Can a voluntaristic society succeed?

With as many people as there are who want to build a voulenteristic society, you'd think that they would be able to do so with the amount of money/manpower there is.

There's plenty of unoccupied land out there, heck some countries are almost entirely unoccupied. It wouldn't take much money to hire a private mercenary firm, kick occupants off and claim a nice chunk of land for your own capitalisitc country.

Oh wait, you can't use force to establish anything, so the easiest/cheapest method is out.
 


With as many people as there are who want to build a voulenteristic society, you'd think that they would be able to do so with the amount of money/manpower there is.

There's plenty of unoccupied land out there, heck some countries are almost entirely unoccupied. It wouldn't take much money to hire a private mercenary firm, kick occupants off and claim a nice chunk of land for your own capitalisitc country.

Oh wait, you can't use force to establish anything, so the easiest/cheapest method is out.
All we have left is the moral option. BALLS.
 
teatree said:
As for whether you and I have influence - you may not, but I feel I do. (I was part of a group that was lobbying MPs to vote against entering the war in Syria, and we won and a consequence was that the Americans drew back too.


Correlation is not causation friend. There were people lobbying the other side and they lost. Are you arguing that you have superior influence over the political system compared to everyone else?

No, I'm arguing that if people like me hadn't bothered, the other side would have won by default.

Your belief that it's not worth bothering hands victory every single time to the other side. Perhaps this what you really want - (Genuine question - do you like the status quo? And if you don't, why lay supine and let it continue?)

Have you ever read the book Collapse by Jared Diamond? It looks at failed societies like that of Easter Island that made itself extinct, the Maya extinction, and examines the scientific causes as to why the Greenland Norse wiped themselves out, while the Greenland Inuit (sharing the same land mass) survived.

It has a nice segue into modern Montana with it's "I hate government" attitude which has led it to being the 49th poorest of the 50 states (a huge drop from where it was 100 years ago).

How would a libertarian deal with cyanide heap-leach gold extraction for example. How would you persuade the miners not to do it? Or would you conclude they had the right to do whatever they wanted and it served you and your progeny right to be poisoned out of existence (thereby proving Darwin's theory correct about the stupid ensuring their own demise)?

Jared Diamond concludes:

It may initially have seemed absurd to select Montana as the subject of this first chapter of a book on societal collapses. Neither Montana in par-ticular, nor the U.S. in general, is in imminent danger of collapse. But: please reflect that half of the income of Montana residents doesn't come from their work within Montana, but instead consists of money flowing into Montana from other U.S. states: federal government transfer payments(such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and poverty programs) and private out-of-state funds (out-of-state pensions, earnings on real estate equity, and business income). That is, Montana's own economy already falls far short of supporting the Montana lifestyle, which is instead supported by and dependent on the rest of the U.S. If Montana were an isolated island, as Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean was in Polynesian times before European arrival, its present First World economy would already have collapsed, nor could it have developed that economy in the first place.

In other words, this free-for-all low-government state is only surviving because the statist impulse of the Federal Government is subsidising them with funds raised elsewhere, and keeping them going.

What would a libertarian non-government solution be? To move out of the area to where statists controlled things and thus made it safe to live?
 
edit : oops I misread something

Here's a picture of Val Kilmer :

fat-val-kilmer-3.jpg
 
Two quotes that I took away from this thread.

guerilla said:
The state is a delusion. It is promoted by the elites who figured out it is better to farm people than kill them.


The illusion that you control or have a say in the delusion is why democracy is so deliciously amazing. It suckers in people, prevents revolts with a regular election cycle that really doesn't change anything, and the politically privileged continue to get what they want at the expense of the common man.


Thanks guerilla.
 
This is a simple answer that does not look at the whole picture, but, it really depends how voluntaristic people are feeling. And I hate to bring out my cynical side but I think the mass of the human population has a limited tendency towards altruism. I think what we would see if such a society is attempted to be implemented as the main policy by government we would see results akin to a lot of previous Communist regimes. I.e. It quickly breaks down to what the philosopher Hobbes calls a "state of nature", a life without civil society.
 
Two quotes that I took away from this thread.







Thanks guerilla.

With those two quotes, it is more about creating patterns of obedience and enforcers to police it. The idea is that these power brokers stake themselves as the sovereign power (i.e. the power to make and unmake laws) under a perceived notion of justice. When this state or group of individuals get enough collective intentionality. I.e. People actually obey (which is the basis of the system becoming ingrained in law, whether written or unwritten)... Then that is the birth of a legal system at it's most unrefined form. You may be thinking "They just sound like the biggest thugs in the yard pushing their way around"; and I would not disagree with you. We're nothing but sophisticated animals.
 
Wow.. this thread and guerilla's arguments have totally mind-fucked me.. I definitely considered myself leaning towards libertarian ideals and loved some of guerilla's previous arguments on this board along with a lot of other members too.

It seems like you've totally changed your view though guerilla (which is interesting because you were so passionate, or so I thought, about libertarian ideas which were all supported with logic.

Now I'm not really sure where you stand... Is it, more of an "I hate the elites" Occupy Wall Street hipster type of a stance? (Don't take that as offensive, I am just too lazy to think of a better way to put it)

Anyways, I'm completely mindfucked because of this thread and the part you said about democracy being delicious really got me thinking.

IM STILL IDENTIFYING AS LIBERTARIAN FOR NOW GUERILLA, YOU HAVENT CHANGED MY STANCE YET! RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!
 
Wow.. this thread and guerilla's arguments have totally mind-fucked me.. I definitely considered myself leaning towards libertarian ideals and loved some of guerilla's previous arguments on this board along with a lot of other members too.
Libertarianism feels good as an ideal. It's morally defensible, it's logically defensible, it's empirically sound.

But libertarianism doesn't mean (1) we're all equal, or (2) you need to be a martyr for a cause or (3) that you have to put anyone's welfare above your own.

It seems like you've totally changed your view though guerilla (which is interesting because you were so passionate, or so I thought, about libertarian ideas which were all supported with logic.
I always tried to make moral arguments grounded in logic. If someone believes people shouldn't hurt them, then by extension, they shouldn't hurt others. If you don't want me to take money from you, then where does the government get your consent to take money from me?

You wouldn't believe the contortions people would go through to avoid reconciling that position.

But I eventually came to realize there are no moral absolutes. There is no natural law (not that I appealed to that, I instead tried to appeal to social norms and intellectual consistency) and there is no absolute morality (right and wrong).

There are no moral absolutes because no two humans are equal, in their capacity to understand morals, ethics, to act on them, etc. I realized nearly every mainstream libertarian argument for right and wrong was grounded on a false premise.

And I have said many times that I do try to check my premises, and to change when I make an error.

And so I believe I have.

Now I'm not really sure where you stand... Is it, more of an "I hate the elites" Occupy Wall Street hipster type of a stance? (Don't take that as offensive, I am just too lazy to think of a better way to put it)
Like many people, you fail to comprehend what I am saying, and some of that blame also lies in my inability to articulate myself clearly.

You're incorrect about where I stand.

IM STILL IDENTIFYING AS LIBERTARIAN FOR NOW GUERILLA, YOU HAVENT CHANGED MY STANCE YET! RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!
I am out of the business of trying to convince anyone of anything. What everyone else thinks only matters to me insofar as I might try to sell them something.

Improving humans/government/ideas etc can be a millstone around the neck of someone else. I am only interested in having a good time in my life, nothing more, nothing less.
 
But libertarianism doesn't mean (1) we're all equal, or (2) you need to be a martyr for a cause or (3) that you have to put anyone's welfare above your own.

I'd pretty much agree with that, although on item 3 I'd alter it to "you have to help others if it is going to inhibit your own well-being."

Good reading with much food for thought.
 
Seriously though. This is how people without money think.

Dreaming about sitting around, jerking off, watching TV and playing WoW all day sounds a lot better than it actually is.

gKEpMro.jpg


It is true that you can be a selfish twat and look out for #1 till you're in the grave. That's generally what all societies call a leech and would like to get rid of. Of course, you can make contributions along the way, or perhaps your entire selfish motive included the most philanthropic thing ever in existence.

Of course, when establishing the moral/ethical value of a person's life, you can look at the intention, action, and the consequence. But anyone who has psychologically matured into adulthood knows that the most weight falls upon intention, but not solely.

Once you achieve the basics, then you go after monies for long-term security. Then you will find yourself thinking about things like "meaning, contribution, art" and things of a slightly abstract or transcendent nature, because you're a grown up. You've grown as you've achieved success in the system you live in. Talking about some OTHER system ain't gonna get you there unless you can conquer the one you're in and use it to propel things forward.

You can't just reject the reality you live in and log-out. You have to embrace and expand, transcend and include. THEN maybe you can talk about getting rid of some shit or starting something new.



For mere mortals, it takes several generations. But we've had some boss ass niggas on this planet who make this statement 100% null and void.

Sri Ramana Maharishi
Moses
Padmasambhava
Saint Teresa of Avila
San Juan De La Cruz
Guatama Buddha
Rumi
Plotinus
The Bearded Bodhidharma
Lady Tsogyal
Lao Tzu
Plato
Pythagorus
Baal Shem Tov
CCarter
Abraham Lincoln
Barack Hussein Obama (lol)
Bob Marley, even
John Lennon, even
Alan Watts
Timothy Leary

C'mon bruh.

is that why u a bst baller? :D
 
As evidence for people living in harmony without murder, rape, assault, and theft - I'd like to point to...(drumroll)...no time ever in the history of mankind.

When it was just Adam and Eve I'd imagine human on human violence was non-existent.. although their kids turned out really messed up. I blame their grandpa for that though, he had an awful temper.
 
I have put a fair amount of thought and research into this because I really would like to help create a free society that is voluntary (hence my sig).

I think it is possible, for the most part. Just because I think it is possible doesn't mean I think we will have it in this lifetime, or even any time soon. But I think a free society, a society built around self-governance as opposed to group-governance, is the result of evolution. So I think we are slowly taking steps there and will at some point get there.

Society comes down to people. If you have bad people you generally have a bad society. If you have good people you generally have a good society. Obviously certain types of societies shape people a bit, but it is usually people shaping society rather than society shaping people.

I think the main reason why people fail creating a free society is because they try to convince everyone. It's stupid. Most people don't want to be free. Most people want government and they want control. And that's fine. Let them have it. Leave them be.

People need to treat it like a business and start a new society that only has people who want it. If Libertarians are so into a society without statists then they should create a society and set the example (what I'm trying to do). You can't blame statists if they are acting in their own rational, self-interest as pointed out in this thread. They are doing what is best for them. Libertarians should do what is best for themselves and stop trying to convince people to change their mind and instead just focus their efforts on creating what it is they desire. There is no reason non-statists can't get together and assemble a free society. You can't convince everyone to follow you and you don't need to.

I think another thing people should at least consider is that you don't need just 1 society that is free that everyone is a part of. We don't have just 1 restaurant serving one type of food. People like variety and people like choice. Why not have 10 free societies in different parts of the world that are all a little different that all have different people with different goals. Each society can act like a business serving up society for the type of people that want to be a part of it. But isn't that what we already have? Somewhat, except we don't have any new businesses popping up. And we have all the same business owners creating new brands but we never change ownership. We need a new group of owners to get in there and create some new brands with better products. The standard in society is so weak right now.

But yeah, I could go on and on about this topic as I am slowly building closer and closer to really turning something into a reality. I'm so sick of hearing people talk about it and never do anything about it. I have already taken the first step and I really want to do something about it.


Since you're into myers briggs, you may want to read this post which talks about the progession of society, how we are currently not in a voluntaristic society, but we are close and eventually will reach a stage where civilization is effortlessly engaged in being "voluntaristic" and "moral" as a whole: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...n-Energy-Dynamics-of-Quadra-and-Benefit-Rings

The article is about socionics, the russian and advanced version of MBTI/psychological types.

this system is a vague description of the energy-informational progression of complex communicative systems (socionics) and is only a brief overview of the socion as a whole, so you'll need to study psychological types and socionics in deeper detail to have a gr8er understanding.

what the article basically speaks about is the fact that there are 4 quadras of 16 psychological types (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta, and no these dont refer to the stupid alpha male/beta male dichotomy).

alpha (includes INTj, ESFj, ENTp, and ISFp) represents the quadra of analyzing and reflecting - this quadra is generally responsible for the beginning of society because they are the ones who invent the idea of society.

beta (ESTp, INFp, ENFj, ISTj) represents the quadra of suffering and conquering - this quadra is responsible for acquiring power and the building of a society. for example, socionists say that in eastern europe when countries fell in the 1900s, it was the beta quadra that seized power. although the beta quadra is good at taking power, they're not good at maintaining it, which leads us to our next quadra.

gamma (ESFp, INTp, ENTj, ISFj) represents the quadra of collaboration and acquirement - this quadra promotes liberalism, democracy, and capitalism on a global scale - and currently we are in this stage in the socion clock. if this socion is left in power for too long, then there is stagnation, and not much is changed and society soon falls into anarchy (see gorbachev, the last president of the soviet union). since morals and consideration of human individuals are lacking in this quadra, a western capitalism had to be built on strict moral codes of protestant self-restraint, so, we must progress into the fourth quadra if the human species is to develop further as a whole species.

finally, the delta (ENFp, ISTp, ESTj, and INFj) quadra, the truly "moral" quadra
comes into play. we are not yet in this quadra on a world or national level. for example, the ESTJ is the type that will turn over management to the world by making it more decentralized - see, this has happened in europe already, but not in russia and the ukraine because they want to keep power in the center. the ENFp and the INFj are the most emphatetic of the psychological types and do good deeds without bringing attention to themselves. the clock ends here with the ISTP, the technological zenith, perfecting technological advancements for which there are no further developments. at this point, there is no emotion, no enthusiasm, and maximum efficiency is reached. thus, the clock starts over again, and society evolves even further.

in my opinion, ignoring all the hiccups and bumps in the road and assuming we don't self-destruct as a species, i can see the world progressing in a linear fashion as such: current society -> a society in which there is elimination of poverty/pollution/inefficiency/immoral deeds -> a society in which since all earth problems are solved, we expand into outer space -> (and this is up to your imagination..)



wow, i strangely enjoyed writing this post. nice!