Vengeancia (updated December 22, 2013) Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a philosophy that opposes anything that it sees as unjustifiably invasive and coercive. Voluntaryism regards “government” as coercive, and calls for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of other anarchist philosophies, it supports strong property rights which it regards as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion. Are you a PERSON? Are you volunteering for your enslavement?
“General – All corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some intentional, knowing act as the source of the injury. For example:
- Homicide – 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) As a result of action (or inaction) by another person.
- Larceny – 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen
“In essence Corpus delecti of crimes refers to a palpable harm. Where there is no violation of an established right there can be no wrong. Rights are of two kinds and they are “of the person” (jura personarum) and “to control external objects”, (jura rerum). Wrongs are also of two kinds and they are either public or private. Public wrongs are called crimes or public offenses whereas private wrongs are called torts and either involve the breach of a duty of care, a wrongful trespass against the person or property of another and breaches of agreement or contract. In every instance there must be a palpable harm or injury to the rights of another coupled with mens rea (or guilty mind) or in the alternative an element of negligence so severe as to be called criminal. For a more in-depth explanation, see Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 1 beginning about pg 52.” Read more.
“I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
Read about the Rape of America and the Constitution for the United States. Watch this interview with Ayn Rand. I like many aspects of Rand’s philosophy. Some I don’t like too much. Primarily, I agree with her philosophy of Voluntaryism.
Have you noticed that the modern State acting in a sovereign capacity wants everyone to recognize and submit to its authority? The term justice is another word appropriately used in a state or society ruled by sovereign powers, as distinguished from limited constitutional powers… Read more.
The conquerors employed force to give effect to their
judgments and thus the legal sanction — the use of force to
maintain the social and political structure — was founded.
Customs could then be maintained only if they were recognized
and backed by the conquerors. The mingling of peoples brought
about by conquest resulted in a conflict of competing customs
which could be settled only in the court of the conqueror. When
the court rendered judgment, law was declared, established, and
The American Peoples Encyclopedia,
Grolier Incorp., 1968, vol. 11, p. 280, “Law”
Arguments for self-ownership
Quit Working for The Federal Corporation! It has been argued by Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic. His reasoning is that a person contradicts himself when he argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a “performative contradiction” because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree.
If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves. However, it has also been noted that attempting persuasion in place of force does not necessarily acknowledge a right to disagree but may be a rational economic choice, as using force may have unfortunate consequences for the speaker as well.
“All governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion.” Barack Obama 2011
The person argues that self-ownership is an undesirable condition, and currently he is only authorized by law to argue against the status quo that allows self-ownership. Moreover, someone that argues against self-ownership does not necessarily do it in an absolute way. Sovereignty does not need to be a black-and-white issue: for instance, the person could be sovereign to have opinions, but not to perform any kinds of acts. For instance, a person that thinks the consumption of drugs should be always illegal is against absolute self-ownership, but not necessarily in favor of full subordination.
In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that 100 percent self-ownership is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person – a “universal ethic” – and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man. He says if every person is not entitled to full self-ownership, then there are only two alternatives:
“(1) the ‘communist’ one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or
(2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another – a system of rule by one class over another.”
He says that it is not possible for alternative (2) to be a universal ethic but only a partial ethic, which says that one class of people do not have the right of self-ownership but another class does. This, therefore, is incompatible with what is being sought – a moral code applicable to every person – instead of a code applicable to some and not to others, as if some individuals are humans and some are not.
In the case of alternative (1), every individual would own equal parts of every other individual so that no one is self-owned. Rothbard acknowledges that this would be a universal ethic, but, he argues, it is “Utopian and impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man.”
He says the system would break down, resulting in a ruling class who specializes in keeping tabs over other individuals. Since this would grant a ruling class ownership rights over its subjects, it would again be logically incompatible with a universal ethic. Even if a collectivist Utopia of everyone having equal ownership of everyone else could be sustained, he argues, individuals would not be able to do anything without prior approval by everyone in society. Since this would be impossible in a large society, no one would be able to do anything and the human race would perish. Therefore, the collectivist alternative universal ethic where every individual would own an equal portion of every other individual violates the natural “law of what is best for man and his life on earth.” He says that if a person exercises ownership over another person, that is, uses aggression against him rather than leaving him to do as he wills, “this violates his nature.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action.
The term voluntaryism is often used today as a synonym for free-market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist philosophies. The voluntaryist movement, however, is distinct in its rejection of electoral politics. Because they consider electoral politics to be counterproductive or immoral, voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means including:
Secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education.
Here’s another blurb on voluntaryism.
Quotes About Human Rights
― John F. Kennedy
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
― Martin Niemöller
― Frederick Douglass
― Elie Wiesel
― Madeleine L’Engle
― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
― Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear
― Fred Hampton
― Martin Luther King Jr.
― Rowan Atkinson
― Kathryn Stockett, The Help
― Kofi Annan
― William Pickens
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I’m against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the preceding list — yes, even the short skirts and the dancing — are worth dying for?
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
How to defeat terrorism? Don’t be terrorized. Don’t let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared.”
― Salman Rushdie, Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction 1992-2002
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.
There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.”
― Frederick Douglass
All men have the right to live their own life. Democracy must be rooted in a rational philosophy that first and foremost recognizes the right of an individual. A few million Imperial Order men screaming for the lives of a much smaller number of people in the New World may win a democratic vote, but it does not give them the right to those lives, or make their calls for such killing right.
Democracy is not a synonym for justice or for freedom. Democracy is not a sacred right sanctifying mob rule. Democracy is a principle that is subordinate to the inalienable rights of the individual.”
― Terry Goodkind, Naked Empire
― Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights
all men and women are your
brothers and sisters.”
― Aberjhani, The River of Winged Dreams
― Asa Don Brown
― Ezra Taft Benson, The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
― Oscar A. Romero, The Violence of Love
― Julian Bond
― Ghassan Kanafani, All That’s Left to You: A Novella and Short Stories
― John Pilger
― Filip Spagnoli, Making Human Rights Real
― Gwenn Wright, The BlueStocking Girl