Trade by barter

How do we achieve a voluntary society?

How might we bring about a voluntary society, one in which individuals are free to do as they wish as long as they do not initiate physical violence against another’s person or property?  What specific actions can we take, instead of just spending time criticizing the status quo?  There are many possibilities, some of which I have outlined below, along with reasons why they would be suited or not suited to producing this society.

Revolution

Why it might work

A revolution has the appeal of immediate action.  You don’t have to play the game of an unethical system and it can appear as the only way to make any substantial change due to status quo inertia.  It is also a way to bring high-ranking criminals to justice.

Why it might not work

The government has the best weapons, training, and money.  Coordinating a large revolution would be detected and neutralized in the modern surveillance state.  Furthermore, violent revolutions are essentially war, the suspension of law and morality, so they are unethical since they inevitably result in the deaths of innocent people.  Revolutions are uncontrollable.  Just because you start a revolution doesn’t mean you are the one who ends it.  It can lead to a worse regime than the one it is replacing.  A regime built on violence to achieve power must also rely on violence to maintain power.

Secession

Why it might work

Secession allows a community of like-minded individuals to bypass trying to reform the existing corrupt system and go straight to creating an independent state.  Secession also has the advantage of using pre-existing state structures, so that there is reduced uncertainty in whether the new system will function.

Why it might not work

It would be easy to repeat the mistakes of the past if today’s issues aren’t dealt with.  You might simply end up with a smaller tyranny, or an even worse tyranny on a smaller scale.

Withdrawal

Why it might work

You can withdraw from society individually, according to your individual tastes and preferences.  Just go into the wilderness or even stay secluded within the geographic boundaries of a society, but with the ready option of escaping if things go sideways.  In either case, you are self-sufficient and ignore politics..

Why it might not work

This doesn’t really answer the question of how to bring about a voluntary society – it is a kind of defeat.  it also is not very pleasant and foregoes the benefits of division of labor in a society.

Voting

Why it might work

Voting is available to us here and now – we don’t have to wait.  Social change has been achieved with voting before, such as the civil rights movement.

Why it might not work

Unfortunately, the public doesn’t support a free society.  The public wants goodies from the government.  In any case, the real power is not in congress, so we are playing a rigged game even if we do have some victories at the voting booth.

Education

Why it might work

It is necessary to prepare people for any social change.  Before you can win at either the voting booth or in a revolutionary struggle, people must be mentally prepared for it.  In fact, education in itself may ultimately be the most effective means of social change, since whatever form such a change takes, it will inevitable reflect the prevailing sentiment of the people.

Why it might not work

Most people don’t have the time, mental bandwidth, or motivation to get educated about complex topics like politics and economics.  Only a small handful of people have the free time, money, and curiosity to sustain that kind of effort.  So, there either has to be a change in educational tactics that can influence the masses instead of just a few intellectuals, or there has to be a way for a few educated intellectuals to effect social change in an ethical manner.

Technology

Why it might work

Technology can empower individuals and free a society.  You don’t have to convince people of complex theories.  You just have to convince them that a particular technology helps them advance their own interests.  One idea, one new way of doing things, can affect millions of people.  That is enormous leverage that is difficult to achieve with education or force.

Why it might not work

Technology is a double-edged sword.  The internet can break down barriers to communication and facilitate an alternative media to shine a light on corruption.  It can also lead to a surveillance and control grid with NSA-style spying.

Voluntary coordination

Why it might work

Systems of voluntary coordination enable large-scale collective action with the consent of each individual involved, without any coercion.  Markets in general are an example of this.  Recent technologies open up new possibilities such as crowdfunding, which enables projects to get funded quickly by many people.

Why it might not work

There is not enough research and development yet on systems of voluntary coordination that are now possible with new technologies.  Even so, such systems can still be used to oppress and ostracize, if not structured correctly, such as cyber-bullying.

This list is just a start.  What other methods can you think of?  Let’s talk about concrete action we can take to actually bring about the world we want to live in.

Liberty pioneers, showing the way through the economic wilderness

Liberty pioneers: showing the world how to live without government

Libertarians living off tax money is unethical, but it’s an even bigger practical problem. It shows that living without the government teat is impossible, that living on theft is the only way. It is philosophically damaging to the idea of a voluntary society. It is also bad marketing to people who ask questions like “who will build the roads?”

There will never be a day when we simply “get rid of government”, such that everything is perfectly free. This is because no one wants to be the first to give up their government goodies. Just as unilateral free trade is better than mutual protectionism, unilateral voluntarism is better than mutual theft. We can only ever get rid of government by showing, in practical terms, how to make a living without it.

Is it difficult? Extremely! Will it mean less money and fewer opportunities than working for the government? Yes! That is the price of advancing liberty. Many people are not up to the task. But then don’t blow hot air about liberty, if you are unwilling to do what is required to bring it about. It reeks of hypocrisy. The pioneers of liberty are the ones who show how to make a living, or even be rich, without stolen tax money. If they show the way, others will follow, simply because it’s in their self-interest. And isn’t that what we say motivates people, rather than abstract principles that contradict their daily reality?

Receiving tax money is theft

Ethics of receiving government money

I had a couple of objections to my argument that living off the government is unethical.

First, if accepting a government wage is unethical, then using the roads must also be unethical.

But this is not the case if one uses the net tax payer vs. net tax taker standard.  Using the roads is simply redeeming what was stolen from me.  Earning a government wage is 100% theft.

What about using the roads without having paid any taxes?  Should the government compel this person to pay taxes in order to justify using the roads?

If one looks at the road as just a pile of stolen money, the ethical way to remedy a theft is to split the money proportionally to what was stolen, and return the money to the victims.  Since the road cannot be split physically, its use may be split, effectively as usage vouchers, for the expected lifetime of the road that was built from that theft.  In other words, privatized.

The person who infringes on the use of the road without having had anything stolen in the first place, is infringing on the usage of the people who were stolen from.  He would be responsible for compensating those privatized owners, not for paying new taxes, i.e. new thefts committed against him.

This standard is consistent with not accepting any of the government’s stolen loot, unless, and only in the amount that, one was stolen from.

A corollary objection is, doesn’t this imply a need for government borders, since illegals use roads without having paid taxes?

Punishing people collectively is not justified, just because they are foreigners.  Furthermore, no one has commited any violations prior to crossing the border, so no a priori punishment is justified.  Many end up working and having money stolen from them.  However, any who do receive more from the government than was stolen from, are also stealing, the same as Americans who do so.  So, there is no categorical difference between Americans and foreigners.  No national border is justified, any more than any arbitrary border within the country.

The second objection is, while it may be unethical to provide services to the government in exchange for stolen money, it is okay to simply receive the money, as in Social Security payments.

If someone steals your car, you can justly recover your car, since you hold the rightful title.  If they steal your car and give it to a friend, you can also justly recover your car from their friend, since they do not have any rightful claim on it.  It is unethical for the robber’s friend to receive the stolen car.

Similarly, it is unethical to accept stolen money, since the victims have a right to have their money returned, from the money handed out by the government.

Birds flying to freedom

Human nature: liberty or tyranny?

If liberty is human nature, then we should see humanity in a state of liberty.  It is not in a state of liberty, but one of tyranny, or one of mixed liberty and tyranny.  Either tyranny must be an aberration or human nature is not purely suited to liberty.

If tyranny is an aberration, a result of historical circumstance, or a particular person or institution, then eliminating the aberrant factor should let humanity resume liberty.  History has shown eliminating the source of tyranny usually leads to a replacement tyranny, oftentimes greater than the original.

Any state, or center of power, gravitates towards greater tyranny over time, until a crisis, and rearrangement of affairs.

Outside the scope of the state, humans gravitate towards liberty, by the pursuit of their desires, by the creation of new forms and methods, by the discovery of new places and avenues.

As groups, humans vacillate between tyranny and liberty, often advancing both at once.

As individuals, humans pursue their own liberty, yet accept tyranny over others, and over themselves, as a price of liberty.

Lowering the price of liberty, easing the pursuit of one’s own ends, makes the individual less accepting of tyranny.

Increasing the price of tyranny makes the individual want to escape, and accept liberty, even if costly.

Liberty is the pursuit of one’s own ends.  Tyranny is opposing another’s pursuit of their own ends.

Liberty and tyranny are attitudes.  The more one is concerned with their own pursuits, the less they are likely to tyrannize.  The more one is concerned with others’ pursuits, the more likely they are to tyrannize.

The key to pursuing liberty as an end in itself is to shift people’s focus to themselves rather than others.

Humans look to control others for some end they value.  Their own end, or that of another’s: a god, a king, a state.

If all humans wanted to control others for their own ends, no control would be possible, since it would be nullified in its symmetric pursuit among all humans.  Tyranny can only arise by the desire to control for the sake of another.

The mysteries of existence and creation are fashioned into religion.  Human virtue and honor are fashioned into a king.  Organization and security are fashioned into a state.

The very things that humans value are fashioned into the means of their enslavement.  Tyranny is the pursuit of goodness by evil means.

Liberty is the pursuit of one’s ends by one’s own means.

Blood and Soil

“Blood and Soil” Libertarianism: A Response to Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute, gave a talk this week, pushing libertarians into alt-right nationalism.  His talk is a confused mess and is a reminder that statism will always threaten to infect the liberty movement.

First, he sets up the necessity for political action by attacking technology development as a means of liberation.  He says technology doesn’t advance liberty on balance.  According to Jeff, only political power can result in libertarianism.  Peaceful development of technology, and its voluntary adoption, is politically useless, because it will end up being used by governments to oppress people.

Of course, this is contradicted by hundreds of years of technological progress.  Capital markets didn’t arise from a political process.  They were a technological innovation, that promoted social liberty regardless of the understanding of the participants.  Jeff actually says that the printing press had no net liberating effect on humanity!  Do I really need to spell out the massive liberating effect from thousands of years of ignorance and lies, the massive new opportunities available to commoners?  But, because it didn’t eliminate government altogether, it doesn’t count.  Yet later he says “Better, not perfect, ought to be our motto.”  Confused!

This isn’t his only confusion.  He poo poos technological optimism as “historical determinism”.  Yet in the same paragraph he says technology is useless because globalism is inevitable!  Which is it Jeff?   Are we to believe we can thwart determinism with politics, but not technology?  Talk about naive.  Then he calls libertarians “utopian” – confused!

Let’s take a look at Jeff’s mess of confusion and translate it into plain English.

“libertarians have a bad tendency to fall into utopianism”
“[Libertarians want to] give up their outdated ethnic or nationalist or cultural alliances.”

Translation: Libertarians are so silly to believe freedom is the highest political ideal.  Actually, it is about “nationalist or cultural alliances”.

“liberty as a deeply pragmatic approach to organizing society”

Translation: Society needs to be “organized” (centrally planned).  We need to be “pragmatic”, not principled, meaning we should use state power to achieve our desired ends.

“Better, not perfect, ought to be our motto.”

Translation: Dump liberty principles in the trash so we can use the state to defend “muh culture”.

“Human beings want to be part of something larger than themselves. Why do libertarians fail to grasp this?”
“There is a word for people who believe in nothing: not government, family, God, society, morality, or civilization. And that word is nihilist, not libertarian.”

Translation: Libertarianism isn’t about freedom from coercion.  It’s about being part of a collective and believing specific things about society and theology.

“My final point is about the stubborn tendency of libertarians to advocate some of sort of universal political arrangement.”
“Universalism provides the philosophical underpinnings for globalism, but globalism is not liberty: instead it threatens to create whole new levels of government. And universalism is not natural law; in fact it is often directly at odds with human nature and (true) human diversity.”

Translation: Libertarianism doesn’t apply to all humans.  It isn’t derived from human nature.  It is only suited to white Europeans in the United States.

“Nationalism is on the rise throughout Europe,”
“We should seize on this.”

Translation: Nationalist collectivism is en vogue right now, let’s abandon libertarian principles to ride this momentary popularity.  [Wait, I thought the world is moving inevitably towards globalism??]

“Mecca is not Paris, an Irishman is not an Aboriginal, a Buddhist is not a Rastafarian, a soccer mom is not a Russian.”

Translation: Humans are defined by their birthplace and race, as units of a collective identity.  Humans are not self-interested individuals who strive to pursue their own happiness.

“self-determination is the ultimate political goal.”

Translation: Self-determination of a national collective, not of the individual.  Remember, libertarianism is not accessible to other races or cultures, only white European America.

Note: The breakup of large superstates can be cheered without resorting to national collectivism.  The bureaucratization and monopolization of these superstates act to diminish individual freedom.  We want competing tax rates and regulatory environments, to allow people alternatives.

But just as technology is not a panacea, neither are national governments.   A national breakaway state may impose protectionist tarrifs, whereas a superstate guarantees free trade.  A smaller state may also be more tyrannical than the superstate it broke away from, reducing its citizens’ liberty.  The sword cuts both ways.

“In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.”

This one takes the cake.  Jeff goes with an unambiguous Nazi reference “Blood and Soil” (“Blut und Boden”) to describe his new libertarian values.  Not sure if he’s trolling, or just careless, but ultimately it means collectivism, whether based on genetics or the geography of one’s birth.  Apparently, libertarian ideas about individual freedom are not as important as we thought.  We should not strive to live and promote these values, no matter how difficult.  What matters is political “relevance” (power).  Sorry Jeff, I’m not interested in this version of “libertarianism”.