Go to any crowded place. Do the countless laws keep the people there peaceful and interacting voluntarily, or are those people simply and naturally already peaceful and voluntaryists?
They are naturally peaceful and seek voluntary interactions. The few predators among us who would force their will on others are vastly outnumbered. When a system is put in place that provides special protections and double standards for a few over others too, the predators gravitate towards the positions within said system. We need to remove those systems and the predators who abuse them.
That's anarchism.
That's voluntaryism. :)
It is governance without government and rules without rulers.
I agree. But you need to define "system". I would agree that some laws provide "special protections and double standards for a few over others". But ALL laws? The whole legal system? I'd need a whole lot of convincing before I'd buy into that. We could just start with taxes, for example. How do taxes provide special protections and double standards for a few over others? Taxes are the reason I started down this rabbit hole.
By the way, there's one thing (well, there are lots of things) I don't understand about voluntaryism. So I'm not supposed to take another life. Okay, but what's the consequence if I do? Let's take your example:
What if there's one non-peaceful non-voluntaryist person in the crowd and he takes one person's life? He then stops and goes about his business peacefully. What's the consequence to him?
Using what little I know about voluntaryist thinking, no one can do anything about it. He didn't touch the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in the crowd so why would anyone else in the crowd touch him? The victim's already dead so he can't seek aide from others for his defense.
And besides, what is there to defend if the victim is already dead? Or are voluntaryists justified in taking action against any aggression to life, liberty, or property? If yes, then what's the extent of that action? Who decides how much retaliation is enough?
I have a moral and ethical duty to defend the lives of others. If someone murders in my presence, I'm witness to it, I have every right to take their life in response. Voluntaryism is not pacifism. Using violence in defense of others and yourself as a last resort is entirely justified. It is also your duty. If you sit idly by and ignore the murderer, you should be held accountable for your lack of response.
Voluntaryism is governance without government. The "system" is the one that creates double standards and special protections. No, we do not seek to remove all laws, but law and enforcement of laws would not be done by a system that is protected by double standards. That is how things are today.
Common law courts would still exist, but they would be made up of volunteers from the local community. You want to ignore those courts and their judgments? Fine, you lose their protection and become an outlaw.
The special protections and double standards I'm referencing are how there are different laws for agents of the state compared to people who are not. I'm talking about how cops can get away with murdering, raping, and beating people when people who are not cops could not.
Everyone should be equal under the law in other words. There should be no special rules for some over others. If a cop can carry a gun in a public school, I should be able to carry one. If a cop can have a drink with dinner while carrying a concealed firearm, I should be able to do the same. The list goes on and on.
Do I have a commonwealth attorney to work for my defense for free if I happen to break a law? No, I do not. Cops shouldn't either. They should have insurance just like me. When they continually harm people and do unjustified harm to others, they should lose their insurance too.
Thanks for your reply! It helps me better understand the voluntaryist point of view.
Everyone already should be equal and cops shouldn't get away with crime. If this is not the case, then I feel it's an implementation problem rather than an ideological one. There are non-voluntaryist countries with governments where everyone is equal and cops can't commit crimes. So I don't think this concept is unique to voluntaryism.
Sure, IF you go through the same (or similar equivalent) qualifying things the cop had to go through before he was allow to carry his gun. This would include training, psychological profiling, review of medical history, other background checks, appropriate testing and certification, etc.
Did I mention that I went through six months of academy for my county to be a sworn deputy? I've had that training. It's a complete joke too. Any idiot could get through it, and that's the objective. There were people qualifying on range day next to me who were too dangerous to ever be around a pistol let alone be a badge carrying officer. It was disgraceful.
We had people who had to cycle through more than once because they were failing the test. The test by the way was absurdly easy. The targets were human sized, and the max distance we got from there was about 50 feet. Some people still could not hit the target 60% of the time to pass. Cops do not get better training, they are not better qualified, and they certainly are not any better emotionally to carry guns.
That is a complete lie and always will be.
I was surrounded by people who couldn't wait to use their powers to beat people up as well. Multiple times during classes people would chime in asking when they could do X or Y to other people. X and Y were of course trampling those people's natural rights and taking advantage of double standards. Speaking of double standards, the police always have them.
What country do you know of that has it where the police have equal powers to the rest, no special protections, and no double standards in regards to criminal defense, etc.? I don't know of one. Police are always given exception after exception, and they are almost always above the law in my ways. That is not ideal at all for individual liberty of course.
Either we are all equal under the basic and common laws, or some of us are subjects and some of us are agents to the crown (so to speak).
Edit: I qualified with a 99.6 on range day, and I missed one bullet for no good reason. I must have had a nervous twitch or something for a second. haha I was sworn in, but they never even made me an ID. They knew I was a publicly outspoken person defending liberty, and they didn't like that one bit. I was quickly suspended for a bogus reason to get rid of me. It was for the best for both sides though I believe.
That's a problem for sure.
I said that there are countries where everyone is equal and cops can't commit crimes. It does not mean that everyone has equal powers. I live in Finland. The cops have a specific job to do so they have certain powers that allow them to do their job. But they don't have special protections against criminal activity. So there are no double standards in that regard. Of course, there is the possibility of abuse of power. And from that point of view, I can see your side. But there's a very high level of trust in the police over here. It's not to say that all the cops are perfect. I'm sure there are some bad ones but I'm confident they get weeded out eventually. At the very least, there are enough good ones that there is no negative image of the police among the general population. If anything, I think the police (and Finnish laws, for that matter) are too nice.
I assume the situation is similar in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. You know, these oppressively socialist hell-holes. 😉
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if the police there are better. Your country probably has much higher standards for them too. My surname is Cornelison, and my mother was at least a third Swede. If those places were not so cold, I would seriously consider moving to one of them. My family wants to go somewhere warm year round instead though.
True. The cold weather is indeed a downside. This morning it was -12C (10F) when I left for work. I also had to clear snow from the driveway before I could leave.