RE: Anarchists Are Not Surprised By Political "Scandals"
Thanks for the book recommendation. Unfortunately it's not on audible.com, my normal go-to for audio books, but I'll hunt around for it.
I would be completely find with people voluntarily choosing their own system of government. The key is consent and voluntary action. It's possible you may be straw manning my argument a bit since what you keep describing as Classical Liberalism sounds quite like what I envision voluntaryism based on the NAP to be. If I get around to understanding the labels you're using by reading the book you recommended maybe we can have a more interesting conversation about what specific areas we actually disagree about (not just spend time trying to define the words we're using).
I absolutely want to manage power over you friend
We seem to use words differently. Defensive use of force is a wonderful thing, but I would never describe that as a "power over" someone else. The use of defensive force is a rational, logical response to someone else's initiation of force. The non-aggression principle is clear on this.
will not allow sovereign individuals to put a ruler in place if they wish it
Curious where you got that. By "if they wish," you're describing a voluntary agreement which has no conflict with voluntaryism (but might have some conflict with a shared understanding of "ruler"). Again, I think we're just struggling here with arguing for or against words we use differently. Wittgenstein would be amused.
My views on voluntaryism are based on my understanding of where our species is headed as far as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. It's contextual and completely open to reinterpretation given a different context. To be even more specific, it's based on my experiences living in the United States.
If the U.S. didn't implement Classical Liberalism adequately to be used as an example, can you point to a historical example that helps me better understand your position?
Thanks for an interesting conversation.
Hi, you don’t need to thank me, this is the point of places like steemit in my view, and will probably lead to the acceleration of the evolution of our species – and that’s just our conversation, haha! Well, reading Rawls, or anything else, won’t really help you understand my position, I’m afraid you have to ask me. Truth is, I’ve always been leery of authority in a major way, and I’ve never been a ‘follower’ of any school, or had a core textbook belief system. I’ve slowly come to consider myself a Liberal, but not classical (property rights are of no great interest to me, though they are certainly relevant in the evolution of rights theory). I’m certainly not the libtard sham. My original political study, and what I probably know best, was Marx – I learned enough to find out where he went horribly wrong – but he was quite, quite brilliant, and had some wonderful insights regarding the human condition. It is not wise to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I firmly believe in minimal government, drastic devolution – and lots and lots of community experimentation encouraged by the genius of unshackled human freedom. I recommended Rawls because I came across him briefly nearly 25 years ago now, and my impression was that he was the best modern exponent of the Liberal model. I don’t recall how much he delves into the classics, which as I recall are focused a lot on the issue of ownership. You are quite right about definitions, but if you think I’m strawmanning you’ll need to cite, or I can’t deal with it. Might be, but not intentional.
I’m not an expert on Classical Liberalism, or classical anything. My views are a unique hodgepodge, largely made up in the moment of asking. In discussing this with you I have likely conflated a number of disparate, half-remembered political theories into my inadequate notion of CL, and presented to you as though it were a concrete, pristine theoretical edifice. It will not be. I think the point is the interaction, and the growth that is possible through it. I remain convinced that rights/duties theories, divorced from any concept of ‘the good’, are by far the best method to preserve individual liberty, voluntary association, sovereignty, etc, etc., and I hope it has been valuable for you to see it through that lens. It is clear enough to me that Voluntarism/Libertarianism are an offshoot of CL, and so they must, inherently, be built on the same rights/duties assumptions. You are perfectly entitled to consider yourself a voluntarist consistent with these principles, but I am very wary of rooting that position in terms of how society ‘should/ought’ to be, and I think your arguments are at their weakest when you make claims like ‘don’t want military leaders with monopoly of force…’ etc. I know what you’re driving at, but I don’t think decisions like that have any place in the foundations of political theory, for reasons I outlined last time. I think we are still where we started though – your voluntarist version of Liberalism, particularly anarchism, is a vision of a future that I believe will likely arrive, but when we get there, we won’t even be talking about it, it will just be self-evident. In the meantime, I think for pragmatic reasons it is better to focus on what is easiest to spread in the societies we are embedded in now – basically, rights based Liberalism, encouraging ever contracting government, and ever multiplying and complexifying communities of freely associating sovereign individuals. From most outsiders’ points of view, on most political topics, I doubt there is much daylight between us at all. Db
I agree. Mostly, I think, the problems exist in our own minds and our belief in authority (what Larken Rose calls the most dangerous superstition).
For me, I'm less concerned about making "should" or "ought" claims if I can back them up with reason, logic, and evidence as it relates to human well-being.
I also agree these conversations are key. As more people move up Maslow's Hierarchy and are free to have them (instead of living pay check to pay check, living hand to mouth), then we'll get there that much quicker.