A voluntary government.

[TheAnCapJew]

Hi, i just recently crossed the line between minarchism to anarchism but there is one string attach to my minarchism roots and that is voluntary government. I ask myself why can't we have a voluntary government which does not use the initiation of force to do what government is to design to do. I have not heard any good arguments other than the state in inherently evil which does not make sense because government is only what the people in government wants it to be whether for good or evil. With that being said i would like to hear an argument severing that tie to minarchism. I hope we can have a good conversation about this.

[Libertus]

> why can't we have a voluntary government which does not use the initiation of force to do what government is to design to do

 

Define "government" so we know what you mean by the term (obviously not the dictionary meaning, synonymous to state adminstration, which implies a monopoly on force) and we can have a discussion. I predict that those are going to be the responses:

- "government" is just a term for people providing a voluntary service, with no monopoly on force necessarily

Reply: that's not "government" but we get what you mean, and we have no problem with order and security provided by voluntarily chosen companies

 

- "government" means what it is today, why can't it be voluntary?
Reply: Because it uses violence to make sure it stays a monopoly.

[Anuojat]

I would highly recommend looking up Stefan idea for POTENTIAL DRO service and how it would work (Book practical anarchy)

[ValueOfBrevity]

I would highly recommend looking up Stefan idea for POTENTIAL DRO service and how it would work (Book practical anarchy)

DROs are explained in the first 3 or 4 podcasts as well 

[dsayers]

government is only what the people in government wants it to be whether for good or evil.

This is a common misconception and is false. Government is predicated on lack of consent. There is no good lack of consent. Also, its central premise is that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Since this is pure fantasy, there's literally no way people could make it into good.

 

If it's voluntary, it's not government. You don't even need to look up podcasts. Your life is FULL of examples of people interacting with one another without using violence to achieve their goals.

[AncapFTW]

This is a common misconception and is false. Government is predicated on lack of consent. There is no good lack of consent. Also, its central premise is that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Since this is pure fantasy, there's literally no way people could make it into good.

 

If it's voluntary, it's not government. You don't even need to look up podcasts. Your life is FULL of examples of people interacting with one another without using violence to achieve their goals.

Your definition of "government" includes the use of involuntary force, so of course that means that it must use it.  By the dictionary definition, however, it doesn't have to use violence, though.  That's just the norm for governments.

 

gov·ern

ˈɡəvərn/

verb

gerund or present participle: governing

1.

conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

 

gov·ern·ment

ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/

noun

noun: government; plural noun: governments

1.

the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

 

Nothing in the definition demands the use of violence.

[regevdl]

Hi, i just recently crossed the line between minarchism to anarchism but there is one string attach to my minarchism roots and that is voluntary government. I ask myself why can't we have a voluntary government which does not use the initiation of force to do what government is to design to do. I have not heard any good arguments other than the state in inherently evil which does not make sense because government is only what the people in government wants it to be whether for good or evil. With that being said i would like to hear an argument severing that tie to minarchism. I hope we can have a good conversation about this.

call it what you want (government, centralized planned gvt??) but it would be a voluntarist society in any case  Those who want to engage in your voluntarily funded centralized planned system (aka voluntary gvt) will do so and congregate and those who do not want to engage won't be forced to do so and will be doing their own voluntarily designed and funded social planned system.  

 

If you haven't done so I recommend reading/listening to the free-ebook Practical Anarchy.

[TheAnCapJew]

This is a common misconception and is false. Government is predicated on lack of consent. There is no good lack of consent. Also, its central premise is that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Since this is pure fantasy, there's literally no way people could make it into good.

 

If it's voluntary, it's not government. You don't even need to look up podcasts. Your life is FULL of examples of people interacting with one another without using violence to achieve their goals.

In many cases throughout history we have seen government not controlling a small portion of someones life so why can't we take that to the extreme and say it is possible to have a voluntary government. I would absolutely choose anarchy over minarchy any day of the week but i do think that it is possible to have a voluntary government.

call it what you want (government, centralized planned gvt??) but it would be a voluntarist society in any case  Those who want to engage in your voluntarily funded centralized planned system (aka voluntary gvt) will do so and congregate and those who do not want to engage won't be forced to do so and will be doing their own voluntarily designed and funded social planned system.  

 

If you haven't done so I recommend reading/listening to the free-ebook Practical Anarchy.

i have read of practical anarchy and i absolutely loved it.

[dsayers]

it doesn't have to use violence, though

I said violence AND different, opposing moral categories. If you could name something that is available to everybody AND is voluntary, then it's not indigenous to government. My claim stands.

[Libertus]

Your dictionary defines government using the state, which is defined as a monopoly on force within a given geographical area. You can't have a voluntary monopoly on force, ie you can't maintain it voluntarily, unless you have 100% perfect and peaceful people and don't need any force to begin with (aka utopia).

[Des]

Hi, i just recently crossed the line between minarchism to anarchism but there is one string attach to my minarchism roots and that is voluntary government. I ask myself why can't we have a voluntary government which does not use the initiation of force to do what government is to design to do. I have not heard any good arguments other than the state in inherently evil which does not make sense because government is only what the people in government wants it to be whether for good or evil. With that being said i would like to hear an argument severing that tie to minarchism. I hope we can have a good conversation about this.

Do you mean:

Is it moral for you and 1000 others to buy up a small town somewhere and all sign a contract that specifies how you will vote for a town council to manage the town?

Sure, that part complies with morality, now what can the town council do, without acting immorally?

• They can collect management fees from contract signatories as per agreement in initial contract.
• They can spend the collected fees in ways permitted in the initial contract (provided that they are not procuring some immoral action).

 

Do you need them to do something outside of that? If so, what?

 

Should you sign the contract, if you will lose part of your investment if you leave the town? No - I would advise against you doing that.

[AncapFTW]

I said violence AND different, opposing moral categories. If you could name something that is available to everybody AND is voluntary, then it's not indigenous to government. My claim stands.

A group of villagers send their goods into town with a merchant to be sold.  Two people hire an arbiter to decide who is in the wrong in a situation.

 

In both cases they are governing according to the first definition, and the first is a government according to the second definition.  If the arbiter is commonly used by the community, they could also be considered a government in that situation.

 

One person or a group of people can, by definition, be a government without using violence or existing in a separate moral category.

 

Your claim only stands when you use your definition of government, not the technical one.  That's why I was wondering how they defined "government".  If they use the one that people on this forum favor, that a government is any group that uses force to make you do things their way, then a peaceful government is, by definition, impossible.  If you use the dictionary definition then it is possible.

 

It's like an SJW saying that minorities can't be racist because by THEIR definition it is a logical impossibility.  By the ACTUAL definition, though, it isn't.

[AncapFTW]

Your dictionary defines government using the state, which is defined as a monopoly on force within a given geographical area. You can't have a voluntary monopoly on force, ie you can't maintain it voluntarily, unless you have 100% perfect and peaceful people and don't need any force to begin with (aka utopia).

Who are you talking to?  I assume this is to the OP.

[dsayers]

A group of villagers...

Please mind your surroundings. The thread isn't asking about the hierarchy of the Girl Scouts. It's asking about a voluntary State, which is a contradiction in terms. It's a common occurrence among people who are new to the idea, but are having a hard time accepting a position that would lead to social discomfort, so they try and mesh the two not realizing they're asking about peaceful violence.

[shirgall]

Unanimous consent is all it takes.

[AncapFTW]

Please mind your surroundings. The thread isn't asking about the hierarchy of the Girl Scouts. It's asking about a voluntary State, which is a contradiction in terms. It's a common occurrence among people who are new to the idea, but are having a hard time accepting a position that would lead to social discomfort, so they try and mesh the two not realizing they're asking about peaceful violence.

Obviously you don't care about taking the conversation seriously.  You haven't even read what I wrote, assumed you knew what I said, then repeated what I'd already countered.  Then, of course, you equate a village with a group of girl scouts, instead of accepting that it is an actual civilization.

 

There's no point in talking to someone that's not even going to bother treating you as a human being, so goodbye.

[Libertus]

Who are you talking to?  I assume this is to the OP.

 

You were quoting a dictionary definition, so, no, I was talking to you.

[AncapFTW]

You were quoting a dictionary definition, so, no, I was talking to you.

Well, I posted the dictionary definition, and it didn't include the state, so you couldn't mean me.

[McCkins]

I agree with dsayers. The notion of voluntary government is a contradiction. By its nature, government is involuntary and uses the threat/initiation of force. In college political science courses we always defined government as the "legitimate" use of force. A "voluntary" government is not government at all; you're basically talking about a business offering services in a voluntary market.

[Libertus]

Well, I posted the dictionary definition, and it didn't include the state, so you couldn't mean me.

gov·ern·ment

ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/

noun

noun: government; plural noun: governments

1.

the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

 

Isn't that the one you posted?

 

[AncapFTW]

 

gov·ern·ment

ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/

noun

noun: government; plural noun: governments

1.

the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

 

Isn't that the one you posted?

 

 

I guess you're right.  Of course, that just means that it could be a state, not that it has to be one.  A nation or community doesn't require violence.

[dsayers]

I guess you're right.  Of course, that just means that it could be a state, not that it has to be one.  A nation or community doesn't require violence.

I suppose I could type it all out again. This topic is about the State. Nobody would waste time trying to figure out how to reconcile peace and a peaceful organization... still.

[AncapFTW]

I suppose I could type it all out again. This topic is about the State. Nobody would waste time trying to figure out how to reconcile peace and a peaceful organization... still.

No, it's about the possibility of a voluntary government, not a state.  You chose to interpret it as a state because you can't seem to separate the two ideas.

 

Also, please disengage your "condescending prick" mode.  People come here for a civil discussion, not to be treated like they are beneath you.

[Libertus]

So you can't have a voluntary government with a *state*. I mean, sure, when you are member of a tennis club, and a new leading comittee is appointed by the members, and everybody has the option to quit at any time, ... then there's no violence involved - but I wouldn't call that a "government", unless I wanted to confuse people or make a point just to make a point.

[dsayers]

No, it's about the possibility of a voluntary government

OP hasn't clarified, so all we can do is speculate. Occam's Razor tells us that asking about a voluntary(State)--which is say 95% of all use of the word government--requires less assumptions than asking about a voluntary(voluntary society).

 

Also, please disengage your "condescending prick" mode.  People come here for a civil discussion, not to be treated like they are beneath you.

Why would you waste your time interacting with a condescending prick who treats you like you are beneath them? That's a performative contradiction. Not to mention personalization. I understand since making the case that somebody would mean voluntary(voluntary society) would be daunting if even possible.