The always provocative (and thought-provoking) Larken Rose recently posted a video, “Why I Don’t Talk About Agorism.” If you haven’t seen it yet, you should:
(And, after you watch it, you should subscribe to his channel and buy his book.)
Long story short, Larken makes the point that he doesn’t talk about “the philosophy of agorism” because agorism is not a philosophy. It’s a tactic. The philosophy underlying the agorist tactic is voluntaryism. Ergo, he talks about voluntaryism, not agorism.
I understand his point, but I suppose I’ll make the argument for agorism as a philosophy.
So, are you the type of person whose eyes glaze over when people start talking about philosophy? Do you want to gouge your eyes out with a rusty spoon at the mere mention of political ideology? Then you can go on with your day. You will not enjoy this editorial.
Conversely, are you interested in political philosophy? Would you like to know more about agorism, voluntaryism, and the praxis of anarchy? Then this is the editorial for you. Read on!
Agorism is a free-market anarchist political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that has the ultimate goal of bringing about a society in which all “relations between people are voluntary exchanges- a free market.
Agorism is a libertarian social philosophy that advocates the elimination of coercion and the expansion of the counter-economy.
Agorism is a movement that seeks to create a free society by using black and gray markets outside the state’s control.
HELP! I’ve fallen and I can’t get back to reality.
I’d rather have a true, unadulterated, by the book Republic with term limits, no special interests allowed, etc., but since 1913 we have had no chance at that hey?
Education without propaganda; medicine without big business stepping in; entertainment without political agendas; sports without the fix being in; automobiles that people can work on in their garage; and on an on. You know, honesty as the goal.
The late, brilliant John Trudell nailing it in one min…
JOHN TRUDELL MAY 1980 (speech)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/FBo2nzK6ky2X/
Amen!
‘“We challenge all who would bind us to show us cause; failing proof of our aggression we shatter our fetters. We bring to justice all who have aggressed against any, ever. We restore all who have suffered oppression to their rightful condition.”
So is there a plan how to establish a voluntarist society? Or how would it work? Would I get paid for my job, and if not, how do I pay for my rent? The philosophy sounds nice, but too theoretical for my taste. Sure I can volunteer in my free time, but I got bills that need to be paid. Also if I put a lot oft hours into something and even if I enjoy doing it, there are always parts which are no fun, like the paperwork. At some point doing a lot of work voluntarily for free is no fun. Please enlighten me, how this can work for a whole society Thanks
Light is the answer
While I don’t think a fully voluntaryist society is possible the question of getting paid is actually a small issue.
In the sci fi story Mr Corbett discusses (link below) people trade “obligations” via a system of trust/reputation- this works just fine in a small sociwhere every one knows each other and “money “ is very much the “trust less” version of the same system since money is just a promise of getting goods or labor un the same way the “ob’s” in the story are.
https://corbettreport.com/flnwo41/
Economics in One Image by James Corbett
(5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ff0IfLcKkU
Lightistheanswer,
This is one of my favorite Corbett Report pieces, and it definitely touches on profound aspects in both Voluntaryism and Agorism.
My brain swells up with eye-twisting encephalitis when over-pontificating the many complexities to living life.
But I will give this to a sane man’s nature…he has an inclination to head in the right direction.
Homie,
Did you write this [ ” My brain swells up with eye-twisting encephalitis when over-pontificating the many complexities to living life.
But I will give this to a sane man’s nature…he has an inclination to head in the right direction.”]
That is a beautiful , encompassing statement of the human condition.
The inclinations of the common man. Unlike some animals here in the chat, I feel the majority of men are inclined to head in the right direction. I wish I could include woman but their excessive emotions , which men are somewhat deficient in, leads them a stray .
You misunderstood. Voluntaryism isn’t volunteering. It merely means human interactions should be voluntary, not coerced. So of course you’ll get paid for your work if you find someone who’s willing to pay for it. A lot of human interactions are already voluntary, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to expand this.
Etymologically, philosophy is the “love of wisdom”. How can someone who takes Austrian “economics” seriously be considered wise? So called “libertarians” are just capitalist simps who hijacked the term from mid 19th century anti-capitalists, and turned it upside down.
When you have nothing to exchange but your labor, your only “voluntary” choice is to choose your master. That is, if you only “own yourself” while others own the capital, you will have to prostitute the only thing you own in order to survive. Very “wise”, indeed.
The state is not your enemy; it is the capitalist class who also own the state to manage their business affairs, and make you pay for it. Get a grip, man.
Ilija
The state predates capitalism- at least until the modern sense of using capital for production of more stuff.
I would say you are into something in the sense that as soon as people living in groups become more organized then hunter gathering or village farmers they require some machinery to keep things running. I would say that this is needed regardless of what economic system is used to produce goods and services….the main modern “competitor” ( if you can call it that) to modern capitalism were various kinds of communism which were nothing more then taking the management side of things to silly extremes.
“….When you have nothing to exchange but your labor, your only “voluntary” choice is to choose your master….”
Most people from the beginning have f time up until now have only had their labor to trade, and I would expect that will be the case until the end of time too. What else would they have to trade? Even today, when there is more capital then has ever existed, most people are unable to accumulate capital rather then consume and trade labor. Labor is kinda needed, lol, if they didn’t trade it there wouldn’t be much stuff.
Personally I would say having the option ti choose my own occupation and master is much better then being born into a life long position.
This is funny, how would an anti-capitalist choose to subscribe (on his computer or cellphone that only exists because of capitalism) to a paid membership (paid with money generated by capitalism) of the Corbett Report, only to comment that Corbett is unwise for taking austrian economics seriously?
Wouldn’t that money have been spent more consistently with your ideology by funding sabotage of the privately owned means of production?
Thanks for exploring this subject in greater depth James.
I like aspects of the thinking embedded in both these terms you explore, yet, at the same time, both, to me, seem to be missing an important piece of the puzzle.
The whole “We proclaim the age of the Market unbound… ..goals without end or limit..” aspect makes me wonder about the long term potential impacts of that hypothetical way of living and guiding our actions on the more than human world.
Here are my concerns with both of these worldviews / philosophies (and potential courses of action).
If “voluntaryism” and/or “agorism” embrace anthropocentric exceptionalism (encouraging humans to commodify and exploit non-human beings for profit with moral impunity) than I would say those systems of thought may break the chains of violent coercive centralized statism regimes, but they may also forge the shackles for future generations. Their prison would be diminished lifespans, less natural beauty and a legacy of ecological devastation, poisoned water, decimated soil and a deforested/desertified landscape that could result from unrestrained anarcho-capitalism turning the ecosystems we depend on for health, beauty and spiritual nourishment into cold dead uniform products (in a free and “unbounded” market).
The animist worldview of many of our pre-statist ancestors (who saw a moral imperative to reciprocate the gifts provided to us by the living earth and only take what we need) often kept wants and needs balanced and ensured future generations would have natural wealth, but I do not see any comparable moral imperative or ethos imbued in the descriptions of either “voluntaryism” nor “agorism” in how they are described above.
If we clearcut all the forests, poison all the rivers, oceans and lakes and destroy all the living soil (that took millennia to become what we have access to today) those actions, according to some, would be allowed within the voluntaryism and/or agorist worldviews.
This, in my opinion, is a serious flaw in these philosophies.
How can we address this potential downside?
If you think I misunderstand those philosophies, I would appreciate your comment below to help clarify what is possible within the moral boundaries of each. Thanks.
Hi G,
Hope all’s well….
Excellent, excellent point!
Quoting Konkin’s “We proclaim the age of the Market unbound… ..goals without end or limit..” – which just about says it all – is a perfect illustration of what’s wrong with the man’s philosophy. Equating unbound, unrestricted markets – anarchistic, or otherwise – to the destruction of our earth, is a valid point and is plain and visible should one decide to open their eyes.
I was going to express my own critique on Samuel Edward Konkin III’s manifesto, among other things…
I couldn’t help reading Konkin’s words without beginning to feel as though the man, besides having gone bonkers, was like unto a wolf in sheep’s clothing [Please forgive the King James-ish “like unto”, but in this case it seems fitting]. Expanding between the lines, Konkin’s narrative starts to sound like some sort of unhinged, bare-ass naked rant for capitalism bent on the worship of unbridled accumulation of private possession and power…. Enough power, that is, to “…smash the State.”
Konkin’s anarchy sounds more like unbounded rage. All told, there’s a violent ring to his words, which amounts to just another “ego” maximizing “its” “value” with political rhetoric.
And, for me, there’s no “Amen” to be added to that.
I see value in voluntaryism and principles of agorism as an ideal, perhaps. The axiom that “…relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all…” and that to “…engage in the reconciliation that forms the basis of human society.” are wonderful concepts. But, to eschew, disavow, or to find anything other than minimalist interaction with the State impermissible (to use Corbett’s terminology) is counter-productive. Change can be effected from within. In principle, at least, laws can be changed for the better if enough uncorrupted legislators get into office. As naive or as normie as this may sound, in principle, how can it be denied? That is, assuming a government that allows its constituents to vote.
If via a vote, rule by the majority is seen as the coercion the of minority, this is a misconception. The factor to consider is that the voting, in and of itself, must be first mutually consented to. The winning or the losing as a consequence of voting must be mutually consented to by participants. What then of the non-participants? I guess that’s the crux of the issue. Those who don’t participate, who do not consent to vote, will perhaps feel a coercion upon them regardless of the voting outcome and regardless of what laws are enacted (unless they happen to be beneficial?).
To me, that’s more of the crux of the issue. To endeavor to make the laws of the land more beneficial. By engagement. Not disengagement. But, not to condone necessarily anything. To vote at the booth, as well as vote with your feet, or wallet. To march. To protest.
Hopefully, we’re not yet in a post concentual world, where reconciliations are still possible to be had.
@candlelight
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this.
Been a pretty intense busy summer but productive and learned a lot so I am tired but grateful.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, did you ever get to gathering those black walnuts for eating? (I have about 4 five gallon buckets full in my garage I am gonna be processing soon, along side all the hickory nuts I gathered, I think i`ll have strong hands and forearms by the end of the winter and perhaps a few new walnut and hickory recipes too).
I`ll have to come back to respond to what you shared about voting etc, too much on the docket right now to give that the time it deserves.
Talk more soon.
Cheers.
Hi G,
Reading “…I think i`ll have strong hands and forearms by the end of the winter…” made me literally laugh out loud. 🙂
I, myself, haven’t gathered a single nut. Plain lazy.
No worries on taking time to respond. I’d like to take the time to read the several substack articles you linked for Hughsername, though, I think I may have read some of these previously…. Always good to refresh.
Actually, I love the paragraph you quoted written by John ‘Fire’ Lame Deer. The points he gets across dig right down to it, so beautifully succinct, a person would have to be blind not to understand his truth.
Be good – and enjoy the fruits of your labor!
There’s much to discuss!
Cheers
@candlelight
Hope you are well. Finally circling back to answer your questions best I can.
————–
RE:
“But, to eschew, disavow, or to find anything other than minimalist interaction with the State impermissible (to use Corbett’s terminology) is counter-productive. Change can be effected from within. In principle, at least, laws can be changed for the better if enough uncorrupted legislators get into office. As naive or as normie as this may sound, in principle, how can it be denied?”
Ok, so uncorrupted politicians can change laws. Lets look at this from my perspective now, I am someone that loves the beautiful world that God made and the living cathedrals that God designed (long before churches were built) called old growth forests. So at face value, this “vote in the uncorrupted lawmaker” idea sounds nice and if I were to believe that it would be comforting as I could tell myself that by voting, I have done my part in standing up to protect what is left of the parts of the natural world expressing full the full spectrum of biodiversity (lakes, rivers, ancient forests, mountains, oceans etc). But here is the problem, good apples put into a box of rotten apples very quickly succumb to the rot themselves, And as I outline in this post: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/poll-of-the-month-are-all-involuntary ) no matter who was voted into government during the time I have been alive, each and every single one of them continued to greenlight and profit from clearcutting old growth forests (several of those politicians even campaigned specifically promising they would stop the logging of the engendered primary ancient forest habitats we have left, and once in office, they were gladly cashing those logging industry checks and greenlighting more pillaging).
Am I to be made to believe that has occurred because people did not vote hard enough and for the right people ? That seems a lot less likely to me than the realization that these systems of government are inherently and intrinsically ecologically degenerative and eco-cidal. Thus, for me, voting is a waste of time and taking direct action to sabotage corporate pillaging, illuminate the fallacies in their propaganda and boycotting those systems when ever I can makes more sense as a effective use of my time to achieve the intended outcome (preserving at least some small remnant of the ancient living cathedrals I was blessed to experience growing up in BC for future generations to experience).
(continued..)
Hello G,
All is well, thank you. Well…well enough, I suppose.
I hope all is well with you.
I haven’t gotten around to reading your substacks you provided Hughsername, but, at the same time, while re-familiarizing myself with these posts on this thread, I looked through your substack concerning your trip to Fairy Creek, and the one tracing your Gaelic ancestry.
As it is now 3 in the morning, I’d like simply to say hi, as I had originally wanted to do somewhat earlier this evening, and to tell you, presently, I have a bit more exploring to do. I lot more, actually 🙂
Cheers, my friend.
PS: Hope to get back to you, soon, regarding the topic of “vote, or not to vote”, etc., etc., etc.
@candlelight
I have a lot to be grateful for in this life, and I am, I am also hurting as I am stuck physically in the east of Canada while beings that I respect and love are being murdered by psychotic profiteers, ignorant goons an other “civilized” folks in the west.
As I type to you now, my tax money is being used to fund a highly specialized RCMP unit (“C-IRG” now re-branded as “The Community Response Unit-BC) to fund masked thugs (without visible badge numbers or any other identification) to invade one of the last temperate rainforest watersheds intact on this continent, to assault and remove those that defend these rare and endangered forests so that corporate pillaging (clearcut logging) can go forward unimpeded.
I do what I can to raise awareness about this (like posting this video: https://odysee.com/@recipes4reciprocity:e/walbranvalleynov26:b ) but I am at the mercy of A.I. (oligarch attuned) algorithms as to whether or not my message is received by many or a few. If you watch that video and feel it is worth sharing, I would appreciate that.
Right now I am trying to focus on that which I can do in a positive sense. So I am sorting heirloom seeds from the garden to add in some extra seed packages for those that order my book to give them a joyful Christmas surprise. Little things like that help me stay sane and smiling even when my money is being stolen from me at gun point and used to destroy the things I love.
Well… that is all I have for you today.
No rush on responding.
Cheers.
@candlelight
(continued from above..)
RE: “That is, assuming a government that allows its constituents to vote.
If via a vote, rule by the majority is seen as the coercion the of minority, this is a misconception. The factor to consider is that the voting, in and of itself, must be first mutually consented to. The winning or the losing as a consequence of voting must be mutually consented to by participants. What then of the non-participants? I guess that’s the crux of the issue. Those who don’t participate, who do not consent to vote, will perhaps feel a coercion upon them regardless of the voting outcome and regardless of what laws are enacted (unless they happen to be beneficial?).
I do not consent to pay taxes to any federal government, so since all of the potential options presented to me of the different flavors of involuntary federal government via the voting system will attempt to steal money from me using the threat of violence, there are no options available that I would ever vote for.
Also, votes can be manipulated so who knows if that even counts to get in the party that is “the lesser of two evils”? (as some people argue is a noble goal. )
No, for me, the entire system of government on the scale of federal national statist regimes is incapable of meaningful reformation… and though some people may think that some person or another can “drain the swamp”, as I have stated recently on here, to me the swamp is overflowing with all the ugliness and dishonorable behavior that statism has always entailed and will always entail.
Statism is the swamp.
Therefor, rather than waste my time on politicians that have a track record of being 100% ecological exploiters (as well as being in bed with big pharma, the military industrial complex, big GMO AG, the Banksters and other scammers and murderers 100% of the time) I vote with my time, attention and gifts to plant seeds, take pictures, educate, raise awareness, call out the statist system for what it is and highlight the beauty of the places statist regimes and their corporate partners are decimating.
My most recent expression of that endeavor can be found here:
Entering The Cathedral : Our Journey To Hike Into The Heart Of The Ancient Forest Watershed Of Fairy Creek:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/entering-the-cathedral-our-journey
So you think it is the state that protects the environment? Seems to do a swell job at that if you ask me.
If a lot of people, like yourself (and myself), see value in preserving nature, why would those people stop advocating to preserve nature in a voluntary society?
A voluntary society doesn’t mean a society without any rules, it just means that the rules aren’t made up and enforced by political rulers.
@Hughsername
No I do not.
Just because I see potential flaws/downsides in the views described above does not make me a statist.
This should clarify my view of the state and its proclivities towards ecology.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures
@Hughsername
For further clarification on my views of statism read:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-spiritual-poverty-of-statism
For a very in depth exploration of my views of statism, also read:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/implanted-sociopolitical-identities
Whoa, okay that’ll be some reading to do, i’ll get to it in a moment of spare time. Thanks!
Okay, i read the third article on substack, seems we’re pretty much on the same page.
Thing is, if you’re not a statist, you’re a voluntaryist by default. None of the two have a moral imperative to preserve nature.
Also, you can’t really impose such an imperative on others without becoming coercive.
What’s left is teaching, educating and living by example and that’s about all you can do
However self defense and defending others from agression is allowed. Destroying people’s livelihood can be seen as agression…You’ll have to find ways to solve this as grownups. For example, if my neighbour burns toxic waste in his yard and the smoke poisons my kids playing in my yard, i’m gonna have a discussion with him (that often solves it) and if he continues, it is my moral right to make him stop, by violence if necessary. Assuming most people have a minimum of common sense, most such situations can be resolved peacefully
Hughsername
“….Assuming most people have a minimum of common sense, most such situations can be resolved peacefull….”
lol, most people dont have common sense, but even if they did there will always be a subset that choose “bad” voluntarily.
The real flaw in classical liberalism and its descended philosophies is the false assumption in the basic goodness of humanity. Virtue has to be trained into most people, and enforced on those who reject it.
Sure, you can get close to volunteyism but at the end of the day all societies depend on some level of violence for their existence, and thise that reject violence are easy prey for those that don’t. This is an unfortunate situation IMO.
@Hughsername
Okay, so “self defense and defending others from agression is allowed”.
Does that apply to aggression inflicted into rivers or aggression aimed at ancient forests (that clean the water, hold the soil together and alter entire continental rain patterns to be more stable) ?
Lets say hypothetically, a bunch of anarcho-capitalist voluntaryists get together to make a pulp corporation. They want to take advantage of the “unbounded market” potential and turn all the forests into pulp.
Now, to many of us, the ancient trees and few remaining primary forest watersheds on Earth are sacred, they not only favorably influence the weather, ocean biology, salmon populations, clean the water and provide medicine, they are places for prayer and spiritual nourishment… they are cathedrals.
What (in your opinion) should/could a voluntaryist do, that sees other people describing themselves as voluntaryists doing what I outline in the post below?
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/on-a-pilgrimage-through-the-wastelands
(just to be clear, my question to you is hypothetical, as the people clearcutting the forests described in my post above are certainly statists, and some of them are capitalistic exploitative First Nation people pretending to live traditionally, while embracing parasitic statist ways).
Hey Gavin,
Thanks for your reply, there’s no reply button anymore in the other thread so I reply here:
1) With anarchocommunist i meant someone who’s not only believing that there should be no state but also no privately owned means of production. Traditionally that ends in some kind of coercive authority making sure the “capitalists” are being stripped of their property, however you could imagine a group of people sharing this ideology living in some kind of commune together where they decide to abolish private property between themselves without enforcing it on unwilling others, these can thus be considered voluntaryists.
2) I don’t agree. Again, it’s not oversimplifying to make a distinction between statists and voluntaryists, as the term voluntaryist means nothing else than the belief that interactions between humans should be voluntary. That’s it. You can be a voluntaryist but still a crappy human, you can be a voluntaryist that finds it important to preserve nature (you and me) you can be a voluntaryist that believes in any possible superstition (except statism ;))
3) My kids are not my property, but I see what you’re getting at and yes, I do believe in defending private property against agression. One way to acquire property is by contract, but I guess you were rather pointing to the question of the legitimacy of a practice referred to as “homesteading”? Arguing against it means private land ownership by humans is impossible, this implies that you’d need to violate the NAP to remove humans from the land they homesteaded.
3) The NAP can only work between humans, you can not extend it to trees or animals or you’d have to be a hypocrite as with every walk through the forest and every ride with your car you knowingly kill huge amounts of living beings (insects, funghi, living microorganisms etc…), see the conundrum? Where would you draw the line between what’s worth defending with violence and what’s not?
So, preserving nature will have to be done primarily through education of people, which is what you do and which is impressive and highly valuable (I got your recipes book last year after hearing you on the corbettreport ;)).
Have a great day!
@Hughsername
Thanks for elaborating on what you mean by anarchocommunist.
Re: “You can be a voluntaryist but still a crappy human, you can be a voluntaryist that finds it important to preserve nature”
Okay, so can I be a voluntaryist and sabotage a buncher feller, bulldozer and logging road intended to facilitate the chopping down of the last few ancient forest watersheds on Earth (if the people wanting to clearcut the forest claim to have “ownership” of “private property” that encompasses that forest) ?
How about if I stand in between a logger and a thousand year old tree and he tries to push past me, strikes me and I defend the tree and it inadvertently results in the logger dying as he is so persistent in using violence to get past me and engage in profiteering by cutting down the ancient tree for selfish gain?
Is that still voluntaryism?
I was defending an elder relative from harm after all… or does that make me some kind of violent tree hugging hippy anarchist in your mind?
Re: “I see what you’re getting at and yes, I do believe in defending private property against agression. One way to acquire property is by contract, but I guess you were rather pointing to the question of the legitimacy of a practice referred to as “homesteading”?
Firstly, no I was not referring to homesteading specifically.
Secondly, okay, contracts make ownership of property legitimate you say. Well, as someone that the statist regime of Canada recognizes as a property owner I do have an incentive to agree with you, yet the part of me that attempts to walk a mile in another’s shoes wonders about the chain of custody of this land and if the property changing hands was all voluntary on both sides.
So lets look at another hypothetical to unpack your contract aspect.
There is a band of marauding aggressors that shows up on someone’s land, kills some people that life there and then tells the survivors to vacate or else.
The band of marauding thugs devise an elaborate system of thought that justifies their actions in their mind and they wrote on pieces of paper that they now “legally” own the land.
Then they sell it to you via a contract.
If the land was taken using violent coercion, murder and duress from the original inhabitants and stewards of that land, does that not make this hypothetical contract that the marauding aggressors signed with you illegitimate in the eyes of the voluntaryist (that sees all transactions as having to be voluntary in nature) ?
If a voluntaryist can see such a contract as legitimate, why? If not, why not?
———–
Thanks so much for buying a copy of my book. If you have not found the particular pages that touch on the views of my Gaelic ancestors pertaining to trees (pages 299 and 300) check them out. Elder trees were considered as nobles of the wood, recognized as beings, community members and protected under law.
@Hughsername
RE: “The NAP can only work between humans, you can not extend it to trees or animals or you’d have to be a hypocrite as with every walk through the forest and every ride with your car you knowingly kill huge amounts of living beings (insects, funghi, living microorganisms etc…), see the conundrum? Where would you draw the line between what’s worth defending with violence and what’s not?”
I disagree.
There is a big difference between a thousand year old cedar or oak (that is an orchestrator of life and keystone species supporting in entire ecosystem with their many ecological gifts) and the beetle that lives on her branches, the fungi that grows at her base and the bacteria that live within and around her.
Some people that choose not to eat animals delude themselves into thinking that they are not taking life since they do not eat animals, but I am keenly aware that I take lives everyday. Plants are alive and I eat them. The key component that our ancestors had figured out (both for eating animals and plants) was the imperative of reciprocity. I do this for the kin of the plants I kill and I do that for kin of the animals I have killed to eat in the past. We all kill to live, it is about acknowledging that truth and completing the gift cycle. Through that, we can align that taking of life with natural law and ecological literacy.
It is not hypocritical to be willing to kill plants, animals and microorganisms yet to value the ancient trees, living clean waters of a river or mountainside as sentient beings deserving of a higher degree of acknowledgment and beings deserving of the same considerations as humans. It is a degree of discernment that all intact place based cultures cultivate.
My ancestors developed that awareness and then infused it into their written language and laws.
For more on that, read:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/retracing-the-footsteps-of-my-indigenous
These threads suck if you cant reply anymore, you’ll probably not see this Gavin. Your example 1 i’d say you violate the NAP if their ownership is established. If not, you can claim it too and you’d have to find a court/arbitration solution.
Example 2 sounds like defensive force.
3) Anarchist and voluntaryist are basically the same thing.
4) the contract can be seen as legitimate by a voluntaryist if he acquired it peacefully from the previous peaceful owner. If he knows the previous owner killed his predecessor and stole the land, it’s not legitimate (this exists as legal principle even now, callled “recel” in french systems or “possession of stolen goods”.)
You can always find cases on the edge and point to them to criticize that voluntaryism doesn’t have a built-in solution for everything.
This is normal and it’s also good coz there will never be any system with a built-in, centralized solution to everything coz a solution to you and your neighbor might not be a good solution to somebody else.
The solution must come from the people, decentralized, through trial and error, discussions, consensus, case law, etc…
I read your substack on “retracing the path of my indigenous ancestors” and something resonated, my eyes even teared up a lil. I get what you mean and ancient laws protecting bees and trees is very interesting to read about. I also tend to agree with your imperative of reciprocity. I still don’t think the NAP can get extended to non humans though. And it doesn’t need to. Just as they were protected in the past by clan laws something similar could exist in voluntaryism
@Hughsername
Thank you for reading my post about who and what I am and the lifeways of my Gaelic indigenous ancestors. I am glad to know this was moving for you. May this serve as an inspiration to explore your own indigenous ancestry (if you have not already).
Re:
“the contract can be seen as legitimate by a voluntaryist if he acquired it peacefully from the previous peaceful owner. If he knows the previous owner killed his predecessor and stole the land, it’s not legitimate (this exists as legal principle even now, callled “recel” in french systems or “possession of stolen goods”.)
Are you familiar with The Doctrine Of Discovery? It is not a very pleasant subject to learn about. If you are not however, it is pertinent to this discussion ,so I will share this link incase you are unfamiliar:
https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery
Thanks for clarifying on what qualifies a property ownership contract as legitimate in the voluntaryist philosophy.
So, considering all the land we (in so called North America) stand on, live on and many of us claim to “own” was originally acquired through murder, duplicity and theft, where do our current “legal” contracts of land “ownership” stand according to that voluntaryist principle of morality?
Does this “If he knows the previous owner killed his predecessor and stole the land, it’s not legitimate” principle have a limited time half-life? Does it become morally okay to purchase land that was stolen from people over one hundred years ago for instance? Or if more or less time is required, why?
The lands of my indigenous ancestors in Eire and Albion (aka Ireland and Wales, England and Scotland) were stolen starting over a millennia ago (starting with the Roman statists, then the British Empire Statists).
Does that land theft by violent aggression mean that according to voluntaryism I am entitled to claim the rightful contractual ownership of property tended by my ancestors on Hebrides islands and the Isle of Tiree?
If not, why not?
——
Thanks for your consideration of these hypotheticals, thanks for holding a vision of a potential future where humanity abandons violent coercion and thank you for evoking this line of thought.
@Hughsername
I replied to your comment to me above.
(here:
https://corbettreport.com/why-i-talk-about-agorism/#comment-182966 )
@Hughsername
I would like to invite you to look at how at first, because I raised concerns about there being zero moral imperative described in the post above pertaining to either Agorism or Voluntaryism regarding preserving the ecological integrity of the ecosystems we depend on to live a meaningful, happy and healthy life, you (incorrectly) jumped to the conclusion that I must be a statist.
This makes me think of how statists always assume that you are either “right wing” or “left wing” and they try to stick you into the limited thinking of the binary box checking reality they have adopted.
RE : “Thing is, if you’re not a statist, you’re a voluntaryist by default. None of the two have a moral imperative to preserve nature.”
Now, you engage in a similar attempt to put me into a box that is some imagined black and white polarity you have decided applies to and describes every person on Earth.
This limited thinking is the same nonsense that statists drone on about when they tell you that you need to pick your preferred organized criminal syndicate by casting your vote in the slave suggestion box.
I am not a statist and while I do live by the non-aggression principle and refuse to acknowledge the authority and legitimacy of coercion based governments and interactions between humans, I also reject the anthropocentric anarcho-capitalist views that some voluntaryists espouse.
Thus, if voluntaryism is defined as having zero built in respect for and moral codes specifically applied to not violating the more than human world, the sacred living waters, ancient forests, oceans and living soil, than I am not a voluntaryist, as I recognize those facets of our world as living beings, deserving of respect and reciprocity.
I never suggested imposing an imperative on anyone, I asked How can we address this potential downside of voluntaryism?
People like Derrick Broze (who writes about Agorism) and Cory Edmund Endrulat (who writes about voluntaryism) have sought to answer this question in their published works and made some great suggestions. I strive to do my own part by encouraging people to learn more about the pre-statist animist worldviews of their own indigneous ancestors (in essays like this: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/germinating-the-ancient-seeds-within ) and so I sought to invite people here to contribute to that endeavor and dialogue.
In my opinion, many people that describe themselves as voluntaryists and/or anarchists have rather materialistic, mechanistic, techo-optimist, atheistic, humancentric and capitalistic worldviews/motivations (in other words, they are suffering from spiritual impoverishment, in a different, yet just as crippling capacity as the statists) and as I said above this is a potential recipe for turning the world into a giant toxic waste dump, strip mine, factory farm and lifeless wasteland.
Whoa, i think you’re wrong. I didn’t jump to the conlusion you’re a statist, i merely asked you a question. Your reasoning is wrong on voluntaryism, this is a binary thing, this is not me attempting “to put you in a box” its yes or no, 0 or 1, you believe in the authority of a state, you’re a statist, you don’t, you’re a voluntaryist. You say yourself you live by the non agression people, so you’re a voluntaryist, end of story. That doesn’t mean you must like everything other voluntaryists do, heck you can be an anarchocommunist for all i care, that still makes you a voluntaryist if you don’t impose your views on others by force. You can have any moral imperative or worldview you like and still be a voluntaryist.
@Hughsername
Okay, thanks for elaborating on your comment and views further.
Firstly, I have no idea what an “anarchocommunist” is, can you define that for me please?
Secondly, I can see why you would apply that clean-cut label to me based on my declaration of NAP compliance, yet, I also think you are over-simplifying and avoiding addressing importance nuance (some of which I highlighted above).
Thirdly, lets explore some nuance pertaining to the question of NAP and how some define it as “a libertarian ethical concept that prohibits initiating force or coercion against another person or their property.”
Lets explore the foundations and implications of the “property” aspect of that definition a bit further.
Above in a comment you stated “For example, if my neighbour burns toxic waste in his yard and the smoke poisons my kids playing in my yard, i’m gonna have a discussion with him…”
I assume this means you believe in the right to protect your property against aggression? If so, who or what has the authority to deem that land as your property in the first place? and why?
Lastly, I assume NAP allows for defending one’s relatives against unprovoked aggression using violence yes?
If so, as someone that sees the rivers, mountains and ancient forests as my relatives, would I still be defined as a voluntaryist if I defended a river or a thousand year old cedar against an aggressor attempting to harm them for selfish gain if I had to use violence?
If not (considering I also do not endorse nor recognize the legitimacy of the state monopoly on violence/coercion) what would that make me according to existing labels for humans, their beliefs and actions (according to what you know) ?
Thanks for the dialogue.
Hey buddy I totally see where you come from and you’re right, and the state is the tool of coercion used by the capitalists, as long as the state exists the capitalists and the haves will have unfair advantage over the have nots. Because the capitalists love coercion and without it they couldn’t function. The only thing libertarians argue is to remove the coercion element from the equation. If any libertarian argues more than that and wants to enforce some kind of societal norms, they are not libertarian at all.
I like this idea of voluntaryism (or auto-corrected: voluntarism).
I was first exposed to a portion of the concept a score and one years ago as a graduate Teaching Assistant (TA) Instructor for the upper level undergraduate course #ComprehensiveStressAndAnxietyManagement at the University of Florida.
Like many a college course, then University of Maryland Professor #JerroldSGreenberg’s rather expensive required textbook
#ComprehensiveStressAndAnxietyManagement, 12th edition(!) was foundational.
Intentionally apolitical, and more a footnote than a short lesson on coping with “stressors” via religious faith, what has stuck in my memory is the phrase “Volunteerism is a spiritual activity.”
Ours is a nonpartisan & nonviolent #RevolutionOfAwareness for #FreeingTruthandReconciliation (ref. Bollyn.com, John 8:32, and #NelsonMandela, respectively).
We’re latter day #Volunteers4America.
And our task is “To Be” healthily skeptical, eschewing Soul corroding cynicism.
#Ty4Reading
LewALincolnWelge.com
#CREATORS (Conspiracy Realist Educator Activist Truther Organizer Reader Socializer)
Does Libertarianism lead to feudalism? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/libertarianism-is-dead