What is Voluntaryism?

Voluntaryism is the moral philosophy that all forms of interaction should be voluntary, and that the only just use of force is defensive force. We abide by the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) which dictates that no action be taken that violates another’s consent if not in self-defense. 

If we are to apply this philosophy consistently, then we have to hold the people who call themselves "the government" to the same standards as anyone else. To paraphrase Mark Corske’s “Engines of Domination: Political Power and the Human Emergency”: 

That is, relations among equals, and not between rulers and subjects. Voluntaryists are typically not fans of government in principle, nor do they think that the institution of coercive government is necessary. We recognize that there are two ways that people can relate to one another: voluntarily or coercively. Voluntaryists embrace the former and reject the latter.

This also implies that there are no rights that can be granted to an individual that aren’t shared by all individuals - such as any rights one pretends they can grant the “government” to rule over others’ lives and livelihoods. Rights are those actions no individual may prevent others from engaging in without violating their freedom to peacefully co-exist in ways that do not violate the consent of those directly involved. You have the right to use force against those who seek to restrict your rights. Rights can neither be granted nor revoked. They are either respected or not. It is our responsibility to keep tyranny in check.

Ultimately, no one thinks that anyone should need to rule over them - especially someone that they didn’t choose themselves - which means no one really supports involuntary rulership over themselves. And yet due to a lack of options as well as various methods of social and psychological conditioning, many people think that some groups possess the right to intimidate and initiate force against others and enslave them. Because some live with intent to enslave, so too must some live with intent to liberate.

Very few set out with the intent to hurt others unprovoked. When considering options available in a provocation with another person, everyone understands that the cops won’t show up in time to help and yet many people still don’t carry self-protection tools or techniques. You have the right to choose strategies, tools, and techniques to defend yourself and should be empowered to do so by not being forced or coerced into funding things you may not agree with.

There will be countless methods of organization in a pluralist society. People are free to create living situations that suit them. Pluralism would look like many different organization styles and provision-strategies coexisting in a decentralized fashion.

Just as all goods and services presently provisioned by authoritarian centralized States should only be considered as strategies toward meeting needs, rather than as needs in and of themselves (e.g. “police are a strategy for meeting your need for protection, but they are not a need in and of themselves), so too will the keen observer recognize that any one strategy cannot and will not meet the needs and preferences of most, and all attempts to bend that fabric of reality have led to the destruction of freedom for all in various ways.

When someone asks whether there will be a certain type of community or enclave in a pluralist world, the answer is yes, as long as the enclave respects the NAP and employs the SDP (Self-Defense Principle) and RoR (Right of Restitution). The question would be: Do they have healthy boundaries around how other groups choose to organize, trade, and associate with one-another in their own spaces? With pluralism, each enclave is able to exist independently with its own rules, norms, and customs as long as they do not engage in or permit to persist or stand unchecked, aggressive force or coercion. You can’t force others to adopt your norms in areas where voluntary pluralism is the respected norm, except with regard to your person and property.

Pluralism regarding the State would necessitate a shift toward voluntary participation and funding, rather than extortion and threats aimed at forcing centralized goods and services down our throats. This should not be a concern to the keen observer because we see voluntary participation and funding working everywhere in the private sector. Pluralism puts the public’s economic power directly into the hands of its constituents while shielding the masses from any losses sustained by private-sector-imprudence.

Pluralism lends credence to the “if you don’t like it, you can leave” phrase in a voluntary society because you can always choose the other option(s) available and nobody has dominion beyond their actual property. This choosing-power is a very powerful freedom for an individual to possess, and it is worth securing and protecting.

Pluralism replacing winner-takes-all politico-statism would take the perception of power and influence out of the hands of the political elite while giving the public’s constituents (that is, each individual) their voice and power back. Because the cost of failure is borne by the private owner(s) of a voluntary organization rather than “society as a whole” who has no such investment at stake, and because customers are free to choose organizations that best suit their (the customer’s) individual preferences and needs, this is a guaranteed better strategy to meet the needs of humanity in communities of any size or scale. As long as individuals are free to associate and disassociate with whom they choose without punishment or retaliation, pluralism will enable people to thrive and peacefully coexist regardless of the difference in their values or preferences.

Self-ownership is one of the basic tenets of the logic we live by. We have found no evidence to counteract this tenet and thus we hold it as a very secure fact. Every individual reading these words is the sole owner in themselves.

You own your mind through homesteading your body because your body is your home, and you stead it. You exclusively home-stead your mind and body and thus possess the highest claim to exclude others from the use of yourself. You are responsible for and act in good service and upkeep toward your body and mind more than anyone else does or could. For these reasons, you are the perpetual homesteader and owner of your mind and body and exercise the highest claim of authority over yourself.

The philosophy of self-ownership provides a way to navigate some contentious topics. It answers some more obvious questions but does not pretend to provide answers to all questions. However, the rest of the questions can and will be answered by the philosophical application of Directionality. 

Self-ownership extends to property. There are distinctions within many philosophies that lead to the concepts such as “abandonment periods” and “sticky property”, which are norms that develop among people which dictate the abandonment conditions or special use cases for certain types of property such as land.

Property is a strategy aimed at the reduction of conflict over scarce resources. It is the concept that an individual or group of individuals can decide the proper state of a particular thing, such as but not limited to who may use it, under what terms, etc.

Most people would answer that they agree with the tenets of Voluntaryism. The time when this changes is when it comes to controlling and affecting other people’s right to self-ownership through actions of the state. Things like winner-take-all politics, majority-rule voting, and (others) are direct violations of the NAP. There are alternate strategies and solutions to the problems these things aim to solve which do not require force or coercion.

The word “statist” may refer to someone who believes the state must exist. They may belive that it is the best option, or the only option. In reality, the state has no legitimacy - and we have the opportunity to foster a voluntaryist world in its place. There is no such thing as someone granting a right they do not have themselves. And nobody has a right to make a decision for someone else. All of us who care must outweigh the few who actually want to make others suffer. If there’s an issue with a violation of the NAP, that is a perfect time to discuss and practice some voluntary conflict resolution.

We want people to be able to pursue any avenue they want, as long as it does not harm another individual or group. We recognize people have the ability to govern themselves because they own themselves. We also then necessarily recognize that no individual nor group of individuals has authority over other individuals or groups.