You have no right to impose force either directly or indirectly on another human being, Luke, regardless of how pragmatic you think an idea may sound.
If we become so focused on principles (and so convinced of their absolute perfection) as to lose all pragmatism, then we risk falling into the trap of dogmatism and ideology which has historically harmed humanity time and time again.
I think you misunderstand the word “principle.” It’s not a compromisable thing. It means “foundation.” To be “pragmatic” and ignore the one or two or 1700 individuals who may be harmed for the “greater good” of a “pragmatic approach” is to throw away the foundation of non-aggression. Without that, the plan, idea, or movement by defintion can no longer be called voluntaryist. It’s not about dogma at all, but logical chains of reasoning.
Ron Paul never claimed to be a voluntaryist, as Larken pointed out. Adam does. There’s a huge difference there.
I would like to see this conversation as well. I have offered Adam an open invitation for a formal debate but he has yet to answer save for calling me an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I’ll debate anyone on this, but most, sadly seem to shy away from talking logic and definitions.
What Voluntaryism is is not up for debate. Voluntaryist plans don’t by design include even the violation of one person. That’s the whole point. It’s digital, as Larken said, and about the individual, not what’s best for “the movement” or “the masses” That’s utilitarianism. Communism. etc.
Adam should stop using fallacious titles and self-descriptions, then maybe he could legitimately spread some sort of message like RP, and not a poisoned, bastardized version of FREEDOM. It would still be statism, but at least it would be honest.
It's possible it will happen as fast as it possibly can if we just keep blogging and UTubing and talking to our friends, family, and neighbors.
Right. As if those are all anarchists are doing. Have you spent much time talking to folks around here, Luke? There’s a ton going on you seem to be unaware of. Many of us don’t have the time to sit on our hands and wait for an intrinsically evil process like a US political election to save us. We’re saving ourselves.
If only Harriet Tubman would have petitioned and voted for more “pragmatic slavery” instead of starting the underground railroad...
Principles, in complete isolation, don't change anything. Morality, ethics, virtue, philosophy, etc... those things arise when you apply our principles to the real world. I don't think that mapping is ever 100% perfect nor do I think any single individual has 100% perfect principles when it comes to increasing freedom while also improving well-being for humanity. I do not believe we need to throw away the foundation of the NAP in order to reach some form of Nash Equilibrium in terms of what benefits humanity.
It's a little odd to me that someone like Ron Paul or Adam Kokesh, who wants to increase freedom in the world, will be discredited by you if they don't have a label you agree with. To me, the labels someone uses isn't that big of a deal if they are in fact increasing freedom and well-being in the world. Labels are part of tribalism. I only ever started using the "voluntaryist" or "anarchist" label to describe myself when so many others started using it to describe me and it seemed a fitting short-cut I should stop correcting people about.
This sounds a little too close to a no true scotsman fallacy to me. For example, the NAP is a principle, yes, but it also has to be applied to the real world. Some argue that by driving a car which pollutes the environment, we are committing aggression towards those impacted by that pollution. That's just a simple example, and without falling into a slippery slope fallacy, we can see how difficult it is to take our principles and apply them to reality without concluding life itself in the modern world is an aggression against someone else. This is why we have thought experiments like the trolley problem. Applying our principles is what improves the world, and it's not easy to do.
Graham, you and I have been discussing this topic a lot the last few days and in many comments you've mentioned how Adam or his followers describe you as an “annoying, ignorant troll.” I do not think you are ignorant, but there are times I get annoyed discussing things with you. Have you considered the style of communication you use may lead to that description and if so, do you care or does it concern you enough to change the language you use in order to have more healthy conversations?
As of right now, I've posted and commented 11,126 times on the STEEM blockchain (this comment will be number 11,127). I was discussing Should Anarchists Vote? back in September, 2016, two months after you and I joined. I've posted many times about anarchy and voluntaryism and have had many very fruitful conversations here. When you disregard that in the way you do with comments like this, I personally feel disrespected. When I engage in dialogue, I have a need to be respected otherwise it seems to me that I'm just being trolled.
You and I have different communication styles which we've discussed at length. My hope is those different styles won't prevent us from contributing useful ideas to each other.
This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot. Many of us would be happy if both yourself and Kokesh would stop using it. It has a very well-defined meaning, and Nash Equilibriums on violence are not part of it, with all due respect.
I've had many people call me this, and you are the first to suggest the label doesn't apply. How does this work? How do we define consensus on the use of labels that you'd agree with? Is it even based on consensus, from your perspective? Are all the other people who consider me a voluntaryist misinformed? Is there some authority we need to ask? (that last one was a joke, not a passive aggressive attack). Can you give me more examples of "many of us" so I can extend this dialogue further to other voluntaryists to get more perspective? I'm not asking rhetorically. If people who know me and have observed my actions think I'm in violation of the NAP or some other core principle of voluntaryism that would invalidate that label, I really would like to learn from them.
IMO, a "voluntaryist" is someone who applies voluntaryists principles to reality to the best of their ability.
That's it. It's open to subjective interpretation even if the principles themselves are not. If someone applies the principles 80% and someone else applies them 50% (according to someone's subjective opinion and experience with them), we could say one is "more voluntaryist" than the other. This isn't complicated, but I feel like when I discuss things in this way you aren't open to that and respond with things like "Are you serious?" which, to me, is not very respectful.
I get how the single line in Adam's platform regarding national parks is not in alignment with pure voluntaryists principles because it doesn't go all the way to explicitly and immediately open them up for homesteading. At the same time, I don't agree it's a new violation of the NAP since it is already centrally owned and controlled so I see it as a step in the right direction which could be improved on in the future. As I said in a different comment, I also think we could potentially help by suggesting a better plan. Given everything else this plan does to increase voluntaryism in the world (from my perspective), I don't think that one line means the whole approach and those who support it should abandon the voluntaryist label which (again from my perspective) most clearly aligns with what they are trying to do to remove rulers from the world.
It works by defintions of terms. Just because I am the first person you have heard suggest it to you says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of my claim, in and of itself.
Supporters of plans that A. Require the acquisition of power via force-backed means (the statist electoral process)and B. require the further violation of individual self-ownership of other individuals (it doesn’t matter if it’s “already happening” in the same way that preexisting slavery wouldn’t justify a new, “nicer” movement with “just a little” slavery) even after said illegitimate “election,” are in contradiction of Voluntaryist principle insofar as said support extends.
Thus, someone claiming to support said violatory plans is, insofar as their support extends, not functioning in the capacity of a Voluntaryist.
Insofar as a biological male is a male, he cannot be said to be female. Insofar as an idea whose application depends on initiation of force is supported, the support cannot be said to be voluntaryist.