On voluntaryism

This post is constructed of excerpts from Voluntaryist.com, specifically their page “Fundamentals of Voluntaryism.” If you enjoy this selection, please find more on their site. All excerpts are contained within quotes.

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. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

The Economic Argument

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The Moral Argument

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

These arguments are a small drop in the bucket of voluntaryist works. We encourage you to discover more on Voluntaryist.com, and the key terms at disenthrall.me/definitions/.

Hold on. Is a volunteer the same thing as a voluntaryist? No. There is a big distinction from changing a couple of letters in the word.

• A volunteer is someone who does a thing (or things) voluntarily.
• A voluntaryist is a person who believes that all human interactions should be voluntary.

If Jill notices that Jack has his arms full, she might volunteer to open the door for him. That is volunteerism: she goes out of her way because she thinks it would be nice. But if Jack saw Jill pass him by after she decided she could not spare the time, and threatened her into helping him? Jack is still choosing voluntarily. Jill is not. She is being forced.

A voluntaryist would say that any situation that takes away people’s ability to volunteer without due cause is immoral. Most people outside of voluntaryism would react in a similar way: “I still think that’s immoral.” The overwhelming majority of people believe that using threats to make someone do something is wrong. What separates most people from a voluntaryist is that a voluntaryist believes that all interactions that result in a person being unable to volunteer their time, money, and so on, without proper cause, are morally wrong — not only the ones with direct threats of violence.

A quiz

Tina decides that the water donations are going so well that everyone ought to buy in so they can get a better discount. She hires several men to intimidate the neighbors into paying an annual water “donation.” She does not allow them to act violently.

Tina is not being a very good voluntaryist. She still wants the money for what she believes is a good cause, but she resorted to coercion, taking away people’s ability to safely use their money as they see fit.

After a few months she wants to take it nationally to help firefighters. She gets the entire town together to vote on a mandatory water fund, which passes 51%. To the 49% who voted against it, this is not a fun exchange. On top of the men who already came to bother them, now they give up their funds or those same men throw them into jail.

The men she employs freely chose to help collect. They are volunteers. Given their willingness to use violence over a difference in opinion, they are not voluntaryists.

And this relates to the charity — how?

At Voluntary Virtue the team has come to understand the importance of letting people volunteer as they see fit, not when someone tells them to or makes them. That worldview likes free-market production of goods and services, and respect for people and their property. That has put us at a point where we can turn outward and help those who need it most.

Through that free-market capitalism we acquired the skills and funds to run a charitable organization. With respect for human dignity, we will not force anyone to be part of a program or to share our view of the world.

All we hope is that others will see acts of kindness and go do some of their own. Buy someone a meal. Mow a neighbor’s lawn. Help a friend with the bills. Be there for the people who need you. Maybe start their own charity. And who knows — maybe they will learn a little about voluntaryism along the way.

With all ideologies or philosophies, the answer to “What is Voluntaryism?” is in one part simple, and in another quite complex.

In short: voluntaryism is the idea that unjust coercion in any and all forms is wrong and should be avoided at all costs when engaging with others in society.

We would all prefer to live day to day without the threat and will of others imposed on ourselves, our property, and our lives. Unfortunately, this is not the state of the world in which we live, and this is where things get complicated.

Bad actors large and small exist. The robber who takes property against another’s will. The extortionist who maligns an individual’s ability to live and act safely lest they comply. The murderer who claims lives unjustly. The slaver who claims others as property. Any individual who fits those categorizations would see no sympathy in the eyes of any rational being.

If you picture these agents of injustice, you might imagine the stereotype: the thief in a mask, dead of night, crowbar, bloodshot eyes. Those stereotypes exist for a reason. Peel the eccentricities away. A thief is someone who takes an individual’s property without their consent. If his eyes were not bloodshot he would still be a thief. Replace the mask with a clean cut and a sharp suit: if he is still taking property without consent, he is still a thief. Replace the crowbar with a clipboard, and fear of capture with a sense of righteousness: if he still takes another’s property without consent, he is still a thief.

Then what exactly separates the stereotypical thief from a sanctioned representative of the IRS?

To some the line is rational. To others this may seem a drastic leap. It is to the latter that this discussion is most important — not for our sake, or for Voluntary Virtue’s activities. Regardless of your determination, we will continue to help others. This is important for yourself. For your safety. To the benefit of your own life.

Identifying the link between the common thief and the governmental representative brings two questions: authority, and consent.

Authority is the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior. Voluntaryism is not against any and all authority. It dismisses authority deemed unjust. To determine whether an authority is just, we must determine the consent of the one being commanded.

Consent is familiar: to give assent, as to the proposal of another. Each of us consents daily. Consent can be denied or revoked. Consent cannot be given under threat, or when the individual is unable to decide in a rational capacity.

A just authority is one engaged consensually. If someone commands you to move your vehicle from your driveway, the command is just only if you consented to the command or had already consented to the authority itself. Student to teacher, employee to employer, child to parent — in all of these, as a function of consent, the purview of authority can be rescinded. Add “otherwise I’ll crush your car,” or “I’ll take it and sell it,” and you can no longer consent to the command. You still have the physical capacity to move the car. The threat of violence has removed your ability to choose free of undue externalities. That is coercive violence: compelling any action or choice with the threat of violence.

Your boss may compel you to file paperwork because you already consented to their authority. “I need you to step up your game on this next presentation” is coercion with implications. Coercion without prior consent is vacuous — the authority has no power over you. “I need you to step up, or I’ll hold your family hostage” has escalated to coercive violence, and unless specifically allowed via prior consent, is immoral.

Understanding this, again: what separates the stereotypical thief from a sanctioned representative of the IRS?

First, consent. Do you consent to the authority of the thief or the IRS agent? “Of course I consent to the IRS agent, and deny the thief my consent.” And that’s the trick: you can’t.

What is the standard process for someone who chooses not to pay their taxes? Letters, phone calls, fines that escalate, maybe a home visit. Ultimately, jail — and if they resist that, death. You cannot consent under threats of violence, and still less when the consequence of noncompliance could be the loss of your own life.

So not only can you not consent to the wishes of the tax collector, you cannot even consent to the authority which anointed him. Consent has been violated, and until the procedures change, consent cannot be given.

“So what, voluntaryism puts into question the authority of the entire government?” Yes.

When unjust coercion that impedes individuals’ ability to live as they see fit is identified, it must be called what it is: immoral, and unjustifiable, no matter how righteous the institution or individual is broadly perceived.

In our case, the act of charity itself has been monopolized and captured by this same coercive entity, and is done in an inefficient and ineffective manner becoming of an unjust and unaccountable authority. We see ourselves, as both voluntaryists and individuals seeking opportunities to act virtuously, as critical pieces in the demonstration of what individuals acting in good faith can perform when united in a consensual and principled manner.

And that’s voluntaryism.

Whether or not you agree with Voluntary Virtue’s advocacy position, we will continue earnestly on our mission to promote charitable action free of coercive violence. Our goal is not necessarily to convert all who read this. We expect ourselves to be leading examples of voluntary charitable action that may inspire others to understand what motivates us, and we will pursue that end with fervent passion.

For those who have already donated to help us aid those in need: thank you. For those who will contribute or volunteer in the future: you are equally appreciated by the Voluntary Virtue team and those we help.

CEO, Christian G. Moore

The concept of random acts of kindness has swept the world. Here at Voluntary Virtue we were curious: what if we could help encourage others to autonomously commit to a lifestyle of humanitarian benevolence? Rather than waiting for the state or for bureaucratic organizations to solve problems, what if we asked ourselves, “What can I do right now to be a better critter?” Could we motivate and empower others to step up their game?

This project is not tied to the most basic needs on Maslow’s list. It is about those tiny things that could make a difference in someone else’s life.

A recent example: a board member posted his Amazon Alexa for sale. A woman said she wanted to buy it, then was tardy picking it up. He reminded her. She said she would. Nothing. A week later he reminded her again. She said she would not be able to get it — her new baby was on oxygen. He put out a call for help. A long-time friend who lives near the woman (sixty miles away) agreed to transport the Alexa. The board member gave it to the woman for free.

Will this conspiracy between two voluntaryists to give the woman a gift of music change the world? Of course not. We bet it made her week. This must be a very scary time for her, and to see that others care might have given her the strength to keep marching forward.

Another example: a board member sat at a traffic light on his motorcycle. Another vehicle turning accidentally dumped a bag of debris onto the roadway. He jumped off and tossed the bag off the roadway. That likely prevented traffic jams and maybe a fender-bender. Again, not world-changing. A spontaneous autonomous act of humanitarian goodness.

This project is not aimed only at principled libertarians. It is for voluntary volunteers with a wide range of worldviews. We like the idea of all people doing nice things, even if their day job is as a meth-chef, politician, or tax collector. What can Voluntary Virtue do to help lead others to commit these autonomous humanitarian random acts of goodness? We are working on it.

Let’s do more good for our fellow humans who choose to act voluntarily, shall we?