Guest Ethan Glover Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 Maybe it's just me but I hate it when people say they believe in "voluntaryism". It's like saying you believe in anerchy. It's an obvious misspelling and when I point this out people tend to say, "I spell it that way so the word voluntary can be in there, that way people know what it means." Nobody, not even G. Dubya, is that stupid. I'm pretty sure people can understand voluntarism. Anyways, I have a page called "Commonly Confused Words List" that takes definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary. (oed.com, not oxforddictionaries.com) And I've posted the differences between voluntarism, voluntaryism and volunteerism. Here they are: Voluntaryism: Abbreviated, Volunteerism The principle or tenet that the Church and educational institutions should be supported by voluntary contributions instead of by the State. Any system which rests upon voluntary action or principles. Now usu. with reference to voluntary labour. Volunteerism: The system of having volunteer military forces. The use of volunteer labour, esp. in the social services. Voluntarism: Philos. One or other theory or doctrine which regards will as the fundamental principle or dominant factor in the individual or in the universe. The principle of relying on voluntary action rather than compulsion; spec. with reference to political and trade-union activities. Denoting the involvement of voluntary organizations in social welfare. Am I crazy for being so annoyed by this? Hamilton called his beliefs federalism. The United States is called a democratic government. Things like mercantilism and imperialism are called capitalism. Theft is called tax. Stefan's documentary teaser ends on the problem with words. Libertarians, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists alike are pummeled everyday with a misconception of very basic words and yet those who call themselves "voluntaryists" are, to me, a part of the problem. I find it impossible to debate "anarcho"-communists/socialists because they can't speak english. Their entire philosophy depends on and relies on redefining words. If you don't allow them to do that and try to find common ground, they'll start throwing insults and falling apart. Is it right to hold voluntarists to the same standard that we hold everyone else to? Or should I just relax and let them do whatever they want? I mean they're not harming me, I don't want them to go to jail but I think they're misrepresenting themselves and making themselves (and the philosophy) look dumb and misinformed.
Kevin Beal Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 Am I crazy for being so annoyed by this? No. I don't feel that way myself about this, but feelings are what they are. Feelings aren't crazy. I was told that "voluntaryism" is a new word (or new meaning to an existing word) that is meant to sound distinct from "volunteerism". I could be wrong about that though. I would much prefer that people just called themselves "anarchists" to just make it easy. People's resistance to the word "anarchist" in the liberty movement is a little annoying to me. If I'm trying to have a conversation with someone about these ideas, I will accept any definitions they are using so long as it makes some kind of sense and they don't equivocate later. What the actual meanings are of words isn't as important to me as being on the same page as to how they are using them. That's just me though. And I'm just curious, what does it matter to you that people look dumb? I'm sure I look dumb to some people some of the time. I comment on things I don't know very well, and am even sometimes invested in wrong conclusions. Not that you shouldn't ever be annoyed with people who are being dumb, I'm just curious what that's about for you. Cuz I didn't quite get what that was about from your post.
Guest Ethan Glover Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 [1] I was told that "voluntaryism" is a new word (or new meaning to an existing word) that is meant to sound distinct from "volunteerism". I could be wrong about that though. [2] I would much prefer that people just called themselves "anarchists" to just make it easy. People's resistance to the word "anarchist" in the liberty movement is a little annoying to me. [3] If I'm trying to have a conversation with someone about these ideas, I will accept any definitions they are using so long as it makes some kind of sense and they don't equivocate later. What the actual meanings are of words isn't as important to me as being on the same page as to how they are using them. That's just me though. [1] Voluntaryism is by no means "new" it has a very long etymology expanding back hundreds of years, and as is noted by it's actual definition has to do with church donations. I've also found it's been used to describe someone against slavery. Really the word is pretty much obsolete as those two things are so common you barely need the word. [2] People who use voluntarism (and inappropriately voluntaryism) are afraid to admit they're anarchists to others and sometimes to themselves. However, I don't reject the term because it describes a philosophy while anarchy is just synonymous with "stateless society". So communists and socialists can indeed be anarchists in this way, but they can not be voluntarists. So, anarcho-capitalism = voluntarism. [3] I really don't like this, this is why there's so much confusion to begin with. I start every single conversation or writing with an establishment of definitions from OED. I have to because most people wouldn't understand what I'm talking about even though I'm just using very common and (seemingly) non-difficult words. Even if you're talking to someone who "get's it" no matter what words you say it's bad practice. You start to forget true terms and in the case of communists they start to reject it outright. I've got an article planned about how to properly think of capitalism. Saying it shouldn't exist is like saying guns should be illegal. A weapon is not defined by an objects characteristics, it's defined by the actions of the individual using the object.Voluntaryism and voluntarism on the other hand have clear, historical and factual distinctions. Mixing them up is misrepresenting what the actual philosophy means. By calling voluntarism voluntaryism you're taking a general concept (ie. tool) and pinpointing it down to a single option. It's bad logic, and a terrible way to represent yourself.If someone doesn't understand their own philosophy they talk about, nobody should take him seriously. Ramblers and people who just listen to others and repeat don't deserve respect in a conversation. You need to understand what you're talking about before you're taken seriously. That's where the problem with most "voluntaryists" lie. They're 1. too afraid to explain what they really are and 2. don't understand what they're talking about. It's like a little girl trying to join in on a conversation between a bunch of grown men talking about football and trying to say things about "homeruns". I'm not going to stop and explain it if I'm already speaking on a "higher level". If you want to learn the basics you've got to start with the basics, not interrupt and overcomplicate real conversation. It's OK to not know, but it's not OK to act like you know, and it's even worse dismiss corrections.
Vuk11 Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 Thanks for posting the distinction between the two, I guess that helps. I'm currently copping a whopper of abuse for saying Anarcho-Capitalism. Got socialists lumping the Free market with the current system of corporations and the federal reserve, also "traditional anarchists" (Anarcho-socialists?) saying that the Anarchism and Capitalism are an oxymoron and by saying Anarcho-capitalist I am a gang member that wants to control peoples lives..... I swear half of the debates I get into don't go anywhere due to a failure to communicate and differentiate people from preconceived notions. A dispute over definitions IMO is the fasted way to a circular argument.
Kevin Beal Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 and 2. don't understand what they're talking about. It's like a little girl trying to join in on a conversation between a bunch of grown men talking about football and trying to say things about "homeruns". I'm not going to stop and explain it if I'm already speaking on a "higher level". If you want to learn the basics you've got to start with the basics, not interrupt and overcomplicate real conversation. It's OK to not know, but it's not OK to act like you know, and it's even worse dismiss corrections. This is the reality of the world we live in. That's what people do, and I would submit that you do it too, just like I do it. If you have this approach like this is completely unacceptable and they need to be dismissed outright, then I really don't know who your audience is. What I imagine would happen is that you would get consistently frustrated and end up not really helping anyone. Am I wrong? Are you having these conversations with these philosophical heavyweights and getting somewhere like you describe these guys talking football? Because I've seen you get frustrated in another thread already because you "couldn't take it seriously". You didn't explain to us little girls what was so ridiculously erroneous. It was more like a punishment or something. I'm simply trying to suggest that your approach may need some fine tuning. Your conclusions may be entirely correct for all I know, but I'm frankly not too motivated to find out for myself. In fact, I find it really off-putting. But certainly, you can let me know if you are having success changing people's minds and bringing them to philosophy. It may be that it's me who needs to approach it differently.
Guest Ethan Glover Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 [1] If you have this approach like this is completely unacceptable and they need to be dismissed outright, then I really don't know who your audience is. What I imagine would happen is that you would get consistently frustrated and end up not really helping anyone. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo sumo ullum deseruisse at, id eos laudem nusquam contentiones, duo eu vitae persecuti. Cum at erat delicata scripserit. His ut case eius mentitum. Quas harum aeterno ius ei, incorrupte disputando an vel. Minimum qualisque quo ei, ei tale dico dicat mei. Ad has iuvaret impedit. Epicuri atomorum salutatus qui ut. Appetere consetetur ne pro, honestatis adversarium theophrastus at vix. Quo nibh ludus no, maluisset forensibus definiebas et mei. At nam timeam euripidis expetendis, usu ut mundi quando periculis, nec cu solet decore. Ut nam brute nusquam, sed cu vide postea. Eu nam agam nulla delicata, omnis lobortis an pro, quidam admodum in sea. Eum ex sint nemore voluptua, nusquam facilisis qualisque id vel. Thanks for posting the distinction between the two, I guess that helps. I'm currently copping a whopper of abuse for saying Anarcho-Capitalism. Got socialists lumping the Free market with the current system of corporations and the federal reserve, also "traditional anarchists" (Anarcho-socialists?) saying that the Anarchism and Capitalism are an oxymoron and by saying Anarcho-capitalist I am a gang member that wants to control peoples lives..... I swear half of the debates I get into don't go anywhere due to a failure to communicate and differentiate people from preconceived notions. A dispute over definitions IMO is the fasted way to a circular argument. You're right. Unfortunately people get too caught up in wanting to be special, they think they can invent definitions as a way to "re-initiate" old, forgotten and dismissed philosophies. It's impossible to speak to people who refuse the language. 2+2 never equals 5. Anyone who disagrees isn't really worth any time or effort. If you can't concentrate on the topic at hand and instead have to attack "approaches" or "words" you probably should turn around and read a book before further embarrassing yourself. I wrote my three part "Anarcho-Communism Criticism" and "Econmics Anarchists Don't Want You To Know" in the midst of being attacked from every angle by communists (for asking a few questions), that stuff died down quick. XD Most of them probably went back to their lair, some now frequent ancap boards and forums, and I find them agreeing more often than they disagree. You do what you can and ignore the people who can't focus on the topic at hand. If that makes you look unpopular on the outside, so be it, as long as you make progress right? Don't waste your time with the definition benders and the assholes who want to psychoanalyze you when you know you're right. They're just looking for a way to excuse their own existence.
Recommended Posts