ignosticvoluntaryist-blog - Tumblr blog

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

I Am A Moral Nihilist Now.

I have decided after some very careful thought and consideration I no longer believe in objective morality in any way shape or form. I decided that non-aggression is simply an amoral utility or subjective preference set of mine, but I no longer believe in any kind of objective rightness or wrongness. It's simply not in my rational self interest to use aggression or initiate force, but it is in my rational self interest to retaliate if someone tries to destroy me personally, but there's nothing inherently right or wrong in a objective sense I don't think. You really can't prove objective morality at all. This however doesn't change the fact that I am a Anarcho-Capitalist, but I would argue that its simply in my rational self interest to have a stateless society then a state based society that has a territorial monopoly on the use force and aggression with ultimate decision making powers in a geographical location. So basically what I am really saying is I no longer care to argue from the standpoint of morality, because you can't really prove morals objectively exist. Anymore than you can prove that a personal supernatural God exists. So it's meaningless to even speak of morals in a objective sense. What would these morals objectively or empirically consist of even? It makes no rational sense. It's better to just say I don't want a state because it's not in my rational self interest to have one and further it's not in my rational self interest to use aggression or initiate force. We simply call things right or wrong based on our mood swings, emotions or feelings to those we feel aren't politically correct, but in objective reality these morals do not observably exist beyond subjective conjecture. I may subjectively prefer life over murder, liberty over slavery, property over theft, etc, but this would simply be my personal subjective preference it could in no way shape or form be any kind of objective morality. Same with my preference for non-aggression over aggression. It's a subjective utility perhaps which is in my rational self interest, but I don't believe in any kind of objective moral rightness or wrongness exists in the observable universe.

0 notes

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

Libertarian Socialism Is Bullshit

No your land lord is not a state, no the land lord cannot own millions upon millions of square acres of land and lay claim to the ownership of entire country as it's defacto king or monarch of sorts, no land lords are not acting aggressively when they expell you from the land when you refuse to pay your contractual obligations you voluntarily signed up for when you entered the rent agreement and no the land lord doesn't own your children and no he cannot own the children you had if they were at all born on the property you currently are renting upon. Oh in case your wondering what ideology I am criticizing here, it's called Libertarian Socialism, which is based on a innate logical contradiction in both theory and practice that you can be both simultaneously be a free individual and equal in wealth and equal in ability to everyone else, or its the idea that just the right amount of aggression directly used democratically by the working people of society would yield positive outcomes somehow without also systematically causing mass starvation, death and widespread genocide, which of course it would, but that's beside the point. Now on to my point about land lords, a land lord can lay ground rent upon the land he mixed his labor with towards those special rental tenants who have voluntarily decided to occupy the land they choose by voluntary consent and contractual obligations to pay rent for, no he can't own the bodies of the rental tenants occupying it, because they are free to either pay rent and occupy the land or they are free to not pay rent and leave the land, however they are not free to break their contractual obligations and voluntary agreements to not pay rent, and the land lord would be justified in voluntarily expelling them from the land if they fail to pay rent, by either taking them to a private court by suing them for their rental obligations or hiring a private police agency to physically remove them from the land they failed to pay rent for. And no slavery is never ok in a Voluntaryist Society. Humans own themselves as self-ownership is explicit in retrospect to being a rational human being so you cannot therefore logically be the exclusive property of another human being who can use aggression and force against your wishes. This means that humans are not the exclusive property of another human being who can initiate force and aggression against them such as slavery would imply. So no rent is not theft, nor is profit a form of theft, earning wages or getting paid a wage is not slavery nor is owning private property a form of slavery nor is having a land lord a form of statism for none of these human actions in question are aggressive, fraudulent or forced upon us at gun point.

Statism is morally sanctioning or condoning aggression, threatening aggression, instigating fraud and initiating force against the life, liberty and property rights of others. Therefore it could be technically argued that even a direct democracy is a form of statism, and that even libertarian socialism is statism, because in order for socialism to even exist at all it requires a aggressive act on part of a organized community's violent prohibition on the allocation of all human resources and a violent or aggressive ban on the accumilation of all private property, or it literally requires the forced aggression of the workers to forcefully take or violently seize all private property by way of aggression by killing land lords, employers and anyone who seeks a profit in order to unjustly control stolen property and to occupy it by seizing it underhandingly from someone else who justly owned it before hand by mixing their own labor with it. In short the only way to get rid of statism is not by replacing it with a different form statism as libertarian socialism would lead to, but to eliminate all statism entirely by consistently applying the non-aggression principle to all human action. If you cannot consistently apply the non-aggression principle to all human actions then you will always fail to achieve a stateless society. In short left wing anarchism would in practice collapse into a bunch of violently competing governments tribalistically fighting over who gets to control what property and why because libertarian socialists in general can't even agree on a proper definition of what constitutes a difference between justly acquired property and possession. While in Voluntaryism not only would this not happen to occur because it would violate the non-aggression principle, it would be too costly to occur for fears of losing ones profitable business, too risky for business to occur because it would risk placing whole economic developments in peril and it would be even too destructive to occur by way of violating the non-aggression principle. If aggression is objectively and universally immoral for me to do, it's objectively and universally immoral for anyone to do. There are no exceptions. And it would not occur simply because Voluntaryists understand that property of possession is virtually indisguishable from private property so we don't suffer from the innate logical contradiction in libertarian socialist thinking that there is a distinct difference between property and possession when in objective reality there is no such difference or distinction at all. So we Voluntaryists wouldn't have violent turf wars and resource wars over what resources or land is properly owned by who or what groups, no instead we would just understand that who ever mixed their labor with the land or properly acquired resources without force or fraud would properly and legitimately own it. If you acquired the land by force or fraud its stolen land, if you acquired resources by force and fraud then it's stolen property, but on the other hand if you acquired the land by mixing your labor with it, it's legit for you to say it's your land, and if you acquired resources by trade and voluntarily exchanges or by voluntarily labored efforts in wage earnings or by voluntarily profiting or renting out from others works, then you justly own such resources. It is only by force or fraud or by aggression that land or resources is stolen from others that statism and criminal aggression takes root. Only by non-aggression in principled courses of human action can society thrive voluntarily, to forfeit non-aggression in principle to instigate compulsory or otherwise violent criminal acts in order to parasitically leech off the productive members of society does nothing in effect to eliminate statism, it merely encourages it.

The difference between left wing anarchism and voluntaryism is that left wing anarchism suffers from a innate logical contradiction in thinking property is disguishable from possession. Where as Voluntaryism does not. Left Wing Anarchism leads to statism. Voluntaryism does not. Left Wing Anarchism is truly barbaric in practice. While Voluntaryism is the only way to thrive in a civilized manner to not use aggression, force or fraud for any reason or purpose. One has a future. The other does not.

The future is the Non-Aggression Principle. Voluntaryism.

Left Wing Anarchism like all other forms of statism throughout human history is a dead end ideology which sits on the shoulders of pseudointellectual social justice elitists who had no moral or logical consistency in their theories in achieving a society without a state. No more credible in theory or practice then any other aggressive, criminal or immoral ideology forcefully thrust on the human race.

In short Left Wing Anarchists before acusing Voluntaryists of advocating a neo-feudalistic society of tribalistic warfare. Should really hold up a mirror to themselves for the history of their movement demonstrably shows this to be factually the case about themselves along with a long history of violent bloodshed, murder and death. Not Voluntaryism.

Voluntaryists don't have a long history of violent bloodshed, murder and death. And I wonder why that is? Could it be the Non-Aggression Principle?

Yeah I would say it is. Think about it.

Why condone a ideology such as libertarian socialism with a long history of aggression and murder behind it?

It makes no fucking sense.

Anyway that is all.

0 notes

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

Argument For Voluntaryism

First we have to define what Voluntaryism is, Voluntaryism is simply the understanding that all actions or interactions between human beings should be based on voluntary association and interaction. An that it is always morally and objectively unjustified to initiate force and aggression against the life, liberty and property rights of other individuals. If it's wrong for me per say to point a gun at my neighbor and demand 10% of their income, or else I will shoot them dead or I will lock them in a cage in my basement then surely that's wrong for anyone to do it, nobody would argue that it is not wrong for us to go over to our neighbors house and demand 10% of their income, or else we will shoot them if they don't or forcefully kidnap them and lock them in a cage in a basement somewhere and almost everyone would say that is wrong and pretty fucked up in fact. Accept when you press people, yeah sure they might say it's definitely wrong for you and I to do those things to our neighbors, friends, and family members, but when it comes to politics itself they will make exceptions or exemptions to this rule, they will say well yes it's wrong for you and I to do those things for sure, but it's ok if the State is doing these things and you see that's the blank out. You see there's no such thing as a morally justified act of aggression and the initiation of force. You can't point to a situation and say well yeah hey man it was morally justified for a person or group of people to point guns at people and kill them in cold blood, steal half or a certain percentage of their income or earnings and for them to forcefully apprehend them and kidnap them and throw them in a cage. That doesn't exist, ok. There's no such thing as morally justified acts of aggression. So here's what you need to understand about the State, and what the State factually is. The State is just a territorial monopoly on the use of force and aggression an violence in a geographical location with ultimate decision making power. That's what a State factually is. So when you put it like that and put it within that range of understanding, the State can legally get away with things you and I simply cannot do as average joe citizens. The State can forcefully take a percentage of the income you make, and if you resist they can shoot you dead or throw you in a cage, the State can print money out of thin air to artificially monetize it's debts and extort those alive and those who aren't even alive currently, the State can seize control of the educational and even the entertainment system of society and determine for you what is acceptable and unacceptable by force, the State can drop bombs on third world countries and kill thousands if not millions of women and small children in cold blood without bashing a eyelash, the State can also forcefully thrust upon you its many various services such as fire, health and safety regulations, security, police, military, courts, etc etc etc and you have absolutely no recourse to either voluntarily accept or reject those services without a death threat or explicit aggression against you, or other people in its geographical location or territory. So now that we have established what the State is and what the State does, we can be pretty confident that if it's a criminal act for me to do anything the State can or does do in reality, then it's factually a crime what the State does in reality, and that's all the State is, the State is just a very successul and very organized criminal syndicate that hides behind a thin veil of moral platitudes and euphemisms. Of course when you analyze the State for what it actually is, compared to how people project their own moral attitudes upon the State, you realize these moral attitudes are simply exemptions to what we typically would consider immoral actions in our everyday lives. Yeah sure people can say having a State leads to a civil society, but it's not civil to extort someone's income, shoot them and forcefully kidnap them and throw them in a cage if they refuse, it's just plain immoral period.

0 notes

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

youtube

The Universe is God

0 notes

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

youtube

0 notes

ignosticvoluntaryist-blog · 4 years

Text

Fundamentals Of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

The Epistemological Argument

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

The Economic Argument

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, "controlled" economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the "unforeseeable and unpredictable." Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The Moral Argument

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn't guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of "better" on someone else, it protects us from having someone else's idea of "better" imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

The Natural Law Argument

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. "If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government." Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. "In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer."

The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life. - Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.

0 notes