Why We Should Call Ourselves Voluntaryists

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

Stef has said before that he calls himself an "anarchist" rather than a "voluntaryist" because people inevitably ask "what's the difference between that and anarchism then?" when voluntaryism is described to them, and he has to concede that they're the same thing. I think, however, that we should call ourselves voluntaryists for two reasons: 1. the reaction that others have, and 2. how accurately it describes our position.

 

Firstly, calling ourselves voluntaryists would lead to better reactions than calling ourselves anarchists or anarcho-capitalists (or libertarians). For one thing, there are the left anarchists that hate when we call ourselves anarchists, insist that anarcho-capitalism is not a real type of anarchism, say that libertarianism has historically meant anarcho-communism, etc. Calling ourselves voluntaryists and saying that we're anti-statists or that we want a stateless society, as opposed to saying that we're anarchists or that we want an anarchist society, would stop them from getting so angry at us for using the terms as they're used in everyday language (they'd stop accusing us of trying to hijack the word "anarchy"). The other thing, as mentioned before, is that the average person has a negative reaction toward the term "anarchism," due to the propaganda they've received about it. If we call ourselves voluntaryists, that will prevent them from having this automatic reaction that prevents them from listening to what we're saying, and if they ask what the difference between that and anarchism is, we can then do the same thing that the left anarchists do: explain that anarchism is opposed to all hierarchy, even voluntary and beneficial hierarchies like those in capitalist businesses, and that anarchists are against the state fundamentally because the state is hierarchical, while voluntaryists are against the state fundamentally because it initiates the use of force; in other words, describe that the difference between anarchism and voluntaryism is that anarchists are fundamentally opposed to hierarchy, while voluntaryists are fundamentally opposed to the initiation of the use of force.

 

Secondly, I think that voluntaryism more accurately describes our position than anarchism or anarcho-capitalism does. As said before, anarchism is inherently opposed to hierarchy, which we are not necessarily opposed to (if the hierarchies are voluntary, no force involved, etc. then there's nothing wrong with it). More importantly, however, we are against the state as a result of our voluntaryism - or, voluntaryism is what our political beliefs stem from. We might support anarcho-capitalism because we think that it is the most logical, practical, beneficial, etc. society, but we are not wed to that system. I'm sure that we would have no moral opposition to an anarcho-communist society, as long as it is all done voluntarily (we might think it to be impractical, but there's nothing morally wrong with it). So we could call ourselves vountaryists, and then describe a stateless, capitalist society as an example of how a voluntaryist society could operate.

 

These are my ideas, let me know what you think of them. Thanks!

[powder]

I prefer the word 'voluntaryist' (volunteerist?) to anarchy because of the negative misrepresentation given to the word in the main stream.  how does anarcho-communism work?  

[Culain]

and that anarchists are against the state fundamentally because the state is hierarchical, while voluntaryists are against the state fundamentally because it initiates the use of force; in other words, describe that the difference between anarchism and voluntaryism is that anarchists are fundamentally opposed to hierarchy, while voluntaryists are fundamentally opposed to the initiation of the use of force.

 

 

An anarchist is an explanation of what we are not, rather than an explanation of what we are. Anarchists do not oppose hierarchy, because hierarchies can be non-violent and voluntary. An anarchist is simply someone who does not support a violent/ coercive hierarchy (relationship).

 

I've given a few thoughts myself on why I hate having to call myself an atheist/ anarchist because they're terms that only mean anything when the opposite is the norm. There will only be people whom call themselves atheists as long as theism is the norm. Similarly there will only be people who call themselves anarchists as long as archy's (governments) are the norm.

 

When we describe ourselves it becomes more accurate to explain what we are rather than what we are not, there is an infinite amount of 'what nots'.

 

 

I prefer the word 'voluntaryist' (volunteerist?) to anarchy because of the negative misrepresentation given to the word in the main stream.  how does anarcho-communism work?  

 

When I first explained to my brother that i was an Anarchist he thought that meant Marxist. >_>

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I like to call myself an anarchist for the shock value. Then after the other person gets all upset and stuttered, I can demand, "What's your problem with freedom?"

 

The ball, Sir, is in your court.

[LovePrevails]

I prefer voluntarist actually

 

the original political us of anarchism is a 19th century economic system that closely resembles communism

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why should I care if a communist gets angry with me for using a word he thinks he owns? 

[ParaSait]

The semantic confusion around the word "anarchism" is rather frustrating.

There are 2 kinds of "anarchism". There's the word, which has a fixed definition, and there's the long-running movement. The literal, objective meaning of the word doesn't evolve, but the movement has. The word means the advocacy of a stateless society, but the movement rather represents an opposition against any kind of hierarchical association, and is traditionally communist in nature.

Voluntaryism is the opposition against any kind of coercive, unfree association. Voluntary associations can be hierarchical, as hierarchy isn't inherently coercive.

Voluntaryism entails "word"-anarchism, since the state is inherently coercive.

 

The confusion is when meanwhile, the "movement"-anarchists get bitchy because voluntaryists call themselves anarchists.

I think it's better to refer to ourselves as voluntaryists, for 2 reasons: it's more precise ("word"-anarchism is only a part of voluntaryism), and also, especially when a discussion involves "movement"-anarchists, it really helps to make a clear distinction.

 

EDIT: of course, you can expect the "movement"-anarchists to keep bitching about our use of their word regardless, because I suppose that that's an incredibly convenient red herring to utilize)

[Kevin Beal]

I use the word "anarchist" because it's the least ambiguous. People constantly get "voluntaryist" mixed up with "voluntarist" and "volunteerist" and no one knows what it means. I find it pedantic and annoying, myself. I would much rather someone tell me that they are a communist than some more obscure collectivist thing that would be more accurate and less offensive to the ears.

 

"Anarchism" is absolutely not opposed to hierarchy. In much the same way that "atheism" simply means a lack of belief in gods, anarchism just means "without rulers". I'm not even opposed to anarcho-socialism / communism / primitivism / syndicalism etc, as long as they are moral. If that's what they want to do, then that's fine with me. I accept anarchism as valid.

 

Personally, I find conversation about the word itself to be interesting and productive. I've had more than a few people realize that anarchism is not a mad max style post apocalyptic nightmare and become more curious about it, even if they don't agree or come to the same conclusion as me.

 

This introduction to the book Everyday Anarchy by Stef focuses specifically on this issue of the word itself. And it does a lot to invite and intrigue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AidXSubb-2U

[J. D. Stembal]

Kevin beat me to it. Anarchism is neutral on authority or hierarchies, as long as they are voluntary. Rulers act with coercion so they are in power with the involuntary support of their citizens.

 

I like the term voluntarism because it evokes a genuine desire to action, like charity, neighborhood watch, and community programs. We are voluntary supporters of Free Domain Radio.

 

I organised a public road trash clean up earlier this year, and one of my self-described Libertarian friends showed up. The whole time he was bitching about how I was supporting socialism. My response was that I was supporting voluntary action, not through coercion, so how could it possibly be socialist? He said that I wasn't paying anyone to clean up trash, including myself, so that I was supporting socialism. Taxes are being paid to clean up the trash, so we shouldn't have to spend any time worrying about it.

 

I told him that that was the point. The trash should be cleaned up but it's not being cleaned up because it was public property. We are demonstrating how faulty the concept of socialism is by refuting it, not supporting it.

[Magnus]

I like "voluntarist," but one does encounter numbskull Progressives and the like who still manage to cock up the meaning of such a simple idea. They will say things like, "The choices that people make in their lives aren't really voluntary."

 

These idiots seem to believe that every decision we make are only voluntary when they're free from any and all pressure, even when that pressure is applied by reality, or physics. Like the fact that choosing to paint daffodils all day doesn't generate enough income to pay for a 3-bedroom house, two SUVs and three kids in private school. So, these fools believe, choosing to give up the dream of being an amateur daffodil painter in order to sell widgets isn't really "voluntary."

 

You can change the word to anything you like, but using the best magic word to describe it isn't going to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. They refuse to accept the idea that "voluntary" means "non-retaliation" -- that if you choose to do or not do something, no one attacks you. It doesn't mean "free from all negative consequences."

 

In other words, the "voluntary" means "the NAP."

[dsayers]

Step one is calling things by their proper names. Labels are generalities, vague, and subject to interpretation. Even when they apply, they're summing up an entire person by one characteristic of that person. I would argue that there's only one meaningful way to divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not.

 

Not only are labels inherently inaccurate, but they can actually be backfiringly destructive. For example, by using the term anarchist, you're actually conceding that institutionalized aggression is valid. Labels like atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is a deviation.

 

The only label I willingly self-apply is truthist. If anarchy most accurately describes the real world, then one can interpolate that I am an anarchist. But only as a result of my adherence to objective truth and acceptance of my own capacity for error. I accept that when the interpretation of my senses contradict the real world, it is my perception that must give way.

 

I think this is important particularly because the immoral have manipulated language to manipulate thoughts. Even the "good guys" make this mistake. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen somebody say "NAP" when they're so used to using that shorthand that they've stopped seeing trees and only see a forest, I'd be a rich man. Let us be precise with our words.

[Culain]

Not only are labels inherently inaccurate, but they can actually be backfiringly destructive. For example, by using the term anarchist, you're actually conceding that institutionalized aggression is valid. Labels like atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is a deviation.

 

This is exactly what i was trying to say

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

Fair points. I suppose it doesn't matter what we call ourselves, I just think that calling ourselves voluntaryists would lead to less conflict than calling ourselves anarchists.

 

Oh, and to those saying that anarchism does not mean opposition to hierarchy, I'm referring to the historical definition of anarchy, which left anarchists always bring up when insisting that anarcho-capitalism is not a real form of anarchism (since anarchists have historically been opposed to capitalism), as opposed to the modern, commonly used definition (aka anti-statism).

[cynicist]

Not only are labels inherently inaccurate, but they can actually be backfiringly destructive. For example, by using the term anarchist, you're actually conceding that institutionalized aggression is valid. Labels like atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is a deviation.

Sounds like a positive reason to use Anarchist to me. Not only does it serve as a useful shorthand, it also allows you weed out people who cannot see past the emotional impact of words to their actual meaning. Thinking Person: What do you mean you're an Anarchist? Isn't that when you throw Molotov cocktails at police and terrorize store owners?You: Well actually...

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Sounds like everyone's developing and honing down their own battle tactics.

[RyanT]

I've been pretty guilty of this one myself,

 

I wasn't so much worried about scaring people with images of leather clad road warriors terrorizing a post apocalyptic wasteland, and I positivity enjoyed watching lefties get their knickers in a twist because we 'stole their word' (so much for no property rights?)

 

What caused me most anxiety was just being labeled an 'immature poser'...or perhaps that accusation we're 'all a bunch of nerdy virgins in your mothers basements'

 

'Anarcho-capitalism' is traditionally 'neckbeard' territory....?

 

Certainly the Gold Donator podcast 'What Trolls Reveal' helped me tremendously with this one, highly recommend it.

 

The gist being, we have to catch ourselves when we start to act 'weaselly', focus on what we're trying to avoid and address that issue, as all attempts wriggle around it simply serves to highlight it, and thus invite attack.

[AustinJames]

I often use the word "voluntarism" to help define, or introduce "anarchy."  To someone unfamiliar with anarchy, I first ask if they agree that voluntary interactions are universally preferable to involuntary interactions (yes).  I then ask if it is possible to perform a voluntary interaction while being coerced by the other individual to act a certain way (no).  I then show them how they've already accepted anarchy by the virtue of these two accordances.

 

It seems to me both terms are important to describe my position; I want voluntary interactions, and I don't want any rulers that could actually or even potentially interfere with those interactions.

[McBeer]

It is difficult to communicate using labels that have been defined by society to be an absolute negative.  The public perception of anarchy is chaos. To describe a peaceful anarchy to someone is inconceivable because it contradicts what they know the word to mean. It's just not anarchy without some idiot smashing out windows and stealing a television. At least now thanks to Stef I have the ammunition to fire back logic at the non-thinkers.  I cannot help but point out the contradictions in their emotional responses. It is difficult, but fun. 

[iHuman]

It is difficult to communicate using labels that have been defined by society to be an absolute negative.  The public perception of anarchy is chaos. To describe a peaceful anarchy to someone is inconceivable because it contradicts what they know the word to mean.

 

Also when they Change the Meaning simply to attempt to discredit anyone who Categorizes themselves under it.much like the media often do to dramatize everything under the sun in a purely imbecilic attempt to increase ratings which more often than not the braindead masses tend to fall for hook line and sinker repeatedly.