In this new series we will be talking about the fundamentals of anarchism/voluntaryism.
I would have thought writing such a series would be silly a mere three or four years ago, as it seemed these things were basically understood by most voluntaryists.
Even the title “VOLUNTARY-ist” literally spells out the fundamental, central axiomatic tenet which is, namely, the reality of individual-self-ownership and the resulting logical conclusion that ALL HUMAN INTERACTION SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY.
It seems, however, that many self-labeled “voluntaryists” are particularly susceptible to the dazzling bright lights of election seasons, the cultural biases that come with living in various geo-political regions, and the strange notion that even as a voluntaryist, it is sometimes okay to compromise the lives of “just a few” individuals to bring about a “greater good.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. By defintion, if it ain’t voluntary, it ain’t voluntaryism. Get it?
Today’s Lesson: Voting.
In the same way that this:
does not grant its wearer magical authority over other human beings,
Neither does this:
grant the winner magical authority over anyone or anything.
Why not? Because said “authority,” in both cases, is not voluntarily and consensually recognized.
It doesn’t matter if the police officer or winning candidate is trying to do some great work “for the people,” or for the “greater good.” The process itself, being force-based (relying on the initiation of force against non-violent individuals) is illegitimate as per voluntaryist property ethic.
Even in cases such as local votes, where some vote may bring about temporary relief from the state’s violence in some fashion, there is always another side to the coin. The shadow side.
Take cannabis legalization for example. Users of the plant may be very happy. Those extorted “taxpayers” who now have to pay for all the new bureaucracy and regulatory bodies surrounding the newly legalized drug may not be so happy.
Is the act itself of voting violent? No. Is it immoral? Yes. Are the results of votes always violent? Yes. Someone always is violated. The process itself is based on an unethical violent foundation.
Is the “authority” granted by this violent, force-based process ever legitimate as per voluntaryist standards?
No.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Friend @ kafkanarchy84 your post applies perfectly to the case of Venezuela, where the government proclaims to the four winds that it has won around 20 elections.
But when you go to a vitiated electoral process from the same entity that governs the process (pro-government in its majority) you know that you will not get well rid. That together with the disqualifications of opposition candidates, the unconscionable change of the election site of voters, the lack of international witnesses and could continue and continue.
In May we will have presidential elections and we are facing a new re-election of Nicolas Maduro. God keep us. Greetings from Venezuela
I know many self proclamied 'anrchists' and 'voluntaryists'who go all goo goo when the next wolf in sheep clothing pretends to give a dam. Very frustrating to watch people still fall into this spell time after time. Like you say a belief in authority will never equate to REAL freedom. its like being a broken record at time but repeat we must!
It is really hard to overcome the programing. Our society is still full of the Statist paradigm. We just have to keep up the good fight.
Political "authority" is the most dangerous superstition.
A friend of mine and I were discussing this recently. We concluded that determining who has the mental capacity, awareness, and understanding to determine anything for any mass of amount of people is impossible...and even if one could find a way to quanitify someone as fit and just for that position, that person could only vote on matters by which they are unbiased too...which is essentially nothing.
Yes. Love this line of thinking. This is why nothing less than the free market can really maximize peace, because it is decentralized and prices/policies are set by individual voices/buyers absent some fraudulent, centralized system headed by one man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone else.
I am looking forward to seeing the light bulbs going off or brains exploding ;-)
Couldn’t agree more. I like to tell myself I live in an anarchist world with tyrants impeding on my fruitful life.
Well any politician after winning the election may do things for the betterment but as you said there is another side, well if he legalises drugs he will induce tax in it, it's for the betterment of government not for the betterment of community, aslo good for Graham Smith doing such a good job by using steem, steem is really a good platform
Violence does not support legitimacy
Legitimacy does not belong to me in fair elections and is far from violent
Great words really good choice my dear
Great write up but the truth is, life is full of conspiracy up and down, there is nothing like legit again
Cheaper than locking people up and they tax the shit out of legal weed.
That’s the point. There’s always a violated party, regardless of how “good” the measure is perceived to be.
the users are the ones being taxed under legalization
the users are happy with legalization
the taxpayers are saving money and thus being violated?
the "violated party" with legalization is the pharmaceutical, gambling, alcohol and prison industries, boo hoo for them.
Missing the point, and simultaneously proving mine, @funbobby51. Even if you view the users as the violated party, then, bam. There you go. Someone is always violated as a result of voting. That is the entire point I am making. By the way, you don't think legalization leads to big pharma becoming involved in the industry? Some folks being kept out of jail is great! For sure! I'm all for that. I am not, however, for the force that will be leveraged and brought to bear on other individuals, the free market, and the quality of the products being sold as a result of the vote (gov. intereference).
Should we vote for "less slavery" in the slave master's election game, or become abolitionists? Maybe voting locally helps temporarily, sometimes for somebody. Insofar as it does, though, it also harms somebody else. The act remains immoral, and non-voluntaryist in nature, however, as the voting system is force-based, and thus antithetical to Voluntaryism. One is only a temporary (yet still immoral, delaying of the pain). The other is a real, moral, solution.
I am trying to figure out who the violated party is, the users who are being taxed are happy with the policy so they don't seem violated by it. Big Pharma can't really make money off of it because it can't be patented. It eats into their bottom line big time when it is legal because it replaces so many of their patent medicines. I am trying to figure out what individuals are harmed by doing away with the oppressive and racist policy of drug prohibition.
I think what he means is that taxation is the violation, regardless of whether the users are "happy" with it or not. Because if you don't pay the tax, there is always the possibility of people in uniforms carrying guns coming and dragging you away to put you in a cage.
But don't quote me on that, as I don't consider myself a Voluntaryist, or any other -ist, for that matter, and am not very knowledgable on the subject.
that sounds like something they might say, of course users don't actually pay the tax, it's a sales tax retailers have to pay and you could always grow your own tax free. And in states where it is legal it is often cheaper even with the tax because prohibition is a tax all of its own.
Seeds and strains of plants are already patented and the oppression in that arena is huge.
No they aren't, you cannot patent a cannabis strain in the US, not at this time anyhow as cannabis is federally illegal, the only thing you can do is try to trademark the names. Even if they could it's too late, the genetic material is already widely available. And even then they still couldn't make any money selling flowers, that is not what they do, they sell oil. Would you pay $1000 a month for patent cannabis? No, of course not so they will continue trying to make drugs that they can charge thousands of dollars a month for.
click here.Congratulations @kafkanarchy84, this post is the second most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Hero account holder (accounts that hold between 10 and 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Hero account holders during this period was 375 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $7878.12. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories,
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Congratulations, your post received one of the top 10 most powerful upvotes in the last 12 hours. You received an upvote from @smartsteem valued at 183.69 SBD, based on the pending payout at the time the data was extracted.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, reply with the word "stop".
States produce more evil than enything else. So what else would you expect?