Originally Posted by
A Son of Liberty
What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.
Really. No coercion, huh. No State, You say? No system? Well, let's ask some questions.
In a voluntaryist society, is whatever is voluntary also ethical? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not? And says whom?
Earlier in the thread, it was deduced that property rights gave you the right to murder someone, though it was at least acknowledged that one ought not do that. But you could if you so chose. Where in this model is
consent given by someone for you to murder him? Does the voluntaryist not require consent? If not, then, why not?
Does he lose his right of consent just by the fact that he was haging on for dear life to your pole? If so, then, why? And says whom?
Does whoever owns land get to impose whatever laws he wants on the people who work his land? If so, then, that appears to be some rather strong decision-making-power, doesn't it? A thinking man might call that power a State. A ruler.
What if I'm not a property owner? Do I not have rights because I do not own property? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?
Can I volunteer not to volunteer? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
Is voluntaryism subjective? If so, then, why? Surely one possesses his right to offer or to decline his consent objectively. Right? So what makes it legitimate that his right to offer or withold consent automatically become subjective? A system, you say? lolol.
Is what is consensual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how? If not, then, why not? And says whom?
Is what is voluntary necessarily consensual? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?
Certainly, acceptance is required to perform a voluntary choice, but for a person to perform a consensual choice does require a viable possibility for refusal. Does it not? Meaning consent. Surely it must. Does anyone here disagree with this? Surely, if consent is too restrictive, then, one's words that they love freedom must be a lie.
Does voluntaryism allow people to form hierarchies? If so, then, how do you define freedom? Doing whatever you want? That can't work because hierarchies restrict us from doing whatever we want. Right? Of course they do. So now you're left with either redefining freedom or redefining a hierarchy.
Lastly, where do you think that The Individual's right to property or the rights of groups of Individuals' rights to offer or to withold consent come from? A property owner or God?
Connect With Us