Carl Green Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 https://voluntaryistsocietyofearth.wordpress.com/ ...an idea that came to me. What are your thoughts on it? What would you change or add?
Will Torbald Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Um, what? Is this a one sentence constitution for a country like Rationalia? Define Human interaction, please. If I have to give a vaccine to my child, is it a voluntary human interaction? If not, is the child not human, or subhuman? When does a child acquire humanity? If children are subhuman, can they be killed like animals? If I bump into you accidentally, is that not an involuntary human interaction? That makes me an enemy of the state, doesn't it? What do you mean by true natural justice? Why is "imposing" my mind on you justice? Are children sovereign individuals? If a child goes to school, isn't an interaction between a sovereign individual aka teacher, and non sovereign humans aka children? But then that's not justice, so it's a felony. Yeah, nitpicks, but I don't see what cute wordpress blogs trying to come world peace will achieve.
Carl Green Posted July 2, 2016 Author Posted July 2, 2016 ...so you're not in, Will? I'm seeing it as a sort of meta society concept. I think people would segregate naturally into many other societies but as long as everyone agrees on this level, there's peace. The core concept is that all human interaction should be voluntary. I'm not here to debate it necesarrily. If you agree that all human interaction *should* be voluntary, for whatever *if*, great! Welcome to the club.
aviet Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 If only achieving this was as easy as writing it. - In reference to your constitution.
shirgall Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Compare it to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html
dsayers Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 I'm trying to figure out why people are looking to formalize this. Especially by way of emulating the State with things like "Constitutions." Even something as simple as saying all human interaction SHOULD be voluntary is making things more complicated than they need to be. Humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. That's a fact. Once can derive from that truth that behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent is internally inconsistent; What I feel to be the more rigorous way of stating that all human interactions ought to be voluntary.
Carl Green Posted July 2, 2016 Author Posted July 2, 2016 I'm not married to the word constitution for this. Anyone got a better term for something that a set of individuals all agree on which I guess defines the group? My only justification for using the word constitution was to appeal to those still 'on the other side'. Give them something to replace their existing justifications with. If there's a better term though, I'm all for it. I want to keep it as simple as possible and understandable by 'everyone' so I don't think rigor will be at 100% but anyone is more than welcome to try achieving conveying the concept with simplicity and full rigor. I am here for the goal of improving the concept after all.
Will Torbald Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 ...so you're not in, Will? I'm seeing it as a sort of meta society concept. I think people would segregate naturally into many other societies but as long as everyone agrees on this level, there's peace. The core concept is that all human interaction should be voluntary. I'm not here to debate it necesarrily. If you agree that all human interaction *should* be voluntary, for whatever *if*, great! Welcome to the club. There's nothin to be in, into.
dsayers Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Anyone got a better term for something that a set of individuals all agree on which I guess defines the group? This is the part that I feel incompatible with though. What is meant by defines the group? I'm not one for labels for the way they DIVIDE people, even within that label. Truthist is the only label I'd self-apply. There's other people out there that accept their capacity for error and will yield when the truth supersedes their own feelings or beliefs. While I consider these people my tribe, I cannot imagine making a club or signing a petition or anything formal like that. Reality just is. It's the people who reject this that wouldn't fit in and they're the ones forming clubs to help their deflections feel more satisfying. I wouldn't want to emulate that. I'm not saying you're wrong for trying. I'm saying that I don't understand the drive to formalize. To me, it's akin to forming a league of Santa non-believers. What would that even mean or accomplish? I want to keep it as simple as possible and understandable by 'everyone' People don't reject taxation = theft because they don't understand it. It's because there is something out there (government) which people widely believe in that allows them to pretend it's not true. To them, taxation IS voluntary. Because you choose to stay where there's a government, and you use it's "services", and you're just paying your fair share, like paying rent to your landlord. Of course these are fallacious claims; My point is that understanding isn't the issue I don't think.
Carl Green Posted July 2, 2016 Author Posted July 2, 2016 I'm not trying to formalize, specify and divide a set of people specifically. My motivation is to have a tool to find other people that agree with this core concept, so I can find my tribe. The way I'm seeing this is that anyone that has come to the belief/conclusion/whatever, that humans should interact voluntarily, would be considered 'within' the society by default. However they specifically arrived at it wouldn't matter. The second sentence is a very important part. Everything else can be figured out. Differences in beliefs on things like property rights and such can/do differ and people would segregate peacefully accordingly, I imagine, as long as they have the core belief of discourse > force. So, I'm all ears if you have a way of getting closer to the goal of conveying this in a simple, succinct package that gets universally interpretted correctly.
dsayers Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 anyone that has come to the belief/conclusion/whatever, that humans should interact voluntarily, would be considered 'within' the society by default. I've made a couple points that this quote seems to completely ignore. The first being that what you just said is how it already is. Suppose ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do not, then for them to exist or not would functionally be no different. If they're in by default, then defining what they're in or not is functionally identical, no? Secondly, I had pointed out that there are people out there that will tell you without any cognitive dissonance that they accept that human interactions "should" be voluntary. Meanwhile, they support taxation, foreign wars, domestic "wars," assaulting and mutilating children, etc. If you disagree with these points or find flaw in them, please address this. I don't consider such people in MY tribe whereas I DO consider those who accept that humans both cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and have the capacity for error in my tribe. My second point addressed this difference and you've responded as if my challenge wasn't present without addressing why it should be discarded.
Carl Green Posted July 2, 2016 Author Posted July 2, 2016 I've made a couple points that this quote seems to completely ignore. The first being that what you just said is how it already is. Suppose ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do not, then for them to exist or not would functionally be no different. If they're in by default, then defining what they're in or not is functionally identical, no? I don't see a problem with them being identical. i don't find inherent fault in all labels. I don't feel they necessarily divide as I believe you have mentioned they do. Secondly, I had pointed out that there are people out there that will tell you without any cognitive dissonance that they accept that human interactions "should" be voluntary. Meanwhile, they support taxation, foreign wars, domestic "wars," assaulting and mutilating children, etc. Those people would exist for sure. Further experience with people is still necessary, this is an "ice-breaker" kinda thing. If you disagree with these points or find flaw in them, please address this. I don't consider such people in MY tribe whereas I DO consider those who accept that humans both cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and have the capacity for error in my tribe. My second point addressed this difference and you've responded as if my challenge wasn't present without addressing why it should be discarded. Not everyone that is in the VSE would be in my tribe, though everyone in my tribe would be in it. You've expressed you're thoughts which I asked for initially and so thank you. If you would like to help me reach my goal of coming up with something that gets more people closer to a voluntaryist perspective, like thinking of better terms than constitution, please share it here. If you want me to address issues you have with your interpretation of the site, I am requesting that be done elsewhere (pm?) in the interest of keeping the topic pointed at the goal.
Carl Green Posted July 6, 2016 Author Posted July 6, 2016 Just updated it a bit. Changed constitution and edited the last part.
Recommended Posts