/center]

The same barren pointlessness appears on China's G12 highway into that country.


This is a private highway:
[center]
[/center]

Here are examples of private highways in the US and around the world.

Here are more reasons why private highways are preferable to the alternative.

So from my perspective here the term "State" still means "We the People". Unless of course there is a dictator. But even then 'We the People' have to pay the taxes to make it possible for even a dictator to do something big.

Hitler, unlike some dictators, did not assume power. He was popularly elected by the people. As argued by Rothbard, if "we" are the state, then the Holocaust was merely collective suicide.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

If another system can, which is more efficient for society?

You'd have to propose another source of resources before I could answer this question. And then there's the question of who's going to manage it.

There is no god, government, or czar responsible for pencil production and distribution. It is a natural creation of the market.

[center][youtube][/youtube] [/center]

4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?

It seems to me that you're going to need more than just voluntary behavior. Your going to need some seat of authority to make the ultimate decisions of what projects to undertake, etc.

Otherwise you could just end up with a bunch of voluntary people arguing about what they would individually prefer to volunteer. If you didn't reach a consensus pretty quick it could result in complete chaos and disagreement.

~~~~

Like I say, you'd need to propose some structure for "Voluntaryism" and explain where the resources are going to come from if not in the form of taxes, etc.

Because I really don't know what Voluntaryism is or how it would work exactly.

Question for you:

Are there any real-world examples of Voluntaryism working where there is NO STATE involved at all? (i.e. not even any mandatory tax money?)

I can see voluntary programs working within a state-structured system. But what would it even mean to have Voluntaryism without any state at all?

I don't understand what Voluntaryism would actually be.

Well I owe it to Goat to address him first on the historical precedence and related possibility of a voluntary society, since he first posed the question.

As promised, the definition of voluntaryism, and statism. Generally, when voluntaryist use the term statist, we refer to more authoritarian types, but technically minarchists are included in the definition as well.

As for the state, it is but one incarnation of the initiation of force, which is always immoral and inefficient. It is violence shrouded in legality. It is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. It wields a coercive monopoly on force in a geographical area. It is the collection of a political class that demands a portion of your labor to sustain itself and grow. It is antithetical to reason, persuasion, charity, voluntarism, peace, and prosperity.

If you are interested in learning more about the voluntaryist worldview, browse this.

If you are interested in reading every possible objection to voluntaryism you could come up with, view the comments on the links here.

Of course, I encourage you to browse other subreddits for a good indication of other political and philosophical views. Confirmation bias is boring and I personally like views that challenge my own.

[Darias]

In addressing some of these issues, I don't mean to single out any users in particular, but for one reason or another I haven't found the time to address some of his responses. I hope the following will be sufficient.

[S]ince there would be no government[, g]un makers would make a killing, and so would war lords.

A stateless society is not the same as a wasteland. It is not one without laws either.

Really? Please show where there is a 'stateless society' that is anything bigger than just a few tribes. Give me evidence. Show me this is not just some kind of utopian ideal that can never be achieved. Where has this been implemented?

1. To claim (that a stateless society would be a lawless wasteland, rife with warlords) is to accept the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that that which is possible could be better than what is is nothing but shifting that burden onto a skeptic and a critic of our current system.

2. As I'm sure you are aware, nothing increases gun sales in America like the successful careers of progressive politicians. In a stateless society, the demand for guns may increase, decrease, or remain the same -- I have no idea. But don't pretend that the firearm industry and the warlords don't benefit from the state. If indeed market anarchy is as abstract and hypothetical as you say it is, then your baseless claims amount to projection.

3. It should not take a great deal of imagination to consider the very real possibility that people with wants, needs, opinions, and money could be the movers and shakers of society. And don't pretend like you don't have one:

Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable of causing.

To claim what you have claimed does indeed require a great deal of imagination, to such a degree that ignores reality itself. Yet my position is that of utopia?

4. I, however, am not claiming that anarchy alone makes everything wonderful. Currently, in a world dominated by states, anarchy typically only arises in the wake of government failures, e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Detroit. Higgs mentions that anarchy isn't anywhere near good in the beginning of the video. Why? Well, when society is dependent on the state to provide essential services, since governments tend to possess a monopoly of such things, a sudden collapse of the state isn't exactly heaven on earth. If laws and government policies have and still continue to prevent the market from providing life saving alternatives, society is forced to scramble and cooperate or fulfill their needs on their own. Nevertheless their condition is wholly the fault of the state, however great the desire may be to blame the free market. I'm sorry but the chaos you envision is happening now and at the hands of the authorities; behold your tax dollars at work:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Tell me, where has this 'free market economy' have ever been implimented? What actual evidence do you have that it would work, and not degenerate ? Please give real world experences and show that it would work.

It sounds like a lot of the 'utopia' books that used to come out that we had to read in high school. Looks great on paper.. but no one gets it to actually work.

5. I can't speak for wide scale free market economies, but stateless societies I can do. Two examples come to mind. I've posted them before, so in the interests of time:

A society without any form of government is unprecedented...

While I can't recall a society that has practiced market anarchism on a large scale, you are quite mistaken on this issue. Of course without citing any specific examples, anyone can clearly reason that the state did not always exist. Your claim is as ridiculous as the suggestion that shortly after being created, Adam rose and preceded to recite the pledge of allegiance.

In order for your claim to be accepted, one must have an extremely broad definition of the state, as to equate it with society or even families. This of course is as ridiculous as believing that morality and civilization cannot be distinguished from religious belief.

But of course, there are clear examples of functioning societies with laws that did not have a government. I mentioned the Aka tribe as being an example of a matriarchal society, where the women hunt and the men raise the children; so in keeping with that theme, an example of an anarchistic society in the past is ancient Ireland. This is a more legible transcription of page 3 of this pdf article, written by Joseph R. Peden, a history professor at City University of New York.

Some claim that ancient Ireland was more of an anarcho-communistic society than a libertarian one, but in this other article Peden claims that Gaelic Irish communities respected property rights.

Either way, it was clearly stateless. There is a precedent for societies without states.

Of course this Irish society was conquered, but you do not judge the merits, morality, or functionality of a society based on it's ability to resist oppression; otherwise, Nazi Germanic culture would be superior solely based on its ability to conquer its neighbors--a ridiculous conclusion no less.

And for more modern examples:

Somalia isn't the result of intellectual anarchy, if that's what you're getting at. It's in the state it's in because of all manner of statism: colonialism, dictatorships, etc. ad nauseam. When it had no government, it was a less violent and more productive place than its neighbors -- which are the only countries you can make a fair comparison with, given their similar historic backgrounds. If you're interested in more sources on Somalia, you can view a hub of articles and videos here.

6. Your choice of the word "degenerate" is something I would use. I don't know if it is possible to guarantee a stateless society where services are provided by a free market wouldn't see the return of a state. I understand that the powers that be make it extremely difficult to see market anarchy being achieved anytime soon, but that isn't the fault of the feasibility of the system, but due to structural barriers.

The reality, however, is that small governments cannot be contained or restrained overtime. The case of the United States, what was a constitutional minarchical republic has become a global empire, perpetuating terrorism and waging wars. It is capable of spying on, indefinitely detaining, and executing anyone at any time. Let's not forget it's nuclear capacity to destroy the earth several times over. Reform, regulation, and accountability is a utopian fantasy, because nothing is slowing the growth of this authoritarian cancer... well, nothing short of economic collapse. I hope that in time the idea of the state will go the way of state religion and the dinosaur, but time will only tell.

7. As for your repeated accusations of "utopia," I trust you can appreciate my voluntaryist views in the same way you understand why an antitheist sees all religious belief as harmful, not just fundamentalism. I see it as a realistic ideal worth pursuing via non-coercive, non-violent means.

I have only been a voluntaryist for a few months. My degree is in international studies, not economics. I don't claim to be an expert on anarchy or the economy. If I was, that would be an argument for statism; go ahead and make me the Czar, since I know it all.

Getting to my point, I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy that is responsible for the following trend:

Atheists rightly scoff when faced with Christian claims that the morality, survival, and success of society depends on the belief in the need for god, religion, the Bible, and the 10 commandments--lest all hell break lose, and everyone turn on each other.

Yet more often than not, those same atheists (who believe in the goodness of humanity when debating with Creationists) readily adopt statism of the Hobbes' variety when debating with anarchists. Without hesitation, they claim that the morality, survival, and success of a society depends on the belief in the need for democracy/government, rulers, the constitution, and the bill of rights--lest chaos and warlords create hell on earth.

I don't assume that atheists are lying to believers; I just think they are being inconsistent... and if they know it, they're being dishonest.

Again, I'm not calling anyone out in particular. Pretty much every atheist here other than me has been guilty of this. It doesn't really surprise me that believers have faith in government, because it's consistent with their theism.

Of course in saying this I'm not trying to alienate the religious from voluntaryism. Anyone who believes that there is no compulsion in genuine faith is already halfway there. There are religious voluntaryists, Christian and Muslim alike. Because my debates about the state are primarily made with other atheists, I use analogies that best help them understand my position. If most of my peers were Christians, I probably would not stress the analogy between the need for god and the need for the state, as that might cause further entrenchment of statist positions in light of their strong beliefs in Yahweh.

There wouldn't BE any money.. [without government]

I briefly addressed this claim here, but I wanted to go ahead and put it to rest. As I previously said, money is a medium of exchange. Money can and does exist outside of the control of the state, e.g., Bitcoin, Tide, Amazon Coins, and even sweat -- as explained by Paul Kemp-Robertson:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[help3434]

Asking me to prove that that which is possible could be better than what is is nothing but shifting that burden onto a skeptic and a critic of our current system.

But you do claim that Voluntarism is better than having a state. The burden of proof is on you to show that.

[micatala]

I have created this thread primarily for the sake of not derailing other threads with my long rebuttals to the brief claims and questions of others. I also believe it will be a useful reference point so I won't have to repeat the same arguments.



I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:

• 1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?

Not synonymous, but in relationship with. Civilization could, I think, exist without government, but I doubt it could exist at a very high level. I doubt modern civilization would have evolved to the extent it has without powerful government.

2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?

I wouldn't say necessitates, but I would say chaos and disorder is a lot more likely, and I think that is true whether the state is precipitously withdrawn or whether a stateless situation evolved over time. I would agree what we see today is typically the former, and that situation raises issue that the latter does not.

3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state? If not, who else can provide any of them? If another system can, which is more efficient for society?

Again, I would eschew the absolutist language. I would not say incapable. I would say many aspects of modern society would be less likely to exist or function as well as they currently do without government.

4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?

I would generally agree that if private enterprise or voluntary behavior is meeting a need adequately, that is preferrable in most circumstances to having government do it.

5. Assuming there is no good reason for the state to have a monopoly on providing essential goods and services for society, can a voluntaryist society possibly come to be, or would that be an impossible utopia? Is there historical precedence for such an idea?[/list]

Voluntarism, at least as I am understanding what you mean, does not have a good track record of maintaining stable, long-term societies, especially on a large scale.

If one is willing to consider a mix of voluntaryism and statism, then I think there are good possibilities. In my view, that is what we have now in the U.S.

If you mean complete voluntaryism without any state, I view that as unlikely to succeed in practice.