Anarchism, Libertarianism, and Voluntarism

[prime]

All you hippies better start to face reality
All your far fetched dreams of anarchy
Better start to see things the way they are
'cause the way things
Are going they won't be goin' far

World peace can't be done
It just can't exist
World peace can't be done
Anarchy's a mess - Cro-Mags, "World Peace" (Age of Quarrel, 1985)

Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen. - F.W.N.

anything that acknowledges genetics triggers the normies

social class is their big freakout

Q1: Do you think the State should actively oppose diversification, or do you think that the State has no right to interfere (or exist at all), therefore allowing people freedom of association?

I oppose the State entirely and support the monarchy instead. We need leaders; anarchy is a pipe dream.

Any sane leader would oppose diversity because it is destructive.

Freedoms are for the population, which is ethno-national in definition.

These are the big things that have to be handled SO THAT individual autonomy ("freedom," "liberty," etc) can exist.

If ye harm none, do as thou wilt otherwise.

Q2: I'd prefer Monarchy to America's current sham of a Government, at least I wouldn't be psyopped at every waking moment, and you'd know whose head to pike, but I don't accept that any man has non-consensual dominion over another.

I don't oppose voluntary organizations formed on legitimate consent, but fundamentally I see no difference between Monarchy and Kleptocracy, except that Kleptocracy is more "efficient".

"I don't accept that any man has non-consensual dominion over another."

This assumes that all men are equal in reason, which is a mistake in my view.

Voluntarism is just anarchy.

Democracy of course relies on manipulation and is therefore unreliable, which is why it always leads to tyranny.

Voluntarism leads to democracy.

Q3: People have the natural right of freedom of association, regardless of how retarded they may be.

"Rights" are only relevant insofar as they turn into good results.

In an ideal society of high eugenics, yes, you can basically trust people, and monarchy does this by avoiding micromanagement.

However voluntarism breaks down with the first bad actor.

Q4: I don't think that's true, otherwise businesses couldn't exist.

You're not *forced* to work for a company to accomplish mutually beneficial goals, exchanging your time for just compensation.

In any sufficiently large business, there will always be at LEAST one bad actor.

But those businesses still exist. They're simply forced by the State to outsource violence, when required, to the State.

Business is based on overlapping interests.

When they get too big, you have your standard bungling corporation.

The problem there is usually unions or gov't rules holding them back from getting focus on task.

When we look at really big business suicides, like Sears, it is always amazing that things went wrong.

And yet, voluntarism applies. They trusted people instead of removing the bad ones.

Q5: I don't claim people or organizations are infallible, and once again the same argument could be made against Monarchy, which under the same condition would likely produce much more brutal and violent result.

I agree with you that the State's removal of freedom of association (forced diversification) has led to undesirable outcomes.

But I remain unconvinced that Monarchy is superior to abolition of the State.

Q6: I am sympathetic mostly to freedom but i do see some value in monarchy. Again we all face the problem of people who want to be leader which inevitable lead to government. What this mostly means no system will last as long or last to long in some cases and i don't think there is a solution.

My red pill was the Cro-Mags: "anarchy's a mess."

There are going to be leaders.

Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.

Q7: The existence of Leaders does not demand existence of a State.

Do you reject the notion that corporation owners are leaders?

Leaders are anyone who leads. These can be state, aristocratic, or corporate if you believe something like Moldbug's "patchwork" can work.

Q8: How does that comport with what you said, then?

here are going to be leaders.

Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.

The second part is entirely obviated by the first.

The second is why the first is true. One of the reasons, at least.

Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.

Then the ships appear on the horizon.

Or, a famine hits. Or there is a storm coming.

Q10: Anarchy does not imply no leadership, is my point which seems to have been lost.

Suggesting that anarchy can't work because we *have* to have a criminal enterprise to enslave people in order to run public works projects from on high is preposterous, demonstrably so (business).

Anarchy != no leaders.

Anarchy != everyone unwilling to pool efforts for necessary works

Consent is literally the only difference.

In other words, a committee.

Which has to debate, slowly.

"Consent" is the fiction of democracy.

You want to repeat that experiment?

I would identify myself as "culturally liberal, economically libertarian, politically conservative, and ecologically fascist."

The root is realism.

Functional institutions are needed, and ad hoc discussions are a burden just like the taxes imposed by socialism.

Q11: If high ground water and persistent flooding is impacting my property and my neighbors property, we all have a vested interest in fixing the problem.

Maybe fixing it is only worth $400 to one neighbor, $800 to another, and $1200 to me. (yes, wouldn't be using dollars but humor me).

Either we can work with the resources we have, can't do it, or need a different solution.

I'd rather work it out with my neighbors than have the State steal from me and never fix it anyway.

False dichotomy here as well as missing the big point.

Having reservoirs and other organized methods of dealing with a flood are imporant, as is planning for a flood when the storm is on the horizon.

Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.

Q12: Further, consent != democracy.

Democracy means that if I'm in the minority, the majority gets to use violence to compel my behavior, steal my shit, etc.

Anarchy and consent means I can dissent and walk away. I'm not /forced/ to contract with you.

The two exist in direct opposition to one another. Equating the two is illogical.

Democracy is what happens when you get consent-based systems. If you go full voluntarist, you are still at the level of people refusing to work together to address problems in common, so you will be ruled by those with leaders.

Organization is effective. It is also fragile, like all good things in life.

Q13:

Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.

You keep saying stuff about a "leader" with the implication that it HAS to be one of the State.

But I've already addressed the fact that this is NOT a requirement:

Your only complaint, from what I can tell, is "consent is slow and inconvenient"

Sorry, but that's where you lose me.

No, aristocrats are leaders outside of the State.

If a corporation owns an island, it can have leaders too.

Q14: Then I don't understand the fundamental argument.

I thought you were arguing against anarchy and in favor of monarchy because "anarchy's a mess" and "Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.", with the conversation leading one to conclude that the reason for this is due to a lack of leader(ship).

But now we've come full circle and agree that leaders need not be of the State.

So it's not an argument against Anarchy?

Anarchy does not work; voluntarism does not work.

Let us try there.

I dislike the State as well.

Q15:

Anarchy does not work;
voluntarism does not work.

and as I've addressed up this thread before, there is demonstrable proof that it DOES work. There are tons of organizations (businesses, clubs, co-ops, etc.) worldwide that operate this way.

Your chief complaint still seems to be that "consent is slow and inconvenient", which I contend is again obviously not true, or businesses could not operate at the massive scales that they do.

Anarchy just means consent.

Consent requires constant debate. It also tends to avoid big problems and future problems.

You will be ruled by those with leaders.

Q16: Once again, you insinuate that anarchy precludes leaders which I've gone round and round with you about to no avail.

I think I nailed your fundamental criticism (of consent) being that it's "slow and inconvenient".

I've tried multiple times in good faith for clarifications of your position, and from what I can tell it remains unchanged.

I no longer think this is productive.

Voluntarism is not leadership.

Communities under voluntarism fragment when facing disagreement.

There is also the point of slowness, namely that what you propose is essentially a committee.

I do not think you have overcome either of those.

Anarchy is a child's dream, like Utopia itself. It is a Leftist ideal.

People are not equal in reason. There will be many if not most who oppose any sane idea.

And with this conclusion to the discussion, we see why voluntarism does not work: the participants cannot agree on what has been established or to work together.

I think that points in one direction and not the other.