Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

On Voluntaryism

When novel political concepts are first synthesized, not every nuanced point or even the general trajectory of the Philosophy is very clear. There may appear to be contradictions, inconsistencies, fuzzy terminology and ideas. Over time, the philosophy adapts its internal logic in response to the criticism leveled against it. Other times, it may foresee these weaknesses in the flow of discourse and correct it internally before subjecting itself to public scrutiny. Whichever way it developed, Voluntaryism -- as a philosophy often propounded by radical right-libertarians -- provides us with valuable insight into the assumptions that capitalist exponents and perhaps by extension, society itself, posit about the nature of present-day capitalist economic interactions.

For a definitive insight into what constitutes the essence of voluntarism, we turn to a proponent on the matter.

On force (the initiation of physical violence):
This is mainly a semantic argument, but voluntarism is not a rejection of force altogether. If that were the case - I think your conclusion would be completely accurate (in a society where all force is illegitimate, those who choose to ignore its illegitimacy will rule). However, voluntarism speaks specifically about the initiation of force, so accepting the validity of self-defense doesn't violate the core principle of voluntarism.
On economic interactions:
Well, I would say there is a difference, even if it's a nuanced one. Anarcho-capitalists typically reject the notion of the legitimacy of the state, as it as seen as direct force against people participating in the free market. Voluntarism, on the other hand, is more neutral to any type of social or economic behavior as long as is is voluntary in nature. So, for instance, if it turns out that worker-owned coops are the most efficient business structure, there will be a natural incentive to gravitate toward this model. I certainly think this is a possibility - especially with the more "horizontal" structure of newer successful startups - but I don't think this specific model should be mandated, if other types of businesses exist and are voluntarily agreed upon by all parties.
It appears that the crux of voluntaryism is framed within the initiation of physical violence. If a particular action is not aggressive (and importantly, not made in retaliation), than it would be considered legitimate and open to a process termed free agreement if it concerns dialogue. Relations formed under free agreement, then, are deemed inherently legitimate. Keep in mind that according to voluntaryism, 'free' is determined by the absence of the initiation of physical violence. Following this logic, capitalist interactions are voluntary because they don't involve such. It seems fine so far. But we hit a snag down the road.

Employers have much more leverage than their employee counterparts. How can an exchange be considered voluntary when the laborer has no choice but to resign to wage-labor? I act how I must in order to survive and within my limited constraints, of course the better option would be to work for wage than have no income and potentially starve. That's not acting voluntarily -- that's acting out of necessity. The situation is framed as if it's no different from casually selecting what color sweater I'd wear for the day. It's not. The color of sweater I wear has no effect on my future decisions or well-being, unless they're associated with gang-colors or are particularly effeminate, and I live in a neighborhood known to harbor gangs hostile to whom they perceive to be effeminate.

Thus, a key problem with voluntaryism is that its definition of 'voluntary' is insufficient to account for actions made under extenuating circumstances. It treats actions absent of physical violence as casual associations or economic interactions when speaking in a market-context. This approach ignores the dynamics of human interactions and as such, thanks to the specific path along which the philosophy developed, its assumptions concerning the nature of human interactions is best suited to compliment anarcho-capitalistic beliefs. It simply refuses to believe that coercion can take shape in many forms outside of physical violence and the State. It's therefore no surprise that many anarcho-capitalists are also voluntaryist. It merely gives them a mandate to exploit the disenfranchised because hey, it's voluntary! Pick up that shovel and dig!

I formed a response to the second linked paragraph. The person never replied. I would think he would see my response because he was actively monitoring the thread for comments, as evidenced by that reply. Whether he didn't because he couldn't counter my argument effectively, I don't know. In that thread, he only answers one question, concerning the general trajectory of voluntaryism. He does not reply to comments which counter and/or refute the absurd assumptions posited by it. I'm just noting that it seems suspicious. A genuine philosophy would certainly take the time to respond to its alleged refutations, no? How do you expect to build a widely-respected reputation otherwise?

Perhaps as a logical corollary to its philosophical outlook, it's expectedly inward-looking, which is a contradiction in terms. Which is to say that it refuses to critically examine its own assumptions when immersed in dialogue.

I haven't seen a single anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist approach refutations concerning property without asserting that property rights inherently exist. This is problematic because property is never defined, and to any conceivable extent, positive property rights imply the initiation of force to protect them. Now, I think that personal property rights (possessions) should be protected to a basic extent in a decent egalitarian society. This is feasible to accomplish since such rights are negative and by necessity don't involve human interference; merely respect for one's possessions. But if we talk of private property (i.e. capital), which is consummated by positive property rights, I would assert that all capital must be socialized because privatization (the logical outcome of unlimited positive property)  merely imbalances power relations and encourages the initiation of force to withdraw and preserve property.

If we refer back to his second response, we see that he defines 'voluntary' in respect to anarcho-capitalism. This is why he states that voluntaryism is in effect, 'neutral' to the multiplicity of economic organizations that economic interactions may take, including anarcho-capitalism. It doesn't occur to him that the relations of power within the latter breed inequality and as such cannot foster voluntary interactions, let alone mutually beneficial ones as he appears to hint. I stepped in at this point and noted the blatant contradiction in implying that capitalist interactions were free of coercion:
Interesting response. Considering that you seem to see some potential in the worker-owned co-operative model within the context of a participatory society, would you say that the social relations (property relations, production and distribution of goods and services, etc.) anarcho-capitalists envision has some implicit problems with coercion surrounding it?
As I understand it, anarcho-capitalists espouse a Capitalist notion of property, meaning that social organization is fixed around a hierarchal power structure thanks to the the social relations that unlimited property rights produces. Absentee ownership is a core tenet of a capitalist-propertarian society, which may only be maintained through coercion since no one individual can physically occupy several dwellings at any point in time.
In my view, absentee ownership is illogical, and I think would be rejected on pragmatic grounds even under an anarcho-capitalist society, unless one finds it in his favor to acquire a monopoly on force -- which is against the tenets of voluntarism.
From what I understand of the two, it seems voluntarists would be naturally drawn to reject the coercive principles of anarcho-capitalism since the 'voluntary decisions' flowing from its social relations are in fact made in duress.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
He did not respond to my point, which demonstrated that voluntaryism contradicts itself if we were to formally apply it. Meanwhile, I found him reposting the same thread to related subreddits, presumably soliciting for additional comment and of course, refusing to acknowledge the ones which disagreed with his hilariously detached ideology. I decline to refer to it as a philosophy by this point in time since a philosophy implies an actively engaged world-view and if action-oriented, praxis. Genuine philosophers accept criticism and adapt appropriately in response to it. Ideologies ignore, and in cases where it enjoys an active existence as a political entity, suppress criticism. The latter subsists on a static identity which refuses to dialogue with those who disagree with it. It selectively engages those who accept the terms it sets out to others.

In summary, voluntaryism is formally referred to as a philosophy in mainstream discourse, more out of common courtesy than out of any serious appreciation. This courtesy is extended toward it, despite the fact that it blatantly contradicts its own tenets to the extent its perception is skewed in favor of capitalism. Granted, it was synthesized before capitalism existed, but no one adapted its doctrine in response to the shifting relations generated by it as it metastasized into a global economic scheme. If this were done, this internal contradiction -- intensified thanks to "anarcho"-capitalists justifying their corrupt articulation of it -- would cease to remain today. Genuine philosophies adapt to evolving circumstances and shed vestigial concepts. Ideologies remain static, living only within the context in which they were first articulated. Voluntaryism belongs to the latter, and rightfully so.















This post first appeared on Thoughts And Musings, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

On Voluntaryism

×

Subscribe to Thoughts And Musings

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×