My point in bringing that up is that no one person has a monopoly on the definitions of these words. Your definition of voluntaryist includes private property. I think others who do not violate the NAP may take a different approach on that point.
~@lukestokes
Source - The comment thread of this post.
Not just “my definition,” but the commonly accepted, actual definition of the libertarian philsophy of voluntaryism.
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about the Voluntaryist philosophy.
While I agree with Luke Stokes that there can be many different types of lifestyles and societal structures based on the voluntaryist principle that “all human interaction should be voluntary,” I feel he is missing the foundational point here:
In order to allow all human interaction to be voluntary, individual self-ownership is a non-negotiable pre-requisite. That is to say, property. The idea that your body and your life are yours and no one else’s. Indeed, this is the very foundation of all private property, regardless of any gray areas which might emerge once the concept is extended and extrapolated. Whatever terminology one uses to define this objective and concrete reality, without it, there CAN BE NO voluntary human interaction. Why? How can one voluntarily make a choice if one is not even one’s own? This is a logical and practical impossibility. If I am not the highest executive actor with most direct, nature-conferred link to my faculties of action via my mind and body, how could it be said that I can “choose” anything? The answer? It can’t.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Support Voluntary Japan!
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/voluntaryjapan
Steem/SBD: @voluntaryjapan
BCH: qqvmdr3l0dlmjqdekkzgsdeg8hq2s9zt5ud3h004r7
BTC: 1MfENEp9tkJMHmrrj5rPKzohYNCw9S6qFw
ETH: 0x9199c3844fd8d3642b39175414c8ffcd403c7aaf
DSH: XpqAkZqHnE12pN9oKapd1Vmj91HSeb93K1
QTUM: 0x9199c3844fd8d3642b39175414c8ffcd403c7aaf
By the way Lukes stance on the 'talk about ideas not people' seems irrational at first glance.
When someone puts forth ideas and arguments it is only natural to address that they came from this person or to address this person in a conversation and then go forward discussing the ideas of this person.
As far as I see this is was Graham did.
The short maxim 'talk about ideas not people' is more about (to prevent) not making ad hominems,
e.g. you are shit, you are garbage, this and this is why you are a despicable human being...
and therefore all your ideas and arguments are invalid (which is of course hybris and an invalid argument or ad hominem).
And then for a short second,
there are also sometimes reasons to talk about people or rather the actions of people to point out their hypocrisy, lack of integrity, lack of intellectual sincerity and to point out that they are bullshitting you and this is a valid form of critism of the way they put arguments=ideas forth.
Thank you! The gaslighting was starting to make me feel insane!
@lukestokes, please define "a different approach."
If I fairly earned my wealth and spent it on land, that land is mine. No one else has any right to it.
Let's use an example:
I buy 100 acres of forest near the mountains in Virginia, and I put a cabin on it. Then I rent that cabin out when I'm not there. Am I allowed to have that property within your system?
Here's another example:
Because I have accumulated a lot of wealth, I own multiple businesses and homes. I rent the houses out for profit too. Am I allowed to own those businesses and homes in your system?
When is my private property no longer ethical to you, Kenny, and others? How much am I allowed to own before you will use force to take it? Please explain to me, using examples, where you stand.
Can people call themselves Voluntaryists and be against private property? My answer is absolutely not. It's not possible and never will be. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think it is possible though.
What about the indigenous peoples who may have roamed the lands before colonists stole it as their own?
Where these individuals had established settlements they should be recompensed if possible and reinstated to the land.
Simply being nomads on unaltered lands, however, cannot grant a property right. This is because this would mean one could simply roam around anywhere, and claim they owned any and all lands roamed upon. This excludes others from exercising universalizable opportunity norms in regard to finding/claiming resources necessary for life. This objectively potentiates/creates violent conflict by systematic design (indeed it is another iteration of the “divine right to rule”) and as such, is incompatible with voluntaryism.
Roamed is the key word there, but tribes still had territories. They fought and died defending them from other tribes too. Then the Europeans came in and defeated them. Do I agree with what was done? I absolutely do not. If I were alive back then, I'd be fighting with the tribes against the outside invaders. Fast forward to today though, and what about those indigenous people? How much should I be responsible for to right past wrongs? Did I commit them? I've written before and will write it again: get rid of the federal government, and give national parks to the tribes. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it is something closer to the complete lack of justice they have seen so far.
Ironically it was the concept of stewardship as opposed to ownership that probably saved the lives of the first colonists. My favorite piece of the theiving lore was that they bought Manhatten for some beads. My guess is that the concept of selling off (or for that matter owning in the first place) a piece of Mother Earth was likely a foriegn concept to the natives.
Voluntarism needs to adopt the stewardship approach to avoid inevitable conflict over land ownership, in my opinion.
The voluntaryist property ethic is already based on objective reality, and is universalizable. Merely having a vague and arbitrarily defined concept of "stewardship" objectively and systematically creates greater potential for violent conflict as there would be no equality of opportunity (universalizability) in regard to the necessity of appropriating and acquiring resources for the sustenance of life.
Settlements that existed and which indigenous individuals appropriated with their bodies should be returned as best as possible.
Assigning centralized, arbitrary "stewards" (dictators) is a recipe for more disaster, if history and logic have anything to say about the matter.
Now, if some people want to live in stewardship-based communities/societies (as they define them), GREAT! As long as each individual to be governed by the guidelines explicitly consents to them. This, too, is Voluntaryism.
Ownership of pieces of the earth by individuals and voluntarism will lead to inevitable violence in my opinion. Until a voluntarist can break from their crapitalist programming they will not be able to make the leap from theory to practise in my opinion. That same opinion is held by me for many Libertarians as well. No biggie, it just breaks the concept for me.
That’s your opinion, but I have an argument based on concrete, objective reality:
Without a universalizable means by which to appropriate scarce resources necessary for the sustenance of life, violent conflict is engendered. Do you agree?
Ownership of oneself seems straightforward enough. It seems that things get more complicated when claiming ownership of things like pieces of the globe or lakeside plots of land.
It had been explained to me that using ones energy on nature can give someone claim of ownership like in the clearing of forests to make fields. Such a criteria sounds subjective, and unworkable, to me.
I completely agree with you. Land ownership is very tricky which means some aspects of private property are very tricky. If you go back far enough, land ownership claims almost always involve some violent group against another. Self-ownership seems obvious to me as well, but surprisingly I've actually had debates with people who feel otherwise. It's usually a waste of time.
Then we are in agreement here, that voluntaryism is always based on private property norms of one sort or another because self-ownership is private property. This is ALL I am saying. Thus, asserting that some legitimate conceptions of voluntaryism are not based on property is incorrect, by definition.
Are you going to put efforts into improving the Wikipedia page? I agree with your perspective, I'm simply saying not everyone does and as evidence I give the encyclopedia.
Self ownership is a form or private property, yes. There are many forms of private property, many nuances to it (such as land rights and land disputes) which are not at all clear. Some people have views on those aspects of private property which you or I may not agree with, but they still hold to the NAP, self-ownership, and a "philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary." I've met these people. I don't agree with them on everything, but I won't tell them what labels they are allowed to use based on nuanced private property disagreements. That was the point was trying to make, not that self-ownership isn't part of voluntaryism.
If S.O. is a form of private property (your second quote here), then your initial assertion (first quote) which asserts that some who don't violate the NAP may disagree, becomes illogical.
To disagree with ISO and to abide by the NAP is an absurdism, as to abide by the NAP is to agree with ISO.
Do you get it? Any NAP-based definition of Voluntaryism inlcudes private property, as to abide by the NAP one must respect and understand ISO (private property).
So it is not just "my definition" but any NAP-compatible definition which includes private property.
I am glad to see we actually agree here now.
To me, self-ownership (undisputed) is a subset of the larger category of private property (disputed). They are not exactly the same thing, though built of the same stuff. As an example, land ownership is a form of private property. There are many real disputes within the voluntaryist/anarchist/etc community about justified claims of land ownership. There are disputes and disagreements about this category of private property. Those same people may have zero disputes or disagreements about self-ownership.
Right, so your initial statement (first quote) was not accurate and demonstrably incorrect.
You stated that some people's NAP-based conceptions of voluntaryism do not include private property. This is categorically incorrect as ISO is a form of private property and is necessitated if NAP compliance would be present.
I did not argue that there were no gray areas, once extrapolated.
I think this is far less subjective than the current paradigm of “I’m a special leader, that’s mine” but there are of course gray areas.
However, where Luke’s claim is concerned, no. That is not gray at all. I am a self-owner. Consent necessitates self-ownership (private property).
Please, do not misrepresent my actual views. My actual views on private property related to my comment deal directly with the complexities of land ownership. That was one of our original disagreements regarding national parks, if you remember. If I wasn't clear about my views, please ask for clarification.
I did. Only to be told I was not focusing on ideas and principles, but people. My reply to @novacadian is about the fact that ISO is private property. I did not say there were no gray areas in regard to private property issues. It is not hard to understand. Thanks for your input.
There has to be some form of private property ownership though. Some land, like the lakeside lot, is going to be worth more than other land. Some land will have gold on the surface or under it. Other land will not. Land near fertile areas will be worth more than desert land. Humans have to have a fair way to control those areas. If there is no private property system, who gets to control it then? Who decides where who lives? Who gets the lot with gold, and who gets to live beside the lake? That group or that person then becomes a ruler.
My feeling is that to move forward on a voluntarian system we need to adopt a stewardship mentality when it comes to property (land) ownership.
With an exceptable criteria of good stewardship a community could then decide to assign or revoke stewardship to land depending on how the individual lives up to that criteria.
Ad long as each individual in the society voluntarily agrees to this system, sure.
I'm a business owner, and I plan to add more businesses to my list of assets. Am I inherently evil for owning them? I also plan to buy properties with houses or cabins on them to rent to people. Does that make me evil? According to some people here, I'm not "allowed" to have such things. Having them makes me a tyrant in their opinion apparently.
Not evil in the least, in my opinion, @finnian. To be applauded in fact in capitalism. My thought was that too much of capitalism is backed up with guns to be a good economic system to use in a voluntarist community.
Corporatism is. Capitalism, absent the state, is nothing more than the freedom to trade. This will always be fully present in any free society.
Bringing land ownership into trade changes things considerably, in my opinion.
The trade of which you speak brought to my mind an image of a post crusade english market... existing after the crusades yet before the Lords of the Land stepped in and outlawed all transaction tokens but their own.
In the new markets of post crusade england a boot maker might give a boot chit to the miller for flour who might then give it to a guild member he wants to do work on their mill. The peasants were accumulating wealth and with such trade; as you rightly mention; more freedom. They still did not own land at this point.
By adopting crapitalism volunterists are destined to create a new boss from the old one; should they ever move from theory to becoming actualized, in my opinion.
How else do we come about "commonly accepted, actual definitions" without referring to encyclopedias, dictionaries, and the like? How else do we determine commonly accepted?
Why make this post about "Luke" instead of just your views on voluntaryism in general, especially considering our history where I've made it clear what I prefer (and you seem to be making it clear you have no regard for my preferences)? When someone has no regards for someone else's preferences (focus on the ideas, not on singling out people), is that not similar to troll behavior, trying to provoke a reaction or response?
Regardless, your post implies I don't personally agree that self-ownership and private property is critically important to a voluntary society (I do, as my posts for over two years indicate). I also think there is room for the words we use to include people who don't violate the non-aggression principle and follow the base meaning of "a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary" as I mentioned in my comment and is on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of Voluntaryism and that it should focus more on the importance of private property as extrapolated from self-ownership (as mentioned in videos like the philosophy of liberty, which I completely agree with), then why not take it up on the discussion page of Wikipedia which would help even more people understand these concepts? I don't see the value of a "Luke thinks X and here's why he's wrong" post.
Our conversation in context wasn't about owning your own body, if I remember correctly. I think it was also about a person and whether or not a label fit them or not. Either way, I appreciate you trying to educate people on Voluntaryism and its principles. Please continue to do so. Please also appreciate that I'm busy trying to build things to make the world a more voluntary place. That's a better use of my time then having to defend myself and what I really stand for.
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
I agree with you that Voluntaryism only works with with a solid understanding of self-ownership and property rights for private property is a natural extension of that. I also recognize the challenges that no human being owns the planet. Land ownership is complicated and it's just one example of some sticky points related to property that I've spent years debating with people in ancom/ancap groups. I don't see the value in the debate anymore. Instead, I prefer we focus on things the ancoms (as much as you and I may disagree with them) can agree with us on such as the evils of central banking, nation-state government violence, etc, etc.
I made this post to notify others, and also to help clarify the Voluntaryist position, because you are openly identifying yourself as a voluntaryist. You stated that you did not wish to communicate with me, so the fact that you would comment or even read this was not necessarily expected. I tagged you to notify other voluntaryists, so they can be sure to take statements you make on well-defined voluntaryist topics with a grain of salt.
Your implied logic that because the wikipedia page does not mention private property explicitly, some conceptions of Voluntaryism (the libertarian philosophy) can exist without it, is incorrect and dangerous, as ISO is private property. The root of it, actually.
Property extends from ISO, and is ISO, so I corrected you.
That is awesome, Luke, and I am happy to hear it. I am also trying to building things, which is why I wish to clarify these issues. Without a solid, rigorously understood logical foundation, nothing can be built--as evidenced by what happens when we follow politicians who say they love things like freedom and liberty while denigrating principles in their campaigns. If principles are not understood, destruction, pain, and immense harm both moral and physical ensue. I know for a fact these are things neither you or I support.
You don't need to "defend yourself" if you don't want to. I am simply pointing out the error in your assertion. You don't need to view everything as a personal attack, man.
Yep, and that is why private property (ISO) is always part of any legitimate definition of the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism. I am not sure why you need to make this personal, and are reticent to concede this simple point, but oh well.
Thanks Luke.
Why not start some discussions on the Wikipedia discuss page which currently lacks a meaningful mention of property? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time considering how many people use Wikipedia?
You say I can just ignore your posts about me and my views, but life doesn't work that way. My reputation matters to me because I've worked very hard to build it and ensure my online and offline realities are consistent. From my perspective, your post seemed to misrepresent my actual views. Should I just let that go or say something? You say it's "not about you" but the post is directly about "Luke says this" instead of just "Here's an important part of Voluntaryism that I think isn't represented enough" or some such thing. You make it about me while saying it's not about me. We've talked about this over and over again, but I still don't feel heard.
Let's try a different approach. Let's talk about the ideas of property rights within an interesting concept, UBI. What are your thoughts on Universal Resource Inheritance and the follow up clarification In Defense of Universal Resource Inheritance? That would be more interesting to me. Let's talk about ideas and not about what one person thinks or what someone else thinks. IMO, we don't need to police people's minds or tell them how many grains of salt they can use when they think. :)
Can we interact respectfully and explore complicated, nuanced ideas?
Let's try having a fun, useful conversation about ideas, not about people.
"The presumption is that a few rich central planners (the 1%) can better invest resources than entrepreneurs serving the masses which vote on the products and services they desire by spending their inheritance."
Wow, that article... Just, wow... He calls business owners central planners, but who would he replace those people with other than ACTUAL central planners. Have we not fucking done this before? We don't have enough failed examples from the PRESENT and PAST?!
I just lost ALL respect for Dan Larimer. Communism does not work and never will work. Redistribution of wealth does not work and never will work. Only FOOLS or horribly ignorant people would believe it could. /sigh
I agree, forced REdistribution never works. Voluntary distribution might though (like we have here on Steemit, distributing the rewards pool populated with voluntary inflation). I don't think Dan is a fool or horribly ignorant. I also doubt he'd use force on these ideas, but maybe others would. Thanks for your input.
Seriously. Central planning? Larimer also suggested that we should give up privacy and become completely transparent as a means to fight the state. And...from the article you linked...a “libertarian” tax?
No wonder you supported Adam “fingerprint to homestead” Kokesh.
Kommie Kool-Aid city.
Time to drop the V and stick to the crypto spreadsheets, Luke.
Forced central planning is unethical and ALWAYS objectively results in greater violent conflict. This is why voluntaryists reject it.
EDIT: Now I am sure you will ignore my points and focus on the fact that my message this time was a bit personal. Well, after being browbeaten for months now by you falsely stating and implying that I focus mainly on people and not ideas when I raise arguments, and most recently victim shaming me in regard to the Kokesh threats (as though the whole thing was partially my fault) and in regard to several issues, I suppose I have decided to return the favor.
If you are worried about your rep as a voluntaryist, yes, you might find it advantageous to correct your misunderstandings. I don’t see how if you are correct now, this will negatively affect your reputation anyway. But, perhaps that is the thing of primary importance to you, how others view you?
The beauty of being consistent is you don’t have to worry about it so much. The truth always comes out. If I have said anything horrible or inaccurate about your positions, I would like to know. I will make good, apologize, and correct those things when you show me.
I want you to consider that perhaps certain responses may not have been so seemingly hyperbolic had you not climed that my protests against Jokesh were just “trolling” or because I was “seeking attention.”
You belittle people without even knowing it.
Now I’ve gotten personal, and it doesn’t change my logical argument at all. It stands alone, still.
Thanks for giving your perspective. Did you read the follow up also? It seems many came to the same conclusion that his views were communistic in nature. Note, I didn't give my opinion on that post for or against it, I just asked for yours.
Edit: I replied before I saw your updated comment. I don't think I ever said you were just trolling. I've pointed out my perspective on your actions and why I saw them as I did, but you did not respond to those points. Different personalities and perspectives I guess. Have a good one.
I responded to those points, Luke.
I am actually glad you came here now and commented so much. For all the word salads in which you fail to take any position, actual voluntaryists can see the non-arguments for what they are.
Was I just seeking attention, Luke?
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is real, it would seem.
Trolling implies someone that is trying to hide and spreading false info. When did I do that to Adam? Cite something. Pathetic.
How do you personally define the meaning of words? Trolling to me does not imply that at all. My definition is closer to:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling
My perspective related to your actions have to do with how you’ve treated me. If we can’t agree on the meanings of words then attempts at communication are pointless.
You have brought up the Wiki twice. Wiki is a joke. It is full of disinformation and is never going to be a reliable source of truth. Why would anyone bother and waste their time there? I certainly will not.
Are there other encyclopedias or dictionaries or sources you use for common shared understanding for the current meaning and usage of words?
It's called Voluntaryism because it implies all interaction is voluntary. If someone plans to take my private property by force, it cannot possibly be voluntary. Why is that.... no, I won't write it. I'm done with you.
Where did I imply otherwise? I didn’t write the post I linked to nor did I say I agree or disagree with it. I asked you a question. If Wikipedia is not part of your sources for coming up with shared understanding of words, what is? How can you effectively communicate with others without shared understanding?
My point was made logically and clearly. I explained why I tagged you. I was not having "conversations about people." Thanks, Luke.