Capitalism, Socialism, and Voluntarism

[AlexMerced]

http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/08/capitalism-socialism-and-voluntarism.html


Capitalism, Socialism, and Voluntarism
by Alex Merced

People blame all the worlds problems on it's systems of resource management, for in the end that is all that Capitalism and Socialism are, systems to managing scarce resources. Quality of life, happiness, joy; these are all things that are not quantifiable, and independent of how resources are managed. Someone in the most tyrannical despotic land can still find joy and happiness cause it's internal and has to do with ones perception of the world around them. So even if we agreed which system of resource management is better, does this mean people will be happy? Probably Not.

If you operate in a system that is objectively seen as "better" by others yet you subjectively see as "corrupt", "tyrannical", "immoral", and many other adjectives; you'll be unhappy since you feel forced to comply with something to which you not consent. This is the overriding issue than that of economics; that of consent. As long as their is a government imposing any system of any type on a entire population there will be despair and unhappiness from those who do not consent to participate. The road to happiness is that of your choosing.

This is the true Anarchist position, whether you call yourself a Anarcho-Capitalist or an Anarcho-Socialist or one of the many of other breeds of anarchist, your still advocating a system. The root of what makes anarchist different is the belief that participation in any of these systems should be voluntary, if everyone consents to play by the rules then any system is arguably workable like any board game is playable with those who are willing to follow the rules. No system can work when imposed on unwilling participants.

Arguably there is a case to be made that multiple communities running different systems that people volunteer in would actually have a positive synergy. If you had one voluntarist community of capitalist they would foster it's citizens competitive and innovative spirits and prices. If there was a neighboring voluntarist socialist community it would offer a place for those who don't want to or can't compete in the competitive capitalist system, yet can still benefit from the innovations of the capitalist society and not mis-manage resources as much cause of the prices set by the capitalist society.

Instead of focusing on which is better and who is right, how about we focus on individual liberty and how voluntarism and liberty leads to beautiful synergy.

[AlexMerced]

bump for liberty

[Stary Hickory]

I have yet to meet a socialist who was a voluntarist. In fact I would wager maybe .05% of socialists could percieve of socialism without using a gun to enforce it on others. In a free market without the use of force socialism loses it's meaning entirely it would simply be part of the free market.

There are many examples of socialism(voluntary) at work in the free market. Restrooms in gas stations.....people who never use the bathrooms still pay the cost of maintaining the facilities for those that do...this is voluntary socialism. The fact of the matter is that socialism has only ever existed as a violent concept. I don't think it could even be identified without the use of force, that is what defines socoalism more than anything else.

In the free marker everyone is socially cooperative, we socialize costs amongst ourselves in repeated ways. Examples public pools at apartment buildings when you don't want to use them, gyms at apartment buildings when you dont want to use them, treadmills in gyms that you never use but pay to support with youyr membership fees.

The thing is socialism is not really a concept without the aggressive use of force.....so I kinda cringe when people talk about voluntary socialism...because that would simply be called a free society, we socialize and share our efforts and world everyday. But it's voluntary and not predatory.

[AlexMerced]

I have yet to meet a socialist who was a voluntarist. In fact I would wager maybe .05% of socialists could percieve of socialism without using a gun to enforce it on others. In a free market without the use of force socialism loses it's meaning entirely it would simply be part of the free market.

There are many examples of socialism(voluntary) at work in the free market. Restrooms in gas stations.....people who never use the bathrooms still pay the cost of maintaining the facilities for those that do...this is voluntary socialism. The fact of the matter is that socialism has only ever existed as a violent concept. I don't think it could even be identified without the use of force, that is what defines socoalism more than anything else.

In the free marker everyone is socially cooperative, we socialize costs amongst ourselves in repeated ways. Examples public pools at apartment buildings when you don't want to use them, gyms at apartment buildings when you dont want to use them, treadmills in gyms that you never use but pay to support with youyr membership fees.

The thing is socialism is not really a concept without the aggressive use of force.....so I kinda cringe when people talk about voluntary socialism...because that would simply be called a free society, we socialize and share our efforts and world everyday. But it's voluntary and not predatory.


I can understand that, but it might be easier to win the debate by reframing the debate, redefining the socialist position in a voluntarist way. I had success with this the other night, by the end of discussion I wasn't able to get the subject to budge in matters of the virtue of capitalism, but I was able to show them the virtue of voluntarism and she conceded that maybe government is the problem independent of resource management.

[Stary Hickory]

I can understand that, but it might be easier to win the debate by reframing the debate, redefining the socialist position in a voluntarist way. I had success with this the other night, by the end of discussion I wasn't able to get the subject to budge in matters of the virtue of capitalism, but I was able to show them the virtue of voluntarism and she conceded that maybe government is the problem independent of resource management.

I can see this, some of the more morally conscientious types might see it from this angle. That it is immoral to use force to control the actions of others or to steal. Socialism will only be conquered by the concept of freedom.

[AlexMerced]

I can see this, some of the more morally conscientious types might see it from this angle. That it is immoral to use force to control the actions of others or to steal. Socialism will only be conquered by the concept of freedom.

Is it a battle against socialism or coersion, cause the point I make is that there is no reason people can't live in voluntarist communes or kibbutz, so it's not clearly a battle against socialism but against coersion

[Vessol]

Excellent post Alex. This is the point that I've tried to bring in a few debates recently with those whom believe in social contracts, however they seem extremely hostile to the idea of self-governorship.

[AlexMerced]

I can see this, some of the more morally conscientious types might see it from this angle. That it is immoral to use force to control the actions of others or to steal. Socialism will only be conquered by the concept of freedom.

For example most people get attached to Cpaitalism and Socialism almost as an ideology, if you attack their ideology they may not listen, but if you create an enemy they can agree aka coersion you can come to a consensus on action despite an ideological differences.

(The Cap/Soc debate is ideological, cause the definitions of equality and efficiency are different in both modes of thought. Although as Mises argued, the lack of pricing mechanism does create an objective difference as to the sustainability of one over the other.)

[AlexMerced]

Excellent post Alex. This is the point that I've tried to bring in a few debates recently with those whom believe in social contracts, however they seem extremely hostile to the idea of self-governorship.

I'm glad you enjoyed, it's all about breaking down the debate to the simplest core idea, cause all other positions come from that core. So if you can make that small difference to the foundation that keeps all their other positions in place, they'll come to their own conclusions about other issues.

I guess I did learn something from inception, it must be done by implanting the simplest idea.

[Vessol]

The trick I've been using is trying to show the coercion inherent in the system.

For example:
I'm talking with someone whom is for the redistribution of wealth. I tell them "Well if you are for the redistribution of wealth, then by all means you should do that. Give what you want to whomever you want, I will never try to stop you from doing that. I will never use violence in order to stop you from redistributing your wealth.
HOWEVER, I do not want to give my property to others. Do you extend to me the same that I extend to you? That you will not stop me from not giving up my wealth, nor will you try to force me with violence?

This has worked to some degree.

However, more often than not, they refuse to see the coercion, and they bring up that we inherently as a people must contribute to the system and that it is not coercive.

I ask what's the difference between a man pointing a gun at you and demanding your money, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and demanding your money. It's the uniform I say. However they say it's the social contract that we all agree to inherently by being part of this society.

It's so frustrating when you see the gun pointing at you so openly, however when you try to point it out to people, they just roll their eyes and go "Oh, there's no gun there!"

[Stary Hickory]

The trick I've been using is trying to show the coercion inherent in the system.

For example:
I'm talking with someone whom is for the redistribution of wealth. I tell them "Well if you are for the redistribution of wealth, then by all means you should do that. Give what you want to whomever you want, I will never try to stop you from doing that. I will never use violence in order to stop you from redistributing your wealth.
HOWEVER, I do not want to give my property to others. Do you extend to me the same that I extend to you? That you will not stop me from not giving up my wealth, nor will you try to force me with violence?

This has worked to some degree.

However, more often than not, they refuse to see the coercion, and they bring up that we inherently as a people must contribute to the system and that it is not coercive.

I ask what's the difference between a man pointing a gun at you and demanding your money, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and demanding your money. It's the uniform I say. However they say it's the social contract that we all agree to inherently by being part of this society.

It's so frustrating when you see the gun pointing at you so openly, however when you try to point it out to people, they just roll their eyes and go "Oh, there's no gun there!"

Well yes this can work, but keep in mind that you are face to face with someone. Mankind was able to progress socially only because the vast majority learned that it was morally wrong to steal and use force when dealing personally with other people. There are many peaceful respectful people that you meet that will promote the most disgusting and immoral acts through government on their behalf.

So people just need to understand how it is wrong to do these things at the government level too. We view theft and violence as immoral because it weakens the social structure we all depend on to survive. Just because acts like theft and violence are done at the government level in a more abstract way does not eliminate these same negative effects.

So what we have are people who cannot take the next step socially. People simply learned that stealing is bad and killing is bad without understanding why. I suppose we evolved in a natural manner and it was not necessarily logic or a single conscientious decision that changed all this. We can see morality develop first in religion. If you can imagine it, those tribes and people who held(loosely as it may have been) to a concept of non aggression soon assimilated or killed off other tribes.

So in a way people inherited morality without understanding why and how theft and violence affect the entire social structure. If they truly understood how these acts negatively impacted society they would not think them moral just because some third party is doing it on their behalf. So I suppose the challenge for all of us is trying to push enlightenment to everyone, anywhere that we can. the founding fathers and the entire age of enlightenment was able to do this on a scale never seen before and as a result mankind shed poverty and conquered the stars. If we are ever going to move forward again as a species we have to move past this ridiculous notion that it is ok to disrespect the rights of others and their will to live using a government agent or other third party.

[Fredom101]

Great post Alex and good subsequent discussion guys. These are the types of things that will eventually lead to a more free world, as opposed to arguing about which new laws are "good" and which are "bad".

[farrar]

It was always my understanding, that for instance, communism was not supposed to be what it is today. In fact true communism never existed in large scale. Marx believed that the people would unite under a temporary dictator in order to overthrow the rich. Then naturally people would withdraw from their leaders and a free society would exist, where there was no private property, only public property.

The problem there is,
a) when you give someone power, they don't give it up. i.e the "temporary"dictator
b)In order for there to be no concept of private property, the entire population would have to be principle communists who abide by unnatural law of economics. You would need to completely rewrite the instincts of man.

Socialism has two choices:
1)Force (which unfortunately is easier given option 2)
2)Reprogram every single man against their natural tendency to capitalism

I think social voluntarism could exist, but its near impossible. (If impossible was a number it would be infinity, and social voluntarism would be infinity-1)

[Vessol]

I'm not educated enough on Marx to pass full judgement on him, but he definitely was not some noble thinking man who advocated anything better.

Anarcho-"communism" is probably best seen from the model of a family. A family is pretty uneven, you have producers and you have those who don't produce. For the most part, this is not a problem as a "voluntary" contract has been pretty much accepted by the parents that they will care for their children.

I'd say more on the matter, but I have to go deposit a check here soon, so I'm afraid I can't stay.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/08/capitalism-socialism-and-voluntarism.html

Although your understanding of anarchism and voluntaryism is underdeveloped, you have a better understanding of them than most of your RPF minarchist colleagues. I hope you'll read and write more as you read and learn about this subject. You have potential. :cool:

[Vessol]

Although your understanding of anarchism and voluntaryism is underdeveloped, you have a better understanding of them than most of your RPF minarchist colleagues. I hope you'll read and write more as you read and learn about this subject. You have potential. :cool:

http://abll.info/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/019a8_smug-alert-south-park.jpg

j/k

[Sentient Void]

The only problem with what you've described, I believe - is that neighboring ancap, ancom and ansoc communities couldn't develop peacefully alongside eachother because of the property issue.

The ancaps would respect the other communities, but the other non-property recognizing societies/communities would not recognize their property and view such system as theft and probably end up aggressing on them, trespassing, stealing, etc. The ancaps would constantly be on the defensive.

However, the ancaps would continually kick all of their asses because of the much more efficient use of resources, development of capital, better weapons, etc :-)

[Vessol]

Eh, I feel that a ancom society would possibly work. I don't think they'd want to try to dominate or take over other socities resources unless they felt they were more powerful.

[Sentient Void]

Eh, I feel that a ancom society would possibly work. I don't think they'd want to try to dominate or take over other socities resources unless they felt they were more powerful.

Sure, it'd probably work... just not very well, IMO. I just don't think it'd maximize standard of living or productivity very well. Economically speaking, of course, I'd think it'd be an abject failure due to the lack of things like: the profit motive, natural interactions of supply/demand/prices, wage labor, effective measurements of risk, investment, etc.

Hell, if they were to start such a society from scratch, I wouldn't be surprised if they have trouble moving beyond an agrarian or even tribal society if they were to manage to even keep it going.

Also, the ancap society, following the NAP, even if it were more powerful - would still leave others alone. If an ancom society became 'powerful enough' (doubtful), it would attack/trespass/steal from ancaps, viewing their mere existence and ownership of property as theft.