mike durland Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRcL0gEMvz4]
Shagrath Posted April 26, 2013 Posted April 26, 2013 I think people would collectivize into communities with agreed upon rules without everyone in the world signing the same contract. You could find a place where you agree with the rules. I don't think there will ever be a total lack of rules.
steve_ Posted May 12, 2013 Posted May 12, 2013 I think people would collectivize into communities with agreed upon rules without everyone in the world signing the same contract. You could find a place where you agree with the rules. I don't think there will ever be a total lack of rules. Isn't that what we're trying to get away from?
Pepin Posted May 12, 2013 Posted May 12, 2013 Voluntarist cannot logically have or take issue with any voluntary form of contract. The position assumes that in a voluntary contract that no property rights are violated and that both or all parties agree to the terms and conditions of the contract. It is important to realize that voluntarism is a proposal that property rights are universal, and people ought to respect this fact. People do have the choice and ability to not respect property rights in that they can rape, murder, steal, and any other violation of property, there is nothing stopping them from committing or attempted to commit such acts. To propose that ethical rules are nonsensical because people can break them is to not realize that ethical rules could not exist if people did not have the ability to choose. This is to say that rules are only needed if they can be broken. To say otherwise is to say that we need the law of gravity to keep people from going on the earth. To say that a voluntarist society would not have rules is to omit the entire concept of the NAP on which a voluntarist society must be based on. People of course can come up with their own rules, and it is likely that communities will form with different rules. But in order for a community to be compatible with voluntarism, they must respect property rights. Many people like to come up with odd scenarios in which people do not violate the NAP, and profit from inefficiency or shady tactics, but such an idea is antithetical to what people say will occur in completely free market. If people are free to choose, and society in aggregate is rational enough to understand the essentials of ethics and philosophy, then why would people choose to associate with those who are in opposition to such principals?
Shagrath Posted May 12, 2013 Posted May 12, 2013 There's a big difference between voluntarily joining a group compared to what we have now where you are born into it without a choice or a way out.
Recommended Posts