Sunday, April 1, 2012

Do We Live In a Voluntary Society?

To answer the question above, what a voluntary society is must be defined. Voluntarism is the lack of force. Voluntary actions are the opposite of forceful actions. It is why the terms consensual rape and voluntary taxation lack a place in a rational reality. Though this seems obvious it is important to realize that what distinguished forceful actions from voluntary ones is the concept of property rights.

It must first be established that a person owns themselves. Though this is seen to be self evident among most people, it can be argued to be so because that person has a monopoly of control over their body. A person can be defined as the part of the brain that causes them to act. This necessarily means that since the person is in control of their actions, that they own their actions. If John punches Jim in the face, only John is responsible for his fist going into John's cranium because John was the only one in control of his fist at the moment.

It must of course be realized that someone who has mental or physical disorders can often be said to not own their actions. A person with epilepsy does not have control of their body, and therefore cannot claim ownership  for their actions during a seizure. The same is true of those with Tourette syndrome and other other debilitating conditions. These people have no choice and no ability to prevent their bodies from not being afflicted. A person cannot choose not to have a seizure, while a person can choose whether or not his fist goes into someone's skull.

If one own's their body and their actions, what does this mean exactly? To answer this, the term ownership must be dissected. One cannot be said to own someone if they do not have the ability to act on it. It cannot be said that someone owns $1,000 if they do not have the ability to use it. To go further, in order to own something, a person must be able to prevent others from acting on it. It cannot be said that you own $1,000 if you don't have to ability of preventing other people from using that $1,000. This puts strong logic behind the common reasoning that it is wrong to initiate violence, but it is completely acceptable to retaliate against violence with violence as this is simply the act of maintaining property.

If someone uses another person's body without their permission (rape), this violates that person's right to prevent other people from using their property. Love making does not violate the principals of ownership as both parties agree to let the other use their property.

If one own's their body and their actions, then they must own their words. It is reasoned that if someone owns their body, says that they will hug you, you have reason to believe the person will hug you because they own their body, their actions, and their word. This of course seems like common sense, but it is important to understand the concept of contracts. It also establishes why threat of force can be considered force. If a mugger threatens to break your legs if don't give them your money, this is seen as an act of aggression because the mugger owns their words and their body.

Now to answer the question about living in a voluntary society. Does a government act on property that they do not own? The answer to that is a definite yes. A simple example are laws against suicide. If a person owns their body, then they must have the ability to take their own life. A law against suicide is a threat to use force as it cannot be reasoned that the government owns a person's body. The case can of course be expanded to any activity that solely affects the individual, such as drug use.

There is obviously no formal contract made between the government and the people. It can't be argued that an implied contract exists as the government will threaten to act on property they do not own. Even then, to claim that there was an implied contract to obey all current and future laws isn't logical as such complex contracts cannot simply be implied. Imagine a lawsuit in which the prosecutor claimed that defendant broke an implied contract in which they were required to wear a black and red suit every Tuesday in order to receive compensation. The judge could only rule that there would be no way for such a contract to be implied.
Take any law and try to argue to a friend that this was an implied contract between you and the government. Even better, take a portion of the Federal Register and don't only argue that it is implied that you agree to such a contract for living on property that the government doesn't own and then read off what they implicitly agreed to.

What about the idea of a social contract. Stefan Molyneux does a great job of addressing this idea.

To answer the question posed by the title, no, we do not live in a voluntary society because there is an institution that is threatens to act on property they do not own. This is why it is said that a government has a monopoly of force over a specific area.

I might be trying to fit too much into too small of an area here, but I welcome feedback, especially on the areas that aren't effective.

2 comments:

  1. "There is obviously no formal contract made between the government and the people. It can't be argued that an implied contract exists as the government will threaten to act on property they do not own. Even then, to claim that there was an implied contract to obey all current and future laws isn't logical as such complex contracts cannot simply be implied. Imagine a lawsuit in which the prosecutor claimed that defendant broke an implied contract in which they were required to wear a black and red suit every Tuesday in order to receive compensation. The judge could only rule that there would be no way for such a contract to be implied."

    I disagree here. There is a contract between the people and their government in the form of laws. More so, the people and the government are perpetually working the terms of this agreement, adding, taking away, and changing the rules that are agreed upon. Your example about the black and red suit is grossly misleading, as the government and the people would never agree to such a ludicrous idea, and in your example these rules are SIMPLY implied, nowhere are they written. All laws and regulations between the government and the people are written down, as well as their interpretations where necessary through the use of court cases. To further this point, it can be seen that there is an agreement between the two parties when one party breaks the agreed upon rules. Instead of the government simply taking action against the possibly offending party, they hold a meeting to decide if they are guilty or not, allowing for both parties to make their case and, if necessary, explain how the rules/laws were NOT violated by their actions.

    By choosing to live in this society, you are choosing to agree to the rules and regulations therein. That is a VOLUNTARY agreement, as there is nobody forcing you to stay under the rule of this country. If you don't like the rules and therefore don't agree to the contract, you can attempt to change the contract via lobbying, changing other's minds, etc. If you don't want to change the contract and don't agree to the rules, you can leave the area where the contract is in effect and go somewhere else. It's a matter of choice that you agree to these rules within our society.
    A voluntary contract exists between you and everyone else that lives under the same government, as they are the ones who make the rules. You are not forced to live here, you are not forced to leave, that is your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Due to character limits, a response to this is in the post above.

    ReplyDelete