Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in February 2016.
I don’t think anyone would consider consent under duress as a valid form of consent. If I threaten to kill you or harm you in some way if you don’t consent to something, then the integrity of your consent has been compromised in a major way. That you meet my demand willfully and with volition cannot translate into legitimate permission because I have taken away your ability to choose freely. That you meet my demand can only show that you value whatever I’m threatening more than what I’m demanding, not that I have your genuine consent. The result is a form of aggression. You’ve taken or used my property or that of another without consent. Your trespass is illegitimate, and so is an act of aggression.
Consent Under Deceit
The validity of consent as a result of deceit is not so clear cut, but I consider it the basis for any argument that fraud is a form of aggression. Fraud is the intentional withholding of material facts in order to gain something of value. I want to sell you my car, but I withhold the material fact that the car has been in several major accidents and repaired again and again. I give you my word that the car has never been in any accident. It’s integrity has been severely compromised, and if you knew that you would rescind your offer to buy it. That you are unaware of this material fact means we proceed with the title transfer. You willfully and with volition give me your money. You have seemingly consented to my receiving it. But have you?
Your consent for me to receive your money (your property) was conditional. That condition being that what I am giving to you is what you believe it is (an accident-free car). Since I am not giving you an accident-free car, I have failed to meet the condition of your consent. Therefore, I don’t really have your consent to take your money. That I have taken your money not only makes me a fraudster, but also a thief. I have trespassed onto your property without your permission. That is precisely why fraud is a form of aggression.
Types of Fraud
That fraud is aggression I believe I have shown without error. But the analysis on fraud is incomplete if we don’t recognize that fraud is a broad category, and what makes fraud aggression is not the deceit, but what is done as a result of the deceit. When property is transferred as a result of fraud, it becomes theft. That should be clear by now. This is not the only type of fraud, however.
Another type of fraud would result in kidnapping. If I tell you that I own a big luxurious mansion on an island and I create an elaborate deception to get you on my boat, transport you to my island, send the boat and driver away from the island, walk you inland and reveal to you that I have no mansion, I have in essence kidnapped you. The result of my fraud, my deception, was an act of kidnapping. Why? Because your consent to be transported from where you were to my island was conditioned on the fact of my owning a big luxurious mansion. That I don’t own such a mansion means I have failed to meet the condition of your consent. Transporting people from one place to another without their consent is called kidnapping.
Here’s a type of fraud that would result in battery: If I tell you that I will give you $1,000,000 if you cut off one of your hands (your choice!) and create an elaborate deception to prove to you that I have such a sum of money, even going so far as to swindle in an escrow agent, and you then cut off one of your hands only to later learn of my grand deception, I have in essence battered you. The result of this fraud, this deception, was an act of battery, the cutting off of a part of your body. You would not have consented to this action, would not have performed this action, had you known that I was defrauding you.
This brings us to my last column. It is my contention that there is also a type of fraud that results in rape: that of an adulterous man or woman continuing to “share their bed” with their defrauded spouse. Monogamy is typically a foundational condition for continued marital copulation. If one spouse is intentionally deceiving the other about their extra-marital affair, the condition for their spouse’s consent has not been met. The result of this fraud, this deception, is an act of rape. Now, I don’t mean to demean or lessen the atrocious nature of rape as a result of battery (or drugs). Heavens no! But I think we do victims of rape from deceit a disservice when we fail to recognize it.
An additional thought on the idea of fraud as rape: Some have brought up the practice of women wearing makeup or push-up bras and men dressing nice or renting a nice car all in an effort to impress potential sexual partners. I see no reason to consider these practices as types of fraud or deception because they are all well known by all interested parties. Nobody is truly being fooled by first impressions. It’s the mating dance, and is not limited to humans.
Final Thoughts
As I said before, this is all written as an intellectual exercise and nothing is set in stone. My mind can be changed, but I can’t currently see how. The result of fraud is some form of aggression: theft, kidnapping, battery, and yes, rape. That’s why fraud is a violation of the libertarian “non-aggression principle.” Just as theft as a result of fraud doesn’t lessen the despicable nature of other types of theft, rape as a result of fraud doesn’t, or shouldn’t, affect how we view other types of rape. All acts of aggression are despicable and atrocious, from my voluntaryist perspective.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in February 2016.
But first, the obligatory defining of my terms. For my analysis, adultery is a bit more than simply having an extra-marital affair. Rather, adultery is the prolonged attempt at having both an extra-marital affair and maintaining one’s marriage through lies and deceit. In other words, adultery is continuing the affair or affairs while at the same time hiding that fact from your spouse.
Fraud Defined
Fraud is typically lumped in with force as a violation of the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” and for good reason. Fraud occurs when one party fails to meet the conditions of trade but is able to fool the other party, at least for a time. For example, I propose to sell you my apple for $1. Your expectation is that its a good apple, as is customary. You may ask, and I may tell you that it is. I give you the apple, and you give me your dollar. We leave each other’s company and as you bite into the apple you quickly learn that it is a bad apple. You have been defrauded out of your dollar. Why is fraud an act of aggression? Because your consenting to my receiving your dollar was conditional to my giving you a good apple. If I fail to meet that condition, I have taken your dollar without your consent. I have robbed you of your property. And there it is, fraud is robbery, and robbery is aggression (uninvited property border crossing, ie. property trespass).
Rape and Robbery
And now we return to the contention at hand. When one commits adultery as defined above, they are taking from and “sharing the bed” of their spouse without meeting the necessary conditions to assure spousal consent. As the adulterous partner continues to take their spouses property, they are doing so without consent, and so committing robbery. Likewise, and arguably worse, as the adulterous partner continues to share the bed of their spouse, they are doing so without consent, and so committing rape. Yes,rape. Having sex with someone without their consent is the textbook definition of rape. It doesn’t need to be violent. Slipping someone a rufie and then having sex with them isn’t violent, but is still rightly considered rape. Adultery is no different. Both the roofied partner and the spouse seem like willing sexual partners, but had either been cognizant of what was really happening, they wouldn’t be. Hence, rape.
Final Thoughts
All those celebrities and politicians and everyone else who is discovered as an adulterer is in reality far more. They have not only lied to their spouses about their activities, but have also robbed and raped them, over and over, for as long as the adultery continued. Such behavior cannot be tolerated in any society which values property and sexual consent.
I am proud to announce the release of my latest book, Unschooling Dads: Twenty-two Testimonials on Their Unconventional Approach to Education! Found here.
“This is an important book. I’m glad you have it and are about to read more. It will help make many children’s lives wonderful. When the parents relax enough to see the wonder in their children, then their own lives will improve. As each life is made richer and more peaceful, the family grows lighter, and happier.” – Sandra Dodd, from the Foreword.
By current standards the world over, unschooling is a radical educational practice based on radical philosophical concepts. Should children really be given the freedom to pursue their own academic interests? The unschooling dads who have written for this book answer that question with a concerted “YES!” Discover their reasons for choosing this most unconventional of approaches to education for their children.
$14 Paperback, FREE for Kindle, ePUB, MOBI, and PDF!
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in August 2015.
All rights are property rights, so says libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard. And property rights are the result of the use of either force or reason eventually leading to the emergence of customary law (norms and conventions), so says amateur voluntaryist philosopher me. In other words, might makes rights. Let me explain.
Equivocation
Now before you make an equivocation and accuse me of the Argumentum ad Baculum fallacy, read what I actually wrote. I did not write “might makes right” but rather “might makes rights.” I do not believe that idea “might makes right” as in “my gun justifies my taking your stuff.” Heavens no! I see no logical evidence that might could ever justify right. Of course, if by “right” we mean “correct” and we’re talking about how much might is needed to, say, split a boulder, then the more might the better. But I digress.
Rights
People claim rights for all sorts of things these days, as if rights are something tangible, something that “exists.” In “Evidence of Jurisdiction” I took the state to task for claiming the authority to enforce its laws but unable to provide any evidence for it. The same line of questioning to discredit the state’s supposed jurisdiction is also effective in discrediting anyone’s supposed property rights. At some point, the property rights-holder must appeal either to the state’s jurisdiction (his state-produced and -backed title) or to customary law.
Appeal to Might
Both the appeal to the state’s jurisdiction and the appeal to customary law is an appeal to might. Law, whether state-made or the result of the emergence of norms and conventions in a free society, is a form of might. What good is a law if its not enforced? That doesn’t mean that enforcement must always occur through the use of arms. The state always acts as if it does, but many customary laws are enforced through the use of ostracism, for example. Either way, enforcement must pack a punch, must be “mighty” if it is to be effective. Therefore, the only way to secure property rights is through the the use of might (of force or reason).
Final Thoughts
The more mighty among us are best able to secure their property rights, an obvious point. How many of us view the state as the mightiest group in society? Most, methinks. This is unfortunate, because the state is always a minority. What a con it’s pulled to convince everyone else that it is right to use its might to secure its property rights. And I mean “con” as both a scam and as a conquest. No, the state is not right to use its might to secure its property rights. The sooner we all understand and accept that, the sooner we can be rid of the state.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in July 2015.
Those who desire to see the grip of statism released from our world, the abolition of coercive monopoly government, to be replaced by a peaceful and rulerless social and legal order, must decide for themselves how best to achieve it. Unless we are to be discovered as hypocrites, it is my opinion that we anarchists must embrace tools and strategies consistent with our ends, a peaceful and rulerless social and legal order. That is, we must embracepersuasion over force, reason over aggression, and free markets over control.
Persuasion or Force
Should we force others to accept our anarchism? I don’t see how that is even possible. First, anarchism is a philosophy, and like all philosophies, if it will be understood and appreciated, it must be discovered and accepted gradually and voluntarily. You can’t make others accept your ideas, no matter how good they are. All you can do is make them wish they had. If one is truly committed to the ideals of anarchism, then one does not go around acting like a ruler over the minds and actions of others. Rather, they find times peacefully to use the tool of persuasion. They probe into opposing views and find common ground, and then build toward anarchism from there, peacefully, persuasively, voluntarily.
Reason or Aggression
Any argument worth its salt shouldn’t need to be forced through aggressive actions. Those who embrace statism already claim the monopoly on the use of aggression to force others into their fold. Reason is my weapon of choice. I teach my children, my family, my friends, and anyone who cares to listen through the use of reason, not aggression. Admittedly, reason only goes so far. If someone is bent on using aggression toward others, then those who value their lives and property have every incentive to match force with force. At some point, that is the only reasonable thing to do. But it seems to me that this is only true for small time aggressors, not the state. The state always has bigger and better tools of aggression. And these tools are wielded by our fellow human beings, human beings that can adopt new ideas after hearing them in a peaceful, persuasive, and voluntary way.
Free Markets or Control
Many of the anarchist tradition are more focused on forcing their vision of the free society onto others than in appreciating the fact that the free society can only come about through the peaceful exchange of ideas and things. Free markets, rather than control, are a prerequisite to anarchy. People must be free to negotiate their claims on property, justice, laws, and rights if we are to claim the presence of a peaceful and rulerless social and legal order. Controlling these things via physical or social coercion does not a peaceful and rulerless society make.
Final Thoughts
Persuasion, reason, and free markets are the tools of the voluntaryist, and should be the tools of every anarchist. Too often so-called anarchists are committed to the uses of force, aggression, and control, tools of the state mind you, to bring about their vision of the free society. This seems a fool’s errand to me, a contradiction, an hypocrisy, to say the least. No thank you. They can keep their instruments of destruction to themselves.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in July 2015.
The difference between the state and an owner of private property is often made fuzzy by anarchists of the collectivist tradition. They see those who claim private property beyond what they personally occupy and use as a form of statism, and on that ground incompatible with anarchism. I think the difference can be explained as the state claiming and enforcing a monopoly on the provision of law and order, and by extension, a monopoly on crime. Let me explain.
Private Property
In a free, anarchistic, voluntary society, property title isn’t assigned and maintained on the basis of state privilege, and so the costs of claiming and maintaining one’s property can’t be pushed onto unwilling others (taxpayers). This means that property, in order to be considered legitimate, must be defended by either force or reason, both of which inform the developing customs of a given society. And this defense is paid for by those who have an interest in keeping for themselves said property.
The State
Contrasting the concept of private property as explained above, the state is the institution (of people) in society that has managed, through the violent conquest of others, to claim the exclusive right to provide law and order within their supposed jurisdiction. Every state in history was born this way, and no state in history has ever managed to provide any actual evidence, besides it’s arsenal of weapons, that its jurisdiction applies to anyone. Therefore, every state, both in theory and in practice, is an institution of aggression.
The Monopoly on Crime
Because the state claims a monopoly on the provision of law and order, the state decides what and what does not constitute crime. In order to maintain its position, the state requires that its subjects provide for it the necessary funds, liberties, and lives. What would be called theft, trespass, and murder in a free society, the state calls taxation, regulation, and conscription. As the state decides what is and what is not crime, it follows that the state not only claims a monopoly on the provision of law and order, but it also claims a monopoly on the provision of crime. It uses this monopoly power to allow itself to commit just enough crime for its own maintenance, but forcefully prevents anyone else from attempting likewise.
Final Thoughts
The differences between the state and the owner of private property are obvious to any thinking individual. Property owners don’t monopolize the provisions of law, order, and crime, nor do they claim sovereign immunity over their subjects, of which they have none. While certain amounts of property for a single individual might seem unfair, it is up to them personally to bear the costs of maintaining it. If they can, good for them. If they can’t, then they’ll be forced by economic realities to give up that which can be put to better use by others.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in July 2015.
One of the criticisms that voluntaryists receive is that in a free society, what’s to stop someone from obtaining a monopoly on the provision of a good or service? If there’s no central anti-trust regulator, a business could use all sorts of tactics and schemes to secure for themselves a monopoly in the market. Is this a valid criticism? Not really.
Monopoly
I might as well start with the tautological argument. By definition, monopolies cannot occur without either a central authority limiting who may provide what good or service, or an explicit contract outlining who may provide what good or service between the parties involved. The latter is completely justified in my book, while the former is not. Of course, the former begs the question: what is the central authority if not itself an illicit monopoly? Should our fear of monopoly cause us to establish a monopoly, and on the most important and dangerous functions in society, law and order? That seems a bit inconsistent.
Free Society
If there’s one thing for certain, whenever a person begins producing value for consumers, others quickly imitate them and the industry becomes saturated with competing providers of said value. Like flies to shit, no person or business is safe from competition so long as there isn’t a central authority using their more powerful guns to limit who may provide what. Given the hypothetical of a free society, there is not central authority with more powerful guns. Getting to a free society is a much bigger challenge then keeping it, in my opinion. Read my booklet Toward a Free Society: A Short Guide on Building a Culture of Liberty for my view on getting to a free society. Once achieved, every good or service imaginable will have countless producers vying for market share. Outside of explicit contract, I’m quite skeptical that any person or business could ever obtain sole producer status for any significant period of time. There’s just too many cutthroats ready and willing to offer a better value, and that’s a wonderful thing.
Final Thoughts
Monopoly is a major concern of mine, particular the entity that monopolizes the provision of law and order, ie. the state. This monopoly secures every other potential monopoly. Abolish the state, and you abolish monopoly. Start by abolishing statist practices in your home, such as punitive, authoritarian parenting and schooling. Raising your kids as autonomous individuals builds the requisite culture of liberty to achieving the free society.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in July 2015.
So much has changed in my life since I became an adult all those many years ago, I’ve had a lot of experience with the concept of “principles.” I thought I’d put down my thoughts on what principles are and what they’re for. Here goes.
Principles
Principles are “fundamental truths or propositions that serve as a foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” Natural laws, like the law of gravity (which we still don’t understand), are a type of principle. We observe and experiment to determine what these principles are and how they effect other things. They are fundamental truths of our universe. There are other types of principles. When someone decides to live according to a set of propositions, such as “it is wrong to steal” or “it is wrong to deceive,” those are also a type of principle.
Principles are not necessarily true for everyone all of the time. Some principles are, such as the law of gravity, but many are not. This is one difference between rules and principles. A rule might be “no swimming for one hour after you eat,” whereas the principle in the same context is “swimming right after you eat a big meal may cause physical discomfort.” The rule you must be obeyed, or leave, while the principle needs simply be acknowledged in order to serve as guidance for the future.
Purpose
I think that the overriding purpose of principles is to help us understand the proper means for our desired ends. If we desire to fly, we must understand the effects of gravity. If we desire to move from point A to point B very quickly, we must understand not only the principles of locomotion, but also the principles behind building a fast car or train. The progress of science is the increase of our understanding of principles. As it is with natural law, so it is with propositions.
We hear about different principles, and then we wonder if allowing them to guide us will get us to where we want to be. Maybe they will, or maybe they won’t. They come in all different shapes and sizes and are either the proper means for our desired ends, or not. Take what I write about all the time, the voluntary principle. This principle states that all human relations should happen voluntarily, by mutual consent, or not at all. Of course, like all principles, it’s often written in shorthand and naturally begs the question: why? I’ve written extensively in answer to the question (on philosophy andethics). So have others.
Formulated principles like this are often much more than they seem, and require a lot of study by those espousing the principle in order to fully understand it. Only once its fully understood can we determine if its right for us. Principles like these aren’t compatible with everyone’s desired ends, which themselves are chosen on the basis of people’s values. To say that others must follow a given principle is irrational, in my opinion. While we may advise that certain principles be followed if one’s desired ends are such and such, to prescribe principles without consideration of one’s freely chosen ends is to give instruction where none is required. It simply won’t be heard, and one doing so is likely to be written off as a busybody or a moralizer.
Final Thoughts
I’ve heard people attack certain principles as “false” and what not, without giving any consideration to the reasons behind using them. It drives me crazy. Principles are not necessarily always true or always applicable to everyone all of the time, as I said, but that doesn’t automatically make them “false.” It only makes them the wrong tools for the chosen job. We would all do well to find the right tools, get the job done, and move on to the next.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in June 2015.
People care about justice. Even criminals care about justice when they find themselves the victim. When people feel that they’ve been wronged, they desire to be made right, which can take the form of revenge, or getting even, or making their wrongdoer pay. What does justice look like under voluntaryism? Let’s have a look.
What is Justice?
What justice is depends on one’s theory of justice. In general, justice is just or fair behavior, meaning, behavior compatible with respect to the established rights and privileges of people. Justice is easily qualified as we look at various systems of rights and privileges and what not. When a person behaves incompatibly with respect to the established rights and privileges of those who are affected, his behavior is viewed as unjustified. The affected then feel wronged, and their universe goes off-kilter. They demand that their wrongdoer be put to justice, to undo the wrong that was committed. If the wrong is severe enough, they may not settle for anything less than their wrongdoer’s blood, the ultimately act of justice, or so it may be believed.
Voluntaryism
Voluntaryism is the philosophy centered on the voluntary principle, that all human relations should happen voluntarily, by mutual consent, or not at all. How does justice play into voluntaryism? Wrongdoers often don’t consent to the justice being sought by those they’ve wronged, so it would seem that justice is incompatible with voluntaryism. Or is it? The voluntary principle is like any other principle, useful for some things, but maybe not for others. Maybe if the wrong is severe enough, and the wrongdoer a continuing threat to the peace and safety of society, the voluntary principle gives way to the principles of life and security. But maybe not.
Here are at least two ways that justice as defined above is compatible with voluntaryism. When people are committed to the voluntary principle, everything they do in relation to each other is preceded by a willful act of consent. Over time, norms and convention develop that everyone has naturally agreed to along the way. If these norms and conventions are violated, the violator, or wrongdoer using the above terminology, is fully aware and has already consented to the justice that will be sought from him, itself in accordance with the norms and conventions of his society. Such justice seems perfectly compatible with voluntaryism.
The second way of reconciling justice with voluntaryism is through contract. Contracts, either implicit or explicit, are used for many different kinds of relations. Business dealings of all sorts – from commerce to housing to insurance – are handled via explicit contract. Implicit contracts develop out of the norms and conventions of society. When a contract is made, due consideration is given to the justice that will be sought if the contract is broken. Each party gives consent to the acts of justice, as I call them, as stipulated in the contract.
Final Thoughts
I don’t think that justice is incompatible with voluntaryism, quite the contrary, I think it’s one of voluntaryism’s best features. Justice as explored above seems quite fair, far more fair than state justice. But what of the foreigner, the newcomer to a given society? I imagine that said society’s norms and conventions contain parts on dealing with foreign wrongdoers, perhaps, I would both hope and predict, on the basis of forgiveness for first time offenses. That seems reasonable, and I would think that people raised in a free society aren’t anything if not reasonable.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in June 2015.
Race has not only been a topic of discussion around the nation lately; it has also been a topic of discussion within my home. My children have become acutely aware of race and where they fall on the spectrum of “color.” Technically, they are half Caucasian and half Hispanic of Mexican descent, but visually, they are whiter than I. The only clue of their Hispanicness is their dark brown eyes and fluent Spanish. Seeing and hearing them speak fluent English, one would not guess that their mother is Mexican. In any event, race and racism have been topics in my house. My children are trying to make sense of these things. My fear, however, is that they may be getting at least two messages that I wish they rather not get. Those are that whites are racists, and that blacks are violent.
Whites are Racist
I’ve watched a lot of Comedy Central’s Key & Peele lately, and my son’s caught a few skits with me here and there. One thing that I’ve noticed is that white people are almost always portrayed as racist. That’s part of the humor, watching one or the other black guy navigate among racism. On second thought, portraying one race as always having some negative characteristic is itself a form of racism. That’s right, when popular news and media consistently portray whites as racists and blacks as victims of racism – which has been the case as long as I can remember – what’s a growing white person supposed to believe about what their skin color represents? This has been a growing fear of mine, that as my children grow up identifying as white, the world will also tell them that being white is being racist. I don’t like being told again and again that because I’m white, there’s an expectation that I’m racist, nor do I want my children to experience that. Key & Peele has become distasteful to me after I made this realization. It’s unfortunate because I think it’s a really funny show; a show racist against whites, but otherwise a really funny show.
Blacks are Violent
Along with our discussion about race and racism, the “n-word” has come up. My children, particularly my son, has heard it from Youtube videos, spoken by what sound to me like black teenagers. I grew up hearing it in movies on race (Glory, for example) and in the rap music that I enjoyed as a teenager. I’m not interested in shaming my children over the words they use, but with this particular word, I’ve done my best explaining to him that if he said it to a black person, that black person would find it extremely racist and likely want to hurt him. This was the exact message that I was told growing up, that if you used the n-word toward black people, they would probably kick your ass. But what is the implicit message here that I received and have now passed on to my children? That blacks have no self-control and will resort to violence when offended by a word. What a racist idea! That people of a given race have no self-control and will resort to violence over name-calling. How will I approach this in the future? I don’t know right now, but I think I’ll be more careful about it than I have been.
Final Thoughts
Both of the messages as explained above have been constantly hurled at me throughout my life, and now the lives of my children. The former, it seems, is meant to induce what is popularly called “white guilt.” I dislike with a passion such collectivist notions that a person’s skin color means they should feel guilt toward the actions done by others of that same skin color. What a racist and destructive idea that is! Likewise the idea that a person’s skin color means they have no self-control toward name-calling. I’m at a loss at how to move forward in the prevention of my children from adopting these racist notions. If you have any ideas, I’m all ears.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in June 2015.
Many hold a passionate view on immigration, by which I mean the immigration of peoples across national borders. Not so much, if any, is their passion for in-nation immigration. What is the voluntaryist view on immigration, you ask? Let’s find out.
The Voluntary Principle
Voluntaryism is the philosophy centered around the voluntary principle, the belief, for various reasons, that all human relations should happen voluntarily, by mutual consent, or not at all. In practice, this looks like individuals approaching each other not with weapons drawn, but with weapons put away, and in the spirit of negotiation and trade. While each individual will consider his property as his own, he will afford the same consideration for everyone else. He will choose who may do what with that which he considers his, and will only resort to violence if he feels the he or his property is being threatened in some way. Everyone else will do likewise. Over the course of innumerable voluntary human interactions, norms and conventions will develop and evolve that will provide everyone with a clear set of rules to follow if they are to maintain peace and to build prosperity with one another.
Enter the Foreigner
Throughout the above social process, newcomers will arrive from closer or further away places. So long as they arrive in the spirit of negotiation and trade, without the desire to take what doesn’t belong to them, they are sure to be welcomed and made a valued member of society. If, however, they come in the spirit of entitlement and manipulation, they will sooner or later clash with the rules of their new society and either be forced to change or forced to leave.
If enough representatives of a given people arrive in this society in the above incompatible spirit, and are subsequently forced out, it seems possible, maybe even likely, that a prejudice will develop toward such a people with identifiable traits, and they, even the peaceful ones, will find it much harder to assimilate with their new society. The responsibility will be theirs to change the prejudice if they are to have any future here.
Free Immigration vs. Forced Integration
Hans Hoppe, I believe, has best formulated the voluntaryist position on immigration. While a society such as the above will welcome those who come in the spirit of negotiation and trade, they will not welcome those whose reputation for entitlement and manipulation precedes them. While such a reputation might seem unfair for certain individuals, it is nevertheless reasonable and predictable that a society would develop prejudices against those who clash with their rules. Should laws be instituted by a central authority prohibiting the discrimination from trade or interaction with those who have found themselves the targets of certain prejudices? Would that be compatible with voluntaryism? Hardly. Rather, such laws would be instruments of forced integration, the coercing of one group of people to accept within their midst another group of people. Under this condition, the peace and prosperity that results from people coming together in the spirit of negotiation and trade has been put off for a time or made unlikely to result. The reason for this seems obvious.
Final Thoughts
While the voluntaryist supports free immigration between peoples with compatible values, he does not support forced integration. Let individuals or groups of individuals choose for themselves who they will allow on their individual or collective property. Societies that are welcoming to foreigners who come in a spirit of negotiation and trade will, it seems to me, find themselves becoming more and more prosperous as they voluntarily integrate the best of what each person has to offer.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in May 2015.
We live in a world of scarcity. There is a seemingly infinite amount of demand for a seemingly finite amount of resources. The same resource can’t be used at the same time by different users. If it could, then the concept of “property” would never have arisen. As it is, scarcity creates the possibility of conflict, and so people who value peaceful coexistence with one another will allocate resources in a conflict-reducing way. How would this process look under voluntaryism? Let’s see.
Defense of Property
As I wrote in “The Defense of Property,” despite whatever theory we subscribe to, property is that which can be defended by either force or reason. In a free society, there is no central allocator and protector of property and property title, ie. the state. Without the state, the costs of defending one’s property claim won’t be subsidized by unwilling taxpayers, but instead borne by property owners themselves. As such, what types of resource allocation norms are we likely to witness under voluntaryism?
Occupancy and Use vs. Original Appropriation
There are two primary competing theories of scarce resource allocation among voluntaryists (and anarchists). Each side argues that their theory is most ethical and likely to reduce conflict. On the left hand we have the occupancy and use theory of property, which, in short, says that only resources which are occupied and put to some use may be considered property and defended with force. On the right hand we have the original appropriation theory of property, which, in short, says that any resource which is put to some use initially (out of nature) may be considered property in perpetuity and defended with force.
The difference between these two theories is that the left side only recognizes as property those resources that are currently being occupied and used by the owner. If the owner, within a reasonable amount of time, leaves his property, say to rent it out to someone, he has effectively abandoned it and the new occupier and user (renter) may claim ownership. To own something that one does not currently occupy and use is to be an absentee owner, an invalid concept on the left. Not so on the right. Owners may rent their property, whether it be a house, a factory, or capital equipment, and reap the profits of doing so. The only qualification the owner needs to meet is that he was first to appropriate the resource or trade for the resource in question.
Voluntaryism
Because there is no state in a free society to enforce a particular theory of property over everyone, people who value peaceful coexistance will recognize the various property theories and over time the property norms that emerge will have been based on a mixture of that which is defended by force and that which is defended by reason. Gun ownership will be widespread and so people will think twice before simply taking what is already claimed by others, occupied or not. Instead, I expect that this show of force will lead most people to negotiate with one another on how the available resources should be allocated.
A case study by Terry Anderson and Peter Hill of the stateless American West shows exactly this in The Not So Wild Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier. As people who moved west into stateless territority were faced with mostly virgin land and hostile natives, they had to bear the costs of property claims themselves. As such, the most entrepreneurial minded, those most likely to recognize the need for and utilize negotiation, were the ones who were most successful at establishing and defending their property, all while increasing the level of peace among their relationships with the natives. This experiment in anarchism was put to an end as the US army moved west and began disrupting what peace had been made. As states were formed, such as Nevada, they simply codified the rules that had already evolved among cattle ranchers and miners.
Final Thoughts
My point is, under voluntaryism there is no one theory of property that everyone will adopt, and conflict thereby reduced. Rather, each and every individual must be willing to negotiate with others on the allocation of the resources that they want and need to survive, or risk ostracism. Each theory of property has its merits and demerits, but none of them will be implemented in practice completely. I predict that in a free society most property will be that which is occupied and used by the owner, while only some will be that where the owner or owners are absent.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in May 2015.
An oft-tackled question by anarchists is on the difference between rulers and leaders. In general usage, the difference seems clear, but there are some exceptions. Just what is the difference between rulers and leaders, and why should we care? Let’s see.
Rulers
Rulers are those who rule. To rule is “to control, guide, direct” and to “impose rules” and “to dominate” and “to exercise ultimate power and authority over an area and its people.” In general usage, rulers are kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, legislators, governors, and mayors. Ruler is not generally used to refer to smaller controllers and dominators, such as thiefs, rapists, batterers, kidnappers, and murderers, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind, as is obvious by the above definitions.
An important distinction within the concept of rulership concerns what is being ruled. Rulers claim rule over both people and their resources, but I don’t think that’s necessary. It is often said that property owners are rulers over their property, and while I think this is true, this does not mean that their rule extends to other people who are using their property. If I invite someone into my house, I am ruler over my house, but not ruler over him. This is often a point of attack against propertarian anarchists. Anarchism is the doctrine that rulers are undesirable for a number of reasons, but this only applies to rulers of people, not rulers of property, legitimately acquired according to prevailing social norms. For an anarchist to oppose rulers of legitimately acquired property is in direct contradiction to his own life, and the property required to maintain it, both of which he claims to rule.
Leaders
Contrasted to rulers, leaders are those who lead. To lead is “to guide” and “to travel” and “to go forth” and “to direct on a course.” In general usage, leaders include rulers, as well as parents, teachers, entrepreneurs, priests, scientists, tour guides, and so forth. As can be seen, rulers are leaders, but not all leaders are rulers. Other kinds of leaders may also act as rulers, such as parents and teachers, but that is not a necessary component of the role.
The distinction, then, on what turns a leader into ruler is when their control and guidance is imposed on others. Leaders have willing followers, while rulers have dominated subjects. Anarchists and voluntaryists do not generally oppose leaders unless those leaders begin exercising coercion in some form, at which point they become rulers. Another related concept is authority. Rulers impose their authority. Leaders, on the other hand, earn their authority as a matter of expertise. If the difference between rulers and leaders could be explained in one word, that word would be imposition.
Final Thoughts
Why should we care? Even if you’re not an anarchist or a voluntaryist, you’re still subjected to the rule of others. Look around and think about whose guidance and control is being imposed on you. What would happen if you stopped allowing them to do so? Rulers are often called leaders in the news. This is an unfortunate sleight of hand used to conflate the two and make it seem that our rulers are chosen, when in fact they are not. Now that you know the difference between rulers and leaders, perhaps you won’t be so easily fooled.
I'm happy to announce that my new booklet No Hitting: A Short Guide on Why Spanking is Unnecessary is now available in paperback ($6) and several free digital formats. This booklet contains chapters on misbehavior, respect, discipline, and divine mandates. A must read for anyone who desires to raise their children peacefully and build with them a close and lasting relationship. I hope you find it enlightening and valuable. And if you do, please consider sharing it with others online or in paperback. (Click the cover below for the link.)
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in April 2015.
Learning to live with others can be challenging. When their attempts to meet their needs interferes with our attempts to meet ours, conflict may ensue. This is no less true between adults as between adults and children or children and children. If one values peace and cooperation over strife and domination, he must learn the art of negotiation. And just as importantly, he must teach it to his children.
The Art of Negotiation
I don’t know if there was any advance among ancient humans, or even their primeval ancestors, that was more important toward survival than learning to negotiate. How many violent conflicts, and thus death, have been avoided because two or more parties were willing to negotiate the meeting of each other’s needs? I don’t know, but since it happens so often today in peaceful society, I imagine it was an important social revolution at the time.
Negotiation is simply a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. Party A wants something of Party B, and possibly but necessarily vice versa, so Party A presents Party B with a proposition, an offer. The fact that Party A is attempting negotiation rather than rank domination is evidence that Party A considers Party B as a political equal and as autonomous, ie. Party A respects Party B, at least enough to prefer primarily to negotiate. How much Party A respects Party B will be revealed as the negotiation proceeds. Party B considers the proposition, and either accepts or counters. Party B has needs of his own and may or may not be satisfied that they’ll be met if he accepts Party A’s first proposition. The negotiation proceeds from here.
If the two parties are able to reach agreement, the negotiation is over and they proceed to fulfill their obligations to one another. If they aren’t, they either break off negotiation and go about their own business, or Party A decides Party B’s unwillingness or inability to reach agreement is unacceptable, and resorts to coercion, the act of threatening something unexpected and undesirable or of using force. This represents an escalation from peaceful negotiation to coercive domination of Party A over Party B.
Negotiating with Children
If the survival of our ancestors, and the survival of adults today depends on their willingness and ability to negotiate, then negotiation is one of the most important skills to teach to children. And there is hardly a better way to teach something to children than by modeling it with them personally. From the moment they’re born, children should be taught the art of negotiation. Infants who want to pull your hair, toddlers who want to explore that expensive vase, or children who feel a need to run around and scream, all should be approached in the spirit of negotiation. Be clear about your needs and the needs of affected others, try to understand your child’s needs, and then find a way to meet everyone’s needs together. The more children hear about your needs, in a respectful way, and the more their own needs are given due consideration, the more likely they are to find your suggested corrections to their behavior as acceptable.
My own children are nine, five, and an infant. I negotiate with each of them everyday on various things. My nine-year-old son often prefers to stay home and play on his computer when his mother and I really want his company at an activity outside the house. Do I tell him he doesn’t have a choice and coerce him into the car? No. I ask him what it’ll take for him to join us. As he beats around the bush because he’s still developing communication skills, I begin making propositions, such as letting him choose the radio station we listen to, or offering to buy him a treat, or even offering a dollar or two, depending on how much a value his attendance. We usually come to an agreement, but when we don’t, he simply stays home; no hard feelings, though maybe a little disappointment, either way.
My five-year old daughter is likewise negotiated with, and she often stays home with her big brother. The more my needs can’t be met without their cooperation, the more I’m willing to give up something of higher and higher value. These days I see my children negotiating with each other all the time. These negotiations sometimes break down and things escalate, and sometimes negotiation is never initially considered, but the more we as parents have negotiated with them, the more they’ve learned and preferred to negotiate with others. Even my infant can be cooed and coddled out of pulling my hair.
Final Thoughts
Why negotiate with children? Shouldn’t they learn that adults are always the boss over them, and learn to follow orders? Spare me. Children are people, deserving respect and having autonomy. If we want them to learn the art of negotiation, thereby ensuring more peaceful and prosperous relationships in the future, we must teach them the art of negotiation, of win-win solutions. Failing that, we instead teach them the art of domination, of win-lose, of might makes right. We either raise and send negotiators out into the world, or we raise and send out dominators. Which is more likely to ensure they not only survive, but thrive? The answer is clear.
Originally published at Everything-Voluntary.com in March 2015.
There is, or should be, a presumption of innocence when we are accused of breaking the law. The prosecution has the burden of proof to show, factually, that we’ve done what they’re accusing us of doing. Does proof begin at our actions? Actually, no. It begins at the law itself. Let me explain.
Applicability of Law
When we are accused of, say, speeding on the freeway, the accusation is more than just whether or not the speed of our vehicle surpassed the posted speed limit of the road. The accusation also includes the claim that the constitution and code of the municipality we are physically in, that created the speed limit, applies to us. Before we can determine if the code, the law, has been violated, it must first be determined that the law is applicable. After all, it’s impossible to violate a law that doesn’t apply to you.
So, if we are ticketed for speeding, the officer-as-witness is accusing us of not only speeding, but also claiming that the law applies to us. Well and good, but what factual evidence does he rely on proving the constitution and code applies to us? What factual evidence does he, the prosecutor, and the judge rely on proving jurisdiction?
“The code applies because the code says so,” is a typical response to this question. Clearly, though, this is a circular argument and the code itself cannot stand as factual evidence because it’s the code itself whose applicability is at question. Next argument.
“The code applies because you’re inside the municipality, as established by the code.” is likewise a circular argument. What factual evidence do they rely on proving the constitution and code applies to us, just because we’re physically within the territorial boundary of the municipality, as established by the code? Next argument.
“The code applies because you’ve obtained a driver’s license.” Does this mean the constitution and code did not apply to me before I obtained a driver’s license? Not likely, and besides, this, too is a circular argument. What factual evidence do they rely on proving the constitution and code applies to us, just because we obtained a driver’s license, as required by the code? Next argument.
“The code applies because you’re a citizen.” What made me a citizen? The code, which makes this also a circular argument. What factual evidence do they rely on proving the constitution and code applies to us, just because the code designated us as citizens? Next argument.
“The code applies because of some such social contract theory.” I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that philosophical theories and opinions count as factual evidence. No, I’m not wrong. Theories and opinions, based on philosophical arguments or not, are not facts, and so do not qualify as factual evidence. Next argument.
Evidence of Jurisdiction
Are there any arguments left? I don’t think so, and we haven’t even gotten to questions like, “What is the municipality (city, county, state), factually?” and “What is the code (or constitution), factually?” The truth of the matter is, no state officer-made law as presented in their constitutions or codes apply to anyone, anywhere. There isn’t a shred of factual evidence proving the jurisdiction of state laws or state officers. That’s not to say that people aren’t accused and convicted of state crimes in state courts. This is evidence not that the state has jurisdiction, but rather that the state isn’t concerned with whether or not it has jurisdiction, and will kidnap and cage people as they see fit, as well as evidence that “the people” have been duped by teachers and parents to believe, despite the lack of evidence to the contrary, that the state has legitimate jurisdiction over them. Factually, it doesn’t, and never has. Factually, the state, government, is a gang of criminals terrorizing their neighbors into compliance with their greedy and disrespectful edicts.
Final Thoughts
The preceding is all rather new to me. I have Marc Stevens and his No State Project to thank for introducing me to this line of thought. I’ve known for awhile that state authority is always illegitimate, but I wasn’t able to articulate it quite this way. I’ve entered a new phase of my life, one in which I am committed, within my risk tolerance, to battling the state on the above grounds. I will no longer roll over and pay them off or attend their traffic schools. I will look them in the eye and challenge their accusation, beginning with the applicability of their laws. If I am successful, it’ll be because some state officer realized that they are without foundation, and did the right thing. And if I am not, it’ll be because some psychopathic state officer decided coercion is more profitable than justice. Wish me luck!
