I did take responsibility from the outset for this very thing that you claim.... that authority as described in the arricle is not voluntaryist...
I disagree with you and Larken, very clearly, as laid out in the article. It is my contention that so long as the choice is clear, people may volunteer to participate in that authority or secede from it. So it is their VOLUNTARY choice. If they agree, they are participating in the codes and rules that go along with that choice. If they choose to.leave, at any time, they are free to go.
So even though that government would involve all the things listed, the people would have the choice to be involved in that governemnt, and while you and all other voluntaryists would immediately remove yourselves, as I would if another did this same thing, those who are not as educated and liberated in themselves, can have leadership and guidance toward it.
You and Larken can pretend that everything wpuld just work out if governance disappeared overnight, but the reality is, many large or small governments would just take the place. I think Anarchy and Voluntaryism are ideals to reach for societally, live by individually, but will never be truly achieved by the masses. And you can continue to think you have it all figured out, but I think the adolescence is yours, to only accept the conclusions ypu have formed and a morality fit to your own interests, and to not appreciate the history of man and all its lessons.
You simply want to judge me and leave. I challenge you to a debate, not on the comment section, but at an agreed place and time.
You never answered my question of what you would do...
“An Anarchist would never consider using newfound authority in any way other than to enhance the potential of others by reducing the constraints upon their free will. Thus, an Anarchist who finds himself King would likely annihilate all forms of government and control mechanisms and leave everyone to their own designs….”
“benevolent authority” “If I were made King” “we have the noble leading the pack”
Ah, Plato’s Philosopher Kings and Noble Lie!
Ah, I can use violence because it is for the “Greater Good”.
You would close borders, ban homelessness, execute pedophilists, make charging interest a crime...etc.
Your totalitarian adolescent acne is showing in the mirror you cannot see, ugh!
Yours is not the “Path to Anarchy”. It is the Path to Tyranny.
You come across as a HyperArchist, Super Coercive Ruler!
You are not “enlightening others” but endarkening them.
A genuine, anarchic, voluntaryist, free market society means just that, free to do anything except one thing which is to initiate physical force.
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the only negative moral rule to be practised for a truly non-authoritarian, freely trading, peaceful society.
You cannot call yourself a Voluntaryist.
You are in terms of what you have written above just another InVoluntaryist itching to have your immoral Statism implemented--your political pregnancy has the typical stretch Marx of the Totalitarian would be ruler.
Read The Voluntaryist.com that you quote above. You cannot use first physical force to bring peace.
“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.”
Lol. You obviously didn't read or understand this post. I've already answered all these things your barking about.
I said on an individual and ideal level, anarchy/voluntaryism is the highest form of interaction.
You seemed to skip over the causality I gave for the authority described herein, and just because you think insulting me makes your point correct, it is a fallacy. Your insults show your own character.
Also, NAP isn't about letting pedophiles live, it's about not initiating violence. Responding to violence is well within the NAP. Since pedophiles, globalists, rapists, etc. Initiated violence already... responding to them with violence isn't outside of the NAP.
I have lived as a voluntaryist/Anarchist moreso than any other individual I know, without hyperbole. Maybe a couple folks out of the thousands I know take actions that compare. The point that I hammer in throughout this article is that the general population does not have the capacity to do this. Most will simply go along to get along, getting vaxxxed because the authority (social or government) told them to.
You don't go from willful ignorance and low IQ to enlightened and responsible and accountable overnight. Thus, it is still authority and not voluntaryist (never claimed it was) to have the government proposed. But it is benevolent, reduces harm, increases Liberty, gives the choice to participate to every locality, and gives the keys to the kingdom to the individual more than any other government I have ever heard of in history.
From there, it is an easy step for each locality to distinguish itself and work toward greater Liberty, seceding from the Confederacy of counties, and becoming their own thing. In whatever fashion those people desire.
So, instead of trying to force people who CANNOT understand voluntaryism, to practice it in futility, we graduate the process, proving that the greater personal Liberty and accountability, the greater wellbeing.
Please, try to remove your vitriolic personal attacks from a conversation like this. I don't mind being challenged... I asked for it actually... but with respect for the intellectual integrity and social forum that I am hosting here.
If you were made King, whether you wanted to be or not, you were endowed with that authority, what would you do with it?
You did not respond to my claims using your own words about your being a totalitarian “King” that justified you using violent aggression against those who would not obey your edicts. Instead you responded:
“You obviously didn't read or understand this post. You seemed to skip over the causality I gave for the authority described herein.”
What do you mean by this, it makes no sense?
I too consider genuine Voluntaryism is the highest form of interaction but your words in this article clearly show you are not a Voluntaryist but a would be totalitarian dictator.
“I have lived as a voluntaryist/Anarchist moreso than any other individual I know, without hyperbole.”
Your self-congratulatory belief in your moral superiority is embarrassing adolescent posturing.
You quote what Larken would do if he were King “I would just leave people alone.” THEN YOU DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE, and imaging yourself the Noble Hero of Humanity and a Saint of Anarchy/Voluntaryism, you crown yourself King and then rant on in turgid prose of what you would do to NOT LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and how they should lives their lives dictated by you as “benevolent authority”.
You announce as a Platonic Philospher King with no clothes on how you would
“annihilate all forms of government”
and
“take the reins from those who are driving the herd, and steer away and toward green pasture”
and
“stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves”
and
“I say a benevolent authority is the only way to lead the herd away from the cliff”
and
“I would send in the new loyal army to surround and occupy every single agency of the old government.”
and
‘the bankers generally speaking hung at the first opportunity”
and
“Every male at 16 through 40 who is physically and mentally capable would mandatorily serve in a training program”
and
“I would immediately seal all borders, not because immigrants are bad, but because during the rebuilding of a nation, it is not smart to allow more distraction than needed”
and
“it would be unlawful, as a fraud, to tell people you are a man if you are a really woman and vice versa.”
and
“Any unmarried and childless adult will pay a tax equivalent to the bond amount for a single child every year”
and
“All illegal drugs would be decriminalized to use them. Those that serve only to destroy like heroin and fentanyl would be unlawful to sell, and punishable by death”
and
“it is now illegal to charge interest”
…on and on you rant with your need to dictate as a Non-Voluntaryist Dictator how your society must be totalitarianly structured.
That you could write such a narcissistic piece where you mount your throne to dictate to others how they must lead their lives is the exact opposite of what you quote from Larken of what he would do if he were King “I would just leave people alone.”
Try that and perhaps you will begin to be a genuine Voluntaryist instead of a pretend Heroic Benevolent Dictator.
You again are looking at this piece under a simplistic lense and you you are putting a spin on my words.
I never said Larken was correct in that article or that I wanted to emulate his contention. I have already said voluntaryism is great for individuals, not for a large population that cannot adopt it.
Like I said in my last comment, I never said this authority was a grant of voluntaryism. I said that benevolent authority can lead those unable to conduct themselves without leadership, out of the deep mire we are in and lead in the direction of greater freedom.
Basically, you can either be 100% voluntaryist as an individual and watch the masses be controlled by malevolent authority, and endure it yourself, or you can act benevolently to guide others, if you have the capacity.
I have not lived my life as a tyrant, I have not done any of those things I listed in this article. It is a story, of how, if I had the opportunity, I would tear down the oppressive social, government, and financial structures that have enslaved humanity and build a system by which people can either voluntarily stay, or voluntarily leave. Now, they can choose what government they want, what financial system they want, and what society they want. So, yes, I would let voluntaryism aside if I were in that position, because while.its great and possible to be a voluntaryist as an individual, when given the opportunity to break the institutionalized slavery and oppression by globalists, I would absolutely use that opportunity, liberate people through authority and then leave it up to them to conduct their lives as they see fit.
Will this ever happen? No, so it is just ideas. It is a story. I am an Anarchist, because my actions are such every single fucking day. But it's not a badge, like you seem to think it is. It is just a natural way of conducting oneself when one has not absorbed the indoctrination of the mob and of government.
You cannot stop yourself from displaying your own nature here, such that while you are saying that I am an aggressor upon people (even though this whole article was fiction) you are vitriolic and insulting. A rebel against authority of every kind, so much so that you would disregard benevolent leadership that would give you the option of seceeding from its authority.
You keep using the word adolescent, and have gaslit me twice, indicating that I'm in some sort of shameless superiority complex, while at the same time, you believe that your view is so superior that you can assault my character, rather than just the ideas. That sir, is what I would call narcissism.
You have conflated points of my article that were not to be, you have made yourself clearly opposed to decent conversation, and you have simply soured these comments.
Your black and white response doesn't reflect the detail of the piece, the language I used, the points I made along the way. You have simply made your position clear on the topic of whether authority of any kind is ever acceptable and that you cannot be expected to speak respectfully.
At this point, I'll consider it trolling if you continue to repeat yourself.
You refuse to take responsibility for your “benevolent authority” and that Voluntaryism as Larken and genuine Voluntaryists agree is “leaving persons alone”.
Your wrote:
“It is a story, of how, if I had the opportunity, I would tear down the oppressive….So, yes, I would let voluntaryism aside if I were in that position [of being the “King”, that is, Tyrant]… I would absolutely use that opportunity, liberate people through authority”.
You excuse your tyrannical longings with “it’s just a story” but it is A STORY YOU BELIEVE IN.
You CANNOT BE A GENUINE VOLUNTARYIST and believe in and hope to practice any kind of “BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP/AUTHORITY” using coercion as you express.
And yes the attitude and tone of your article deserve the label of adolescent.
You cannot seem to understand my central claim in my first comment to you which is you cannot achieve Voluntaryism peaceful ends through violent, non-Voluntary means and gave you The Voluntaryist quote in that regard.
The is no such thing as “benevolent coercion”—your long list of non-voluntary things you would do to force people to be more voluntary can NEVER BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED.
Grow up and become a genuine Voluntraryist as I and Larken are because we do not consider it possible to morally justify “benevolent” coercive attempts to control people and achieve some Utopia and neither should you.
And so you just repeat yourself... again...
I did take responsibility from the outset for this very thing that you claim.... that authority as described in the arricle is not voluntaryist...
I disagree with you and Larken, very clearly, as laid out in the article. It is my contention that so long as the choice is clear, people may volunteer to participate in that authority or secede from it. So it is their VOLUNTARY choice. If they agree, they are participating in the codes and rules that go along with that choice. If they choose to.leave, at any time, they are free to go.
So even though that government would involve all the things listed, the people would have the choice to be involved in that governemnt, and while you and all other voluntaryists would immediately remove yourselves, as I would if another did this same thing, those who are not as educated and liberated in themselves, can have leadership and guidance toward it.
You and Larken can pretend that everything wpuld just work out if governance disappeared overnight, but the reality is, many large or small governments would just take the place. I think Anarchy and Voluntaryism are ideals to reach for societally, live by individually, but will never be truly achieved by the masses. And you can continue to think you have it all figured out, but I think the adolescence is yours, to only accept the conclusions ypu have formed and a morality fit to your own interests, and to not appreciate the history of man and all its lessons.
You simply want to judge me and leave. I challenge you to a debate, not on the comment section, but at an agreed place and time.
You never answered my question of what you would do...
Authority over others can never be compatible with voluntary choice as it is by definition the ability and allowance to act against voluntary choice.
If I was Queen of the world I would declare all instruments of Government null and void ending with my own.
“An Anarchist would never consider using newfound authority in any way other than to enhance the potential of others by reducing the constraints upon their free will. Thus, an Anarchist who finds himself King would likely annihilate all forms of government and control mechanisms and leave everyone to their own designs….”
“benevolent authority” “If I were made King” “we have the noble leading the pack”
Ah, Plato’s Philosopher Kings and Noble Lie!
Ah, I can use violence because it is for the “Greater Good”.
You would close borders, ban homelessness, execute pedophilists, make charging interest a crime...etc.
Your totalitarian adolescent acne is showing in the mirror you cannot see, ugh!
Yours is not the “Path to Anarchy”. It is the Path to Tyranny.
You come across as a HyperArchist, Super Coercive Ruler!
You are not “enlightening others” but endarkening them.
A genuine, anarchic, voluntaryist, free market society means just that, free to do anything except one thing which is to initiate physical force.
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the only negative moral rule to be practised for a truly non-authoritarian, freely trading, peaceful society.
You cannot call yourself a Voluntaryist.
You are in terms of what you have written above just another InVoluntaryist itching to have your immoral Statism implemented--your political pregnancy has the typical stretch Marx of the Totalitarian would be ruler.
Read The Voluntaryist.com that you quote above. You cannot use first physical force to bring peace.
“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.”
https://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/fundamentals-of-voluntaryism/
Choose only peaceful means from which only a peaceful end can emerge.
Grow up—which means stop needing to control others for their “own good”--and get free and allow others to do the same.
Lol. You obviously didn't read or understand this post. I've already answered all these things your barking about.
I said on an individual and ideal level, anarchy/voluntaryism is the highest form of interaction.
You seemed to skip over the causality I gave for the authority described herein, and just because you think insulting me makes your point correct, it is a fallacy. Your insults show your own character.
Also, NAP isn't about letting pedophiles live, it's about not initiating violence. Responding to violence is well within the NAP. Since pedophiles, globalists, rapists, etc. Initiated violence already... responding to them with violence isn't outside of the NAP.
I have lived as a voluntaryist/Anarchist moreso than any other individual I know, without hyperbole. Maybe a couple folks out of the thousands I know take actions that compare. The point that I hammer in throughout this article is that the general population does not have the capacity to do this. Most will simply go along to get along, getting vaxxxed because the authority (social or government) told them to.
You don't go from willful ignorance and low IQ to enlightened and responsible and accountable overnight. Thus, it is still authority and not voluntaryist (never claimed it was) to have the government proposed. But it is benevolent, reduces harm, increases Liberty, gives the choice to participate to every locality, and gives the keys to the kingdom to the individual more than any other government I have ever heard of in history.
From there, it is an easy step for each locality to distinguish itself and work toward greater Liberty, seceding from the Confederacy of counties, and becoming their own thing. In whatever fashion those people desire.
So, instead of trying to force people who CANNOT understand voluntaryism, to practice it in futility, we graduate the process, proving that the greater personal Liberty and accountability, the greater wellbeing.
Please, try to remove your vitriolic personal attacks from a conversation like this. I don't mind being challenged... I asked for it actually... but with respect for the intellectual integrity and social forum that I am hosting here.
If you were made King, whether you wanted to be or not, you were endowed with that authority, what would you do with it?
You did not respond to my claims using your own words about your being a totalitarian “King” that justified you using violent aggression against those who would not obey your edicts. Instead you responded:
“You obviously didn't read or understand this post. You seemed to skip over the causality I gave for the authority described herein.”
What do you mean by this, it makes no sense?
I too consider genuine Voluntaryism is the highest form of interaction but your words in this article clearly show you are not a Voluntaryist but a would be totalitarian dictator.
“I have lived as a voluntaryist/Anarchist moreso than any other individual I know, without hyperbole.”
Your self-congratulatory belief in your moral superiority is embarrassing adolescent posturing.
You quote what Larken would do if he were King “I would just leave people alone.” THEN YOU DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE, and imaging yourself the Noble Hero of Humanity and a Saint of Anarchy/Voluntaryism, you crown yourself King and then rant on in turgid prose of what you would do to NOT LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and how they should lives their lives dictated by you as “benevolent authority”.
You announce as a Platonic Philospher King with no clothes on how you would
“annihilate all forms of government”
and
“take the reins from those who are driving the herd, and steer away and toward green pasture”
and
“stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves”
and
“I say a benevolent authority is the only way to lead the herd away from the cliff”
and
“I would send in the new loyal army to surround and occupy every single agency of the old government.”
and
‘the bankers generally speaking hung at the first opportunity”
and
“Every male at 16 through 40 who is physically and mentally capable would mandatorily serve in a training program”
and
“I would immediately seal all borders, not because immigrants are bad, but because during the rebuilding of a nation, it is not smart to allow more distraction than needed”
and
“it would be unlawful, as a fraud, to tell people you are a man if you are a really woman and vice versa.”
and
“Any unmarried and childless adult will pay a tax equivalent to the bond amount for a single child every year”
and
“All illegal drugs would be decriminalized to use them. Those that serve only to destroy like heroin and fentanyl would be unlawful to sell, and punishable by death”
and
“it is now illegal to charge interest”
…on and on you rant with your need to dictate as a Non-Voluntaryist Dictator how your society must be totalitarianly structured.
That you could write such a narcissistic piece where you mount your throne to dictate to others how they must lead their lives is the exact opposite of what you quote from Larken of what he would do if he were King “I would just leave people alone.”
Try that and perhaps you will begin to be a genuine Voluntaryist instead of a pretend Heroic Benevolent Dictator.
You again are looking at this piece under a simplistic lense and you you are putting a spin on my words.
I never said Larken was correct in that article or that I wanted to emulate his contention. I have already said voluntaryism is great for individuals, not for a large population that cannot adopt it.
Like I said in my last comment, I never said this authority was a grant of voluntaryism. I said that benevolent authority can lead those unable to conduct themselves without leadership, out of the deep mire we are in and lead in the direction of greater freedom.
Basically, you can either be 100% voluntaryist as an individual and watch the masses be controlled by malevolent authority, and endure it yourself, or you can act benevolently to guide others, if you have the capacity.
I have not lived my life as a tyrant, I have not done any of those things I listed in this article. It is a story, of how, if I had the opportunity, I would tear down the oppressive social, government, and financial structures that have enslaved humanity and build a system by which people can either voluntarily stay, or voluntarily leave. Now, they can choose what government they want, what financial system they want, and what society they want. So, yes, I would let voluntaryism aside if I were in that position, because while.its great and possible to be a voluntaryist as an individual, when given the opportunity to break the institutionalized slavery and oppression by globalists, I would absolutely use that opportunity, liberate people through authority and then leave it up to them to conduct their lives as they see fit.
Will this ever happen? No, so it is just ideas. It is a story. I am an Anarchist, because my actions are such every single fucking day. But it's not a badge, like you seem to think it is. It is just a natural way of conducting oneself when one has not absorbed the indoctrination of the mob and of government.
You cannot stop yourself from displaying your own nature here, such that while you are saying that I am an aggressor upon people (even though this whole article was fiction) you are vitriolic and insulting. A rebel against authority of every kind, so much so that you would disregard benevolent leadership that would give you the option of seceeding from its authority.
You keep using the word adolescent, and have gaslit me twice, indicating that I'm in some sort of shameless superiority complex, while at the same time, you believe that your view is so superior that you can assault my character, rather than just the ideas. That sir, is what I would call narcissism.
You have conflated points of my article that were not to be, you have made yourself clearly opposed to decent conversation, and you have simply soured these comments.
Your black and white response doesn't reflect the detail of the piece, the language I used, the points I made along the way. You have simply made your position clear on the topic of whether authority of any kind is ever acceptable and that you cannot be expected to speak respectfully.
At this point, I'll consider it trolling if you continue to repeat yourself.
For the last time I will repeat myself again.
You refuse to take responsibility for your “benevolent authority” and that Voluntaryism as Larken and genuine Voluntaryists agree is “leaving persons alone”.
Your wrote:
“It is a story, of how, if I had the opportunity, I would tear down the oppressive….So, yes, I would let voluntaryism aside if I were in that position [of being the “King”, that is, Tyrant]… I would absolutely use that opportunity, liberate people through authority”.
You excuse your tyrannical longings with “it’s just a story” but it is A STORY YOU BELIEVE IN.
You CANNOT BE A GENUINE VOLUNTARYIST and believe in and hope to practice any kind of “BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP/AUTHORITY” using coercion as you express.
And yes the attitude and tone of your article deserve the label of adolescent.
You cannot seem to understand my central claim in my first comment to you which is you cannot achieve Voluntaryism peaceful ends through violent, non-Voluntary means and gave you The Voluntaryist quote in that regard.
The is no such thing as “benevolent coercion”—your long list of non-voluntary things you would do to force people to be more voluntary can NEVER BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED.
Grow up and become a genuine Voluntraryist as I and Larken are because we do not consider it possible to morally justify “benevolent” coercive attempts to control people and achieve some Utopia and neither should you.
The End.