12345...10...


Voluntaryism – Wikipedia

This article is about the political position. For other uses, see Voluntarism.

Voluntaryism (UK: ,[1] US: ;[1] sometimes voluntarism )[2][3] is a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary, a term coined in this usage by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century, and gaining renewed use since the late 20th century, especially among libertarians. Its principal beliefs stem from the non-aggression principle.

Precursors to the voluntaryist movement had a long tradition in the English-speaking world, at least as far back as the Leveller movement of mid-seventeenth century England. The Leveller spokesmen John Lilburne (c. 16141657) and Richard Overton (c. 1600 c. 1660s) who “clashed with the Presbyterian puritans, who wanted to preserve a state-church with coercive powers and to deny liberty of worship to the puritan sects.”[4] The Levellers were nonconformist in religion and advocated for the separation of church and state. The church to their way of thinking was a voluntary associating of equals, and furnished a theoretical and practical model for the civil state. If it was proper for their church congregations to be based on consent, then it was proper to apply the same principle of consent to its secular counterpart. For example, the Leveller ‘large’ Petition of 1647 contained a proposal “that tythes and all other inforced maintenances, may be for ever abolished, and nothing in place thereof imposed, but that all Ministers may be payd only by those who voluntarily choose them, and contract with them for their labours.”[4] The Levellers also held to the idea of self-proprietorship.[4]

In 1843, Parliament considered legislation which would require part-time compulsory attendance at school of those children working in factories. The effective control over these schools was to be placed in the hands of the established Church of England, and the schools were to be supported largely from funds raised out of local taxation. Nonconformists, mostly Baptists and Congregationalists, became alarmed. They had been under the ban of the law for more than a century. At one time or another they could not be married in their own churches, were compelled to pay church rates against their will, and had to teach their children underground for fear of arrest. They became known as voluntaryists because they consistently rejected all state aid and interference in education, just as they rejected the state in the religious sphere of their lives. Some of the most notable voluntaryists included the young Herbert Spencer (18201903), who published his first series of articles “The Proper Sphere of Government,” beginning in 1842; his supporter Auberon Herbert, who coined the modern usage of “Voluntaryist” and established its current definition; Edward Baines, Jr., (18001890) editor and proprietor of the Leeds Mercury; and Edward Miall (18091881), Congregationalist minister, and founder-editor of The Nonconformist (1841), who wrote Views of the Voluntary Principle (1845).

The educational voluntaryists wanted free trade in education, just as they supported free trade in corn or cotton. Their concern for “liberty can scarcely be exaggerated.” They believed that “government would employ education for its own ends” (teaching habits of obedience and indoctrination), and that government-controlled schools would ultimately teach children to rely on the State for all things. Baines, for example, noted that “[w]e cannot violate the principles of liberty in regard to education without furnishing at once a precedent and inducement to violate them in regard to other matters.” Baines conceded that the then current system of education (both private and charitable) had deficiencies, but he argued that freedom should not be abridged on that account. Should freedom of the press be compromised because we have bad newspapers? “I maintain that Liberty is the chief cause of excellence; but it would cease to be Liberty if you proscribed everything inferior.”[5] The Congregational Board of Education and the Baptist Voluntary Education Society are usually given pride of place among the Voluntaryists.[6]

In southern Africa, voluntaryism in religious matters was an important part of the liberal “Responsible Government” movement of the mid-19th century, along with support for multi-racial democracy and an opposition to British imperial control. The movement was driven by powerful local leaders such as Saul Solomon and John Molteno, and when it briefly gained power it disestablished the state-supported churches in 1875.[7][8]

Although there was never an explicitly voluntaryist movement in America until the late 20th century, earlier Americans did agitate for the disestablishment of government-supported churches in several of the original thirteen states. These conscientious objectors believed mere birth in a given geographic area did not mean that one consented to membership or automatically wished to support a state church. Their objection to taxation in support of the church was two-fold: taxation not only gave the state some right of control over the church; it also represented a way of coercing the non-member or the unbeliever into supporting the church. In New England, where both Massachusetts and Connecticut started out with state churches, many people believed that they needed to pay a tax for the general support of religion for the same reasons they paid taxes to maintain the roads and the courts.

There were at least two well-known Americans who espoused voluntaryist causes during the mid-19th century. Henry David Thoreau’s (18171862) first brush with the law in his home state of Massachusetts came in 1838, when he turned twenty-one. The State demanded that he pay the one dollar ministerial tax, in support of a clergyman, “whose preaching my father attended but never I myself.”[9] When Thoreau refused to pay the tax, it was probably paid by one of his aunts. In order to avoid the ministerial tax in the future, Thoreau had to sign an affidavit attesting he was not a member of the church.

Thoreau’s overnight imprisonment for his failure to pay another municipal tax, the poll tax, to the town of Concord was recorded in his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” first published in 1849. It is often referred to as “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” because in it he concluded that government was dependent on the cooperation of its citizens. While he was not a thoroughly consistent voluntaryist, he did write that he wished never to “rely on the protection of the state,” and that he refused to tender it his allegiance so long as it supported slavery. He distinguished himself from “those who call[ed] themselves no-government men”: “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” but this has been interpreted as a gradualist, rather than minarchist, stance[10] given that he also opened his essay by stating his belief that “That government is best which governs not at all,” a point which all voluntaryists heartily embrace.[9]

One of those “no-government men” was William Lloyd Garrison (18051879), famous abolitionist and publisher of The Liberator. Nearly all abolitionists identified with the self-ownership principle, that each person as an individual owned and should control his or her own mind and body free of outside coercive interference. The abolitionist called for the immediate and unconditional cessation of slavery because they saw slavery as man-stealing in its most direct and worst form. Slavery reflected the theft of a person’s self-ownership rights. The slave was a chattel with no rights of its own. The abolitionists realized that each human being, without exception, was naturally invested with sovereignty over him or her self and that no one could exercise forcible control over another without breaching the self-ownership principle. Garrison, too, was not a pure voluntaryist for he supported the federal government’s war against the States from 1861 to 1865.

Another one was Charles Lane (18001870). He was friendly with Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thoreau. Between January and June 1843 a series of nine letters he penned were published in such abolitionists papers as The Liberator and The Herald of Freedom. The title under which they were published was “A Voluntary Political Government,” and in them Lane described the state in terms of institutionalized violence and referred to its “club law, its mere brigand right of a strong arm, [supported] by guns and bayonets.” He saw the coercive state on par with “forced” Christianity. “Everyone can see that the church is wrong when it comes to men with the [B]ible in one hand, and the sword in the other.” “Is it not equally diabolical for the state to do so?” Lane believed that governmental rule was only tolerated by public opinion because the fact was not yet recognized that all the true purposes of the state could be carried out on the voluntary principle, just as churches could be sustained voluntarily. Reliance on the voluntary principle could only come about through “kind, orderly, and moral means” that were consistent with the totally voluntary society he was advocating. “Let us have a voluntary State as well as a voluntary Church, and we may possibly then have some claim to the appeallation of free men.”[11]

From the French world, there was Frdric Bastiat (1801-1850) whose book The Law argued that for a free society, a government must only concern itself with maintaining the individual’s right to defend their life, liberty and property, and that if a government pursues anything more than that, such as is common with philanthropy, then it will inevitably encroach those rights, rescinding freedom.

Although use of the label “voluntaryist” waned after the death of Auberon Herbert in 1906, its use was renewed in 1982, when George H. Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began publishing The Voluntaryist magazine.[12] George Smith suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties (especially the Libertarian Party) were antithetical to their ideas. In their “Statement of Purpose” in Neither Bullets nor Ballots: Essays on Voluntaryism (1983), Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics “in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals,” and argued that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their “Statement of Purpose” they wrote: “Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends.”

Russian novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand’s (1905-1982) novel Atlas Shrugged describes the formation of a secret voluntary society that emerged from the trials and tribulations of its members.

Voluntaryist philosopher John Zube is known for his support and advocacy of voluntaryism. He began writing a series of articles advocating voluntaryism in the 1980s.

See the article here:

Voluntaryism – Wikipedia

Hatzalah – Wikipedia

This article is about the Emergency Medical Services organization. For the holocaust rescue organization, see Vaad Hatzalah.

Hatzalah (“rescue” or “relief” in Hebrew: ) is a volunteer Emergency Medical Service (EMS) organization serving mostly Jewish communities around the world. Most local branches operate independently of each other, but use the common name. The Hebrew spelling of the name is always the same, but there are many variations in transliteration, such as Hatzolah, Hatzoloh and Hatzola.[1] It is also often called Chevra Hatzalah, which loosely translates as “Company of Rescuers” or “Group of Rescuers.”

The original Hatzalah EMS was founded in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York, USA by Rabbi Hershel Weber in the late 1960s,[2] to improve rapid emergency medical response in the community, and to mitigate cultural concerns of a Yiddish-speaking, religious Hasidic community. The idea spread to other Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in the New York City area, and eventually to other regions, countries, and continents. Hatzalah is believed to be the largest volunteer ambulance service in the world.[3][4] Chevra Hatzalah in New York has more than a thousand volunteer EMTs and paramedics who answer more than 70,000 calls each year with private vehicles and a fleet of more than 90 ambulances.[5]

Hatzalah organizations now function in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico, Panama,[6] Russia,[7] South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom,[8] Ukraine, and in 10 states in the US: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Hatzalah branches are currently being organized in other states as well.

In Israel, there are two Hatzalah organizations operating on the national level, Ichud Hatzalah (Hebrew: ), Hebrew for, “United Hatzalah”, and Tzevet Hatzalah (Hebrew: ). While United Hatzalah is unarguably the larger of the two organizations, their volunteers are limited to direct response on scene care, versus Tzevet Hatzalah volunteers which are additionally licensed and authorized to provide emergency transport utilizing Magen David Adom ambulances.

Hatzalah uses a fly-car system, where members are assigned ad-hoc to respond to the emergency. The dispatcher requests any units for a particular emergency location. Members who think they will have best response times respond via handheld radios, and the dispatcher confirms the appropriate members. Two members will typically respond directly to the call in their private vehicles. A third member retrieves an ambulance from a base location.[9]

Each directly dispatched Hatzolah volunteer has a full medical technician “jump kit,” in their car, with oxygen, trauma, and appropriate pharmaceutical supplies. Paramedic (EMT-P) members carry more extensive equipment and supplies, including EKG, IV, injection, intubation, and more pharmaceuticals. Each volunteer is called a unit (as in, a crew of one), and is assigned a unit number that starts with a neighborhood code, followed by a serial number for that neighborhood (e.g., “F-100” means “Flatbush unit number 100″[10]). Ambulances also have unit numbers in the same format, with the first few numbers for each neighborhood reserved for the ambulance numbers.[9] Some neighborhoods have begun to assign 3-digit unit numbers to their ambulances, using numbers out of the range assigned to human member units (e.g. 900-numbers).

In some areas there may be periods where coverage is not strong enough, for example on a summer weekend. When this happens, coordinators may assign an on-call rotation. The rotation may still respond from their houses, or they may stay at the garage through their shift. In such periods, Hatzalah functions closer to a typical EMS crew setup, though the dispatchers may still seek non-on-call members to respond, and there will still often be a non-ambulance responder as first dispatched, even if that responder starts from the base.[10]

In Israel, United Hatzalah relies upon mobile phone technologies which include an SOS app and a special emergency phone number, 1221, with messages to news organizations distributed by WhatsApp.[11]

Hatzalah’s model provides for speedy first responder response times. Each Hatzalah neighborhood’s response time varies. For example, in Borough Park, Brooklyn daytime response in life threatening emergency are between 1-2 minutes and nighttime response times are 5-6 minutes.[12] In the Beverly-La Brea neighborhood of Los Angeles response times average at sixty to ninety seconds.[13]

Hatzalah is not a single organization. Each chapter operates autonomously, or in some cases, with varying levels of affiliation with neighboring Hatzalah chapters.[1][14]

In New York City’s Hatzalah, there is a very simple operational hierarchy. Usually, there are two or three members who are “coordinators,”[15] managing all operations aspects of the chapter.

As Orthodox Jews, many volunteers see each other daily during prayers, and especially on Shabbat. This allows them to remain organized despite the lack of an extensive formal hierarchy.

The coordinators are responsible for recruitment, interaction with municipal agency operations (police, fire, and EMS), first-line discipline, and day-to-day operations. The coordinators often are responsible, directly or via delegation, for arranging maintenance crews, who are often called service members or service units, and for purchasing supplies, ambulances, and other equipment. There is also an administrative function, often separate from the coordinator function. The chief administrator is often called a director or executive director, and this is sometimes a paid position. All other positions in Hatzalah, including coordinators, are held by unpaid volunteers.

Most of the New York State branches have some centralized administration and dispatch functions, known as “Central Hatzalah,” or simply, “Central.” The neighborhood organizations under Central are nevertheless independent. Most Hatzalah organizations pattern themselves after the Williamsburg and Central models (see operational descriptions below).

Formally, the New York City-area “Central Hatzalah” is called Chevra Hatzalah of New York. It combines dispatch and some other functions for over a dozen neighborhood organizations, including[14] Williamsburg,[2] Flatbush, Borough Park, Canarsie, Lower East Side, Upper West Side, Midtown, Washington Heights, Queens, Rockaways & Nassau County, Seagate, Catskills, Staten Island, Riverdale, and others. As each of these areas is otherwise independent, each has its own fundraising, management, garages, ambulances, and assigned members. Rockland County, NY branches have a centralized dispatch system as well, but their central organization is separate from the other New York State centralized functions, and they have a looser relationship with their New York State brethren, though there is a great deal of cooperation among them. Together, the combined New York State branches have grown to become the largest all-volunteer ambulance system in the United States.[12]

Within Israel the largest local organization is Magen David Adom.[citation needed]

Outside of New York and Israel, there are many smaller Hatzalah organizations. Each of these operates as a self-contained unit, with no centralized organization or coordination. However, where there are other Hatzalahs nearby, there is often a great deal of cooperation.

In the United Kingdom, Hatzalah use blue lights and sirens on their ambulances[16], but cannot legally do so on private vehicles.[17]

Hatzalah organizations are often involved in other community activities, on top of their primary mission of emergency medical work. Many neighborhood chapters sponsor and participate in community events, both within the local Jewish community, and in the broader community.

Flatbush Hatzalah frequently plays softball against teams from local police precincts, firehouses, and hospitals.[18]

Hatzalah of Passaic/Clifton works with the local Bikur Cholim[19] to put on a yearly Health & Safety Fair at no charge to the community, with participation from both Jewish and non-Jewish presenters, said to get a turnout possibly exceeding 25% of the local community.[20]

Many Hatzalahs worldwide[21][22][23] run public relations campaigns related to safe drinking on Purim and fire safety on Chanukah and during Passover preparations. Chevra Hatzolah in New York works closely with the FDNY on this matter.

A number of items that are either unique to Hatzalah, or that are relatively unusual for an EMS include:

Most EMS rely on crews with scheduled shifts operating from a known location. Due to its members and the communities they serve usually living in proximity, Hatzolah relies little on scheduled crews and stations and rather has all service members on call 24/7 and members responding from wherever they are.[24]

Language, religion, and culture barriers create challenges for an emergency medical service. Hatzalah is built to consider these challenges, especially with regard to halacha (Jewish law) and communities that only speak Yiddish or Hebrew.

A Jew reluctant to violate Sabbath rules when receiving medical attention may be more at ease and easily convinced of the medical urgency, when the EMT or paramedic is a fellow Orthodox Jew. A female worried about physical modesty and contact is helped by knowing that a Jewish provider is aware of the details of her concerns, and will act to reduce the problem as much as possible.

Hatzalah was the subject of controversy as articles in the New York Post[25] and JEMS Magazine[26] criticize the organization for its discriminatory practice of not allowing women to join. The group of Orthodox women founded an organization called Ezras Nashim an all-female Orthodox Jewish volunteer EMT ambulance service,[27] they cited the need for modesty and sensitivity to the needs of fellow Orthodox women, with the goal of preserving womens modesty in emergency medical situations, especially childbirth. “This is a woman’s job. Historically, women have always delivered babies in traditional Jewish values, pointing to the Hebrew Bible Book of Exodus where the first midwives were women Shiphrah and Puah.[28] In our community, women also have a very strong motivation to seek female doctors,” said their lawyer, Rachel Freier, a Brooklyn Civil Court Judge and Orthodox Jewish mother of six.[29]

New York State Assembly member Dov Hikind announced on his radio show his support for Ezras Nashim [30] and he was criticized by Hatzalah.[31] The group received approval from their community’s leading rabbis, including prominent Rabbi Yechezkel Roth of Karlsburg.[32] Until now, Hatzolah has operated under this controversial policy, despite receiving public funding, such as the nearly half a million dollars in funding to overhaul the communication system at Hatzolahs new command center in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn.[33]

In areas where the EMS charges a fee, lower income clientele lacking health insurance may have a reluctance to call for an ambulance unless the evidence of urgency is overwhelming. A volunteer service, with less overhead costs, tends to reduce that reluctance. Hatzolah will often handle “check-out” cases, without charge. In this way, the true emergencies among those check-outs may be recognized and treated quickly, where the caller might have otherwise not sought treatment.[34]

In contrast with most other EMS agencies, many Hatzalah volunteers will remain at the hospital with the patient long after bringing them to the emergency department. This is especially true during serious cases in order to help the patient and/or their families navigate the sometimes confusing series of events that occur during an emergency. Members will stay to explain, advocate and sometimes help make arrangements to bring in other specialists or arrange transfer to higher care facilities.

At times there have been difficulties in dealing with outside organizations, including other first-responders.[35][36]

In general, branches have excellent relations with state and local police and EMS.[37]

An example of those operating in uneven[38] or otherwise especially challenging situations[39] is Catskills Hatzolah, handling the swelling summer crowd.[40][41]

Israel’s United Hatzalah has shared its expertise with a group of Arab volunteers from East Jerusalem to form an emergency first response unit called Nuran. The group since has been dismantled and the volunteers were incorporated in United Hatzalah.

United Hatzalah’s relationship with Magen David Adom, however, is strained, and MDA has banned its members and volunteers from also volunteering in other rescue organizations, including Hatzalah.[42]

The Chevra NYC Central affiliates boast an excellent relationship with New York City and New York State agencies.[9]

On February 20, 2013, the Federal Communications Commission granted Chevrah Hatzalah’s request for a waiver to obtain calling party numbers (CPN) even when callers have caller ID blocking.[43] Calls to 911 are exempt from CPN blocking but calls to Chevrah Hatzalah do not go through 911. Other Hatzalah dispatch numbers, including other New York State Hatzalah groups, do not have this waiver, but some are working on it.

Hatzalah members were among the first responders to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[44] Alongside other rescue workers, Hatzalah volunteers rescued, treated, and transported countless victims of the terrorist attack.[44] In the process they earned great respect from their peers in the emergency service community.[45]

Hatzalah was not dispatched by the city’s 911 system, and a printout of the 911 job from FDNY EMS does not list them as responding units.[46] However, audio recordings exist of Hatzalah’s own dispatch, including members calling for help during the collapse of the first tower.[47] There are also well-known photos of destroyed Hatzalah ambulances[48][49] and the destroyed cars of Hatzalah members, in the aftermath of the attack.[50]The Hatzalah units were also referred to in a memoir of 9/11 by responding NYC fireman Dennis Smith in his book Report From Ground Zero. On page 231 of the first edition he wrote: “I met two guys from Engine 39. They brought me to EMS, the Hezbollah [sic] ambulance.” This was corrected in later editions.

Chapters of the organization exist in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, England, Israel, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, and in the United States. The chapters in each neighborhood or city operate independently though in many cases affiliations and levels of cooperation do exist between neighboring chapters.[1][51]

Original post:

Hatzalah – Wikipedia

Voluntaryism – Wikipedia

This article is about the political position. For other uses, see Voluntarism.

Voluntaryism (UK: ,[1] US: ;[1] sometimes voluntarism )[2][3] is a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary, a term coined in this usage by Auberon Herbert in the 19th century, and gaining renewed use since the late 20th century, especially among libertarians. Its principal beliefs stem from the non-aggression principle.

Precursors to the voluntaryist movement had a long tradition in the English-speaking world, at least as far back as the Leveller movement of mid-seventeenth century England. The Leveller spokesmen John Lilburne (c. 16141657) and Richard Overton (c. 1600 c. 1660s) who “clashed with the Presbyterian puritans, who wanted to preserve a state-church with coercive powers and to deny liberty of worship to the puritan sects.”[4] The Levellers were nonconformist in religion and advocated for the separation of church and state. The church to their way of thinking was a voluntary associating of equals, and furnished a theoretical and practical model for the civil state. If it was proper for their church congregations to be based on consent, then it was proper to apply the same principle of consent to its secular counterpart. For example, the Leveller ‘large’ Petition of 1647 contained a proposal “that tythes and all other inforced maintenances, may be for ever abolished, and nothing in place thereof imposed, but that all Ministers may be payd only by those who voluntarily choose them, and contract with them for their labours.”[4] The Levellers also held to the idea of self-proprietorship.[4]

In 1843, Parliament considered legislation which would require part-time compulsory attendance at school of those children working in factories. The effective control over these schools was to be placed in the hands of the established Church of England, and the schools were to be supported largely from funds raised out of local taxation. Nonconformists, mostly Baptists and Congregationalists, became alarmed. They had been under the ban of the law for more than a century. At one time or another they could not be married in their own churches, were compelled to pay church rates against their will, and had to teach their children underground for fear of arrest. They became known as voluntaryists because they consistently rejected all state aid and interference in education, just as they rejected the state in the religious sphere of their lives. Some of the most notable voluntaryists included the young Herbert Spencer (18201903), who published his first series of articles “The Proper Sphere of Government,” beginning in 1842; his supporter Auberon Herbert, who coined the modern usage of “Voluntaryist” and established its current definition; Edward Baines, Jr., (18001890) editor and proprietor of the Leeds Mercury; and Edward Miall (18091881), Congregationalist minister, and founder-editor of The Nonconformist (1841), who wrote Views of the Voluntary Principle (1845).

The educational voluntaryists wanted free trade in education, just as they supported free trade in corn or cotton. Their concern for “liberty can scarcely be exaggerated.” They believed that “government would employ education for its own ends” (teaching habits of obedience and indoctrination), and that government-controlled schools would ultimately teach children to rely on the State for all things. Baines, for example, noted that “[w]e cannot violate the principles of liberty in regard to education without furnishing at once a precedent and inducement to violate them in regard to other matters.” Baines conceded that the then current system of education (both private and charitable) had deficiencies, but he argued that freedom should not be abridged on that account. Should freedom of the press be compromised because we have bad newspapers? “I maintain that Liberty is the chief cause of excellence; but it would cease to be Liberty if you proscribed everything inferior.”[5] The Congregational Board of Education and the Baptist Voluntary Education Society are usually given pride of place among the Voluntaryists.[6]

In southern Africa, voluntaryism in religious matters was an important part of the liberal “Responsible Government” movement of the mid-19th century, along with support for multi-racial democracy and an opposition to British imperial control. The movement was driven by powerful local leaders such as Saul Solomon and John Molteno, and when it briefly gained power it disestablished the state-supported churches in 1875.[7][8]

Although there was never an explicitly voluntaryist movement in America until the late 20th century, earlier Americans did agitate for the disestablishment of government-supported churches in several of the original thirteen states. These conscientious objectors believed mere birth in a given geographic area did not mean that one consented to membership or automatically wished to support a state church. Their objection to taxation in support of the church was two-fold: taxation not only gave the state some right of control over the church; it also represented a way of coercing the non-member or the unbeliever into supporting the church. In New England, where both Massachusetts and Connecticut started out with state churches, many people believed that they needed to pay a tax for the general support of religion for the same reasons they paid taxes to maintain the roads and the courts.

There were at least two well-known Americans who espoused voluntaryist causes during the mid-19th century. Henry David Thoreau’s (18171862) first brush with the law in his home state of Massachusetts came in 1838, when he turned twenty-one. The State demanded that he pay the one dollar ministerial tax, in support of a clergyman, “whose preaching my father attended but never I myself.”[9] When Thoreau refused to pay the tax, it was probably paid by one of his aunts. In order to avoid the ministerial tax in the future, Thoreau had to sign an affidavit attesting he was not a member of the church.

Thoreau’s overnight imprisonment for his failure to pay another municipal tax, the poll tax, to the town of Concord was recorded in his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” first published in 1849. It is often referred to as “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” because in it he concluded that government was dependent on the cooperation of its citizens. While he was not a thoroughly consistent voluntaryist, he did write that he wished never to “rely on the protection of the state,” and that he refused to tender it his allegiance so long as it supported slavery. He distinguished himself from “those who call[ed] themselves no-government men”: “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” but this has been interpreted as a gradualist, rather than minarchist, stance[10] given that he also opened his essay by stating his belief that “That government is best which governs not at all,” a point which all voluntaryists heartily embrace.[9]

One of those “no-government men” was William Lloyd Garrison (18051879), famous abolitionist and publisher of The Liberator. Nearly all abolitionists identified with the self-ownership principle, that each person as an individual owned and should control his or her own mind and body free of outside coercive interference. The abolitionist called for the immediate and unconditional cessation of slavery because they saw slavery as man-stealing in its most direct and worst form. Slavery reflected the theft of a person’s self-ownership rights. The slave was a chattel with no rights of its own. The abolitionists realized that each human being, without exception, was naturally invested with sovereignty over him or her self and that no one could exercise forcible control over another without breaching the self-ownership principle. Garrison, too, was not a pure voluntaryist for he supported the federal government’s war against the States from 1861 to 1865.

Another one was Charles Lane (18001870). He was friendly with Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thoreau. Between January and June 1843 a series of nine letters he penned were published in such abolitionists papers as The Liberator and The Herald of Freedom. The title under which they were published was “A Voluntary Political Government,” and in them Lane described the state in terms of institutionalized violence and referred to its “club law, its mere brigand right of a strong arm, [supported] by guns and bayonets.” He saw the coercive state on par with “forced” Christianity. “Everyone can see that the church is wrong when it comes to men with the [B]ible in one hand, and the sword in the other.” “Is it not equally diabolical for the state to do so?” Lane believed that governmental rule was only tolerated by public opinion because the fact was not yet recognized that all the true purposes of the state could be carried out on the voluntary principle, just as churches could be sustained voluntarily. Reliance on the voluntary principle could only come about through “kind, orderly, and moral means” that were consistent with the totally voluntary society he was advocating. “Let us have a voluntary State as well as a voluntary Church, and we may possibly then have some claim to the appeallation of free men.”[11]

From the French world, there was Frdric Bastiat (1801-1850) whose book The Law argued that for a free society, a government must only concern itself with maintaining the individual’s right to defend their life, liberty and property, and that if a government pursues anything more than that, such as is common with philanthropy, then it will inevitably encroach those rights, rescinding freedom.

Although use of the label “voluntaryist” waned after the death of Auberon Herbert in 1906, its use was renewed in 1982, when George H. Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began publishing The Voluntaryist magazine.[12] George Smith suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties (especially the Libertarian Party) were antithetical to their ideas. In their “Statement of Purpose” in Neither Bullets nor Ballots: Essays on Voluntaryism (1983), Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics “in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals,” and argued that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their “Statement of Purpose” they wrote: “Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends.”

Russian novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand’s (1905-1982) novel Atlas Shrugged describes the formation of a secret voluntary society that emerged from the trials and tribulations of its members.

Voluntaryist philosopher John Zube is known for his support and advocacy of voluntaryism. He began writing a series of articles advocating voluntaryism in the 1980s.

Excerpt from:

Voluntaryism – Wikipedia

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

See the original post:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

See the original post here:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

The Voluntaryist

If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself. -GandhiStatement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society.We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy.

Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

Quote of the DayReforms come by men doing what they can, not what they cant.- Aylmer Maude, Introduction to Leo Tolstoy, THE SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES (1900), p. 4.

Recent Changes and Additions

Has someone ever asked you why you are the way you are? Wouldnt it be great to have an explanation at the ready the next time family, friends, or co-workers asked? Is it nature or nurture or both? Were you born of parents that had a dislike of government? Did government agents step on your toes? Was it a teacher that presented you with tough questions that the rote answers of political science couldnt answer?

Is it possible that, with the way the world is going, one day voluntaryists will be an endangered species? Actually, we already are! It is entirely possible to imagine that one day in the dark future government propagandists will try to make out that voluntaryists never existed.

We have to prove them wrong! Our stories and histories must be told and preserved.

To this purpose, we have created a section on our voluntaryist.com website titled How I Became A Voluntaryist. Already a number of autobiographies have been posted, but we would like more.

Please submit your articles in any format you wish (preferably in an email or as an email attachment). Essays will be screened for editorial purposes, and the most interesting of them will be published, as well, in our newsletter.

Commit your history to paper and the web. Please send your story now to editor@voluntaryist.com or snail to Box 275, Gramling, SC 29348.

Read the rest here:

The Voluntaryist

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, “No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.” Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, “You cannot shoot a truth!” The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force “is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion,” and “if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak.” Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. “If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government.” Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. “In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer.”

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one’s rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. – Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

Original post:

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

See the original post:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

News – WendyMcElroy.com

My new book, The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations, is now appearing in weekly installments at bitcoin.com. Please come and enjoy the free book, and take part in the on-line discussion!

Tuesday 24 July 2018

1982 seems like a century ago, but some memories are fresh. One summer afternoon, Carl Watner, George H. Smith, and I created a movement. Or, more accurately, we revived and redefined a movement under a name we knew from reading 19th century British libertarian history. George explained that opponents of state-funded, compulsory education called themselves ‘voluntaryists’ – a term popularized by Auberon Herbert, a disciple of Herbert Spencer. We never imagined that Voluntaryism would become such a vigorous presence within the modern-day freedom community, however.

The meeting occurred during one of Carls visits to the apartment in Hollywood, California, that George and I shared. It lasted a few hours, with Carl and I sitting on the couch that pulled out to form Carls bed at night, while George spent much of the time pacing in front of us. Afterward, we dropped by a nearby coffee shop for dinner, where conversation continued unabated. Many radical movements have probably sprung from similarly humble beginnings, but it didnt feel humble to me. I remember my fingertips were tingling – literally tingling – during part of the discussion; George had a restless energy, and Carl was smiling far more than usual. Voluntaryism felt electric then; it feels electric now.

But I am ahead of myself already.

What is Voluntaryism? The political philosophy was and is based on the non-aggression principle. That description is inadequate, however, because it does not distinguish Voluntaryism from mainstream libertarianism. The distinction: Voluntaryism identifies electoral politics as a form of aggression and advocates the use of non-political strategies instead. It returns to the spirit of 19th century American libertarianism, which was both profoundly anti-political and passionate about practical paths to freedom. (More on this shortly.)

The timing for an anti- and non-political movement was perfect. The Libertarian Party had been founded in 1971 and, following the 1980 federal elections, it became the third largest party in the U.S. Especially in New York and California, it spread rapidly. Formerly hard core anarchists started to join the LP – Murray Rothbard among them. They began to argue that voting, campaigning for politicians, and even holding office were the best ways to achieve a stateless society. Suddenly, anti-statists argued passionately for the state as long as libertarians held the reins of power. The non-political anarchists were soon called silly dreamers, whose ideas of removing the state from our lives were impractical.

There was backlash against the LP, of course. Unfortunately, much of it was either ineffective or counterproductive. Samuel E. Konkin III (SEK3) – the originator of agorism – was loudly consistent in his attacks, but he and his associates could be strident and could sound unreasonable. For example, they descended on supper clubs and heckled libertarians who were running for political office. Robert LeFevre was a far better communicator, but his philosophy included a pacifism that many, if not most, people found to be unpalatable.

Carl, George, and I realized that a comprehensive, integrated rebuttal was necessary to counter what might become a turning point in the movement; that is, a turn toward electoral politics. More than a simple anti-state manifesto was required. Our advocacy of Voluntaryism had to present a clear and positive vision of how freedom would emerge from peaceful interactions. We needed to address modern issues through that filter, while, at the same time, presenting the history of how everything from hard money to customary law originated from people voluntarily interacting, not from governmental bureaucracy. We had to demonstrate how the state could be abandoned, and show how history was replete with examples of voluntary institutions that offered the services usually provided by the state.

The statement of purpose for Voluntaryism reads, The Voluntaryists are libertarians who have organized to promote non-political strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice as incompatible with libertarian goals. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the state through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends.

If I were to change the statement today, I would insert a sentence to emphasize the need for alternative paths to freedom.

The three of us had different strengths with which to approach the challenge of founding a movement. We were a good blend. This was evident from the first issue of THE VOLUNTARYIST which was published in October 1982. The feature article was The Ethics of Voting (Part 1 of an eventual three-part article) by George. It reflected his more theoretical bent and confrontational style. My contribution was the editorial Neither Ballots Nor Bullets, which was heavily influenced in both content and style by my research into the 19th century American individualist anarchists. Carl was more sophisticated about nonviolent resistance, having put it into impressive practice within his own life. Carls contribution was a book review of Gene Sharps remarkable three-volume work, THE POLITICS OF NON-VIOLENT ACTION. This and many other of Sharp’s books were to play an essential role in defining the non-electoral strategies embraced by Voluntaryism.

The libertarian response to Voluntaryism was immediate and divided. Many libertarians were intrigued or enthusiastic, especially because THE VOLUNTARYIST stressed hands-on activism. For example, Issue 5 (April 1983) featured an interview I conducted with Paul Jacob, who had been indicted on September 23, 1982 for failure to register for the draft. He chose to avoid prosecution by going on the run. THE VOLUNTARYIST was young, fearless, and filled with ideals. Some prominent figures in the movement, including the charismatic Robert LeFevre, were generous in their support. LeFevres article How to Become a Teacher appeared in issue 3.

Some responses were not so pleasant. Libertarian ‘politicos’ snickered about the name, claiming the movement was doomed because no one would be able to pronounce the word Voluntaryism. Other responses were more bizarre. For example, Murray Rothbards response to Georges anti-electoral stand, which seemed to particular rankle him.

In March 1983, the LIBERTARIAN FORUM ran an article by Murray entitled The New Menace of Gandhism, in which he lambasted libertarianisms recent non-violence fad. He explicitly stated his motive for doing so. The fad had been picking off some of the best and most radical Libertarian Party activists, ones which the Party could ill afford to lose if it was to retain its thrust and its principles. In other words, Voluntaryism was making an impact. And, to his credit, Murray correctly identified the principle of non-violence and the practice of electoral politics as antagonistic forces that could not coexist. He knew an enemy when he saw one.

Murrays article stated, The time has come to rip the veil of sanctity that has been carefully wrapped around Gandhi by his numerous disciples, that greatly inspired the new Voluntaryist movement. Murray was a good friend of mine. But I must confess, to this day, I do not understand his criticism that Voluntaryism was based on Gandhi. None of us understood it. It was true that a quote from Gandhi headed the newsletter: If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself. Gandhi was an influence on the Voluntaryists, but so were many other people, such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Robert LeFevre, and even Murray himself. As I remember, Carl was most influenced by Gandhian philosophy, and I came in second. Why George was singled out for attack when he was the least Gandhian of the Voluntaryists is also something of a mystery. I expect that Georges arguments were proving too persuasive.

I did not escape unscathed, either. At one point, Murray stated, Smith, McElroy and others deny vehemently either that they are mystics or that they are courting martyrdom. I remain unconvinced. Again, the accusations were so bizarre that it was difficult even to respond. If I have a regret about Voluntaryism, however, it is this: Murray and I experienced a schism that never quite healed.

It has been a long journey since that first issue of THE VOLUNTARYIST. I will always be proud of being the newsletters first editor but, frankly, I dont remember how it happened. At the planning session for the newsletter, the three of us agreed to a revolving editorship, and the first shift went to me. Perhaps it was chance; perhaps I had available time. Whatever happened, within a few years, the task of editorship fell entirely upon Carl, who has done yeomans work in keeping it active and continuous. From time to time, George and I have made appearances in THE VOLUNTARYIST, but we have not been involved in its production for many years. Carl is the one who deserves applause for keeping it alive these many years. The fact that there is a Voluntaryist movement today (2018) is evidence of the strength and truth of its ideas and principles.

Monday 23 July 2018

Excerpt: Generally speaking, there are four types of laws that function in society, and they sometimes overlap.

–Ones that impose a specific vision of the world or of morality. These include laws against alleged vices, such as alcohol or drug use, as well as laws requiring alleged virtues, such as voting or paying taxes. The goal is to mandate a code of behavior, thus erasing the boundary between the legal and (someones vision of) the moral. Typically, the laws are enforced on everyone, except those with power seem to be exempt.–Ones that regulate a targeted segment of society. These include laws about who may conduct a specific business and how it must operate, as well as laws that discriminate between people based on factors such as race. The goal is economic and social control, with enforcement focusing on designated people.–Ones that protect against physical harm and property damage, including theft. These include laws against assault and vandalism. Rather than mandate a behavior, they prohibit onenamely, violence, which includes fraud. The goal is to provide the safety that allows a healthy society to thrive, with enforcement applying to everyone.–Ones that are created by contract. These include laws that allow creditors to seize assets in arrears, such as a repossessed car, and laws aimed at enforcing behavior, such as the performance of work for which payment has been rendered. A contract can always be breached, but there is a penalty for doing so: for example, a repossessed car, a refund of fees. The goal is to establish enforceable contracts, which are nothing more than enforceable consent between individuals. Again, it provides a safety that allows a healthy society to thrive and which discourages violence as the only way to resolve a dispute. The law applies only to those who contract.

On crypto, the government flexes only the first two forms of law: a specific vision imposed on the world; and, the regulation of a targeted sector. The laws do not protect people and property, as evidenced by the fact that recovered funds are not returned to those who have been defrauded. Fines, fees and recovered wealth go into the governments coffers. In short, the laws serve government; they do not protect consumers.

Friday 13 July 2018

From the Chicago Reader: Lake surfers say polluted waves are making them sickbut they love it too much to stop. One of the best local spots to surf is surrounded by a grimy industrial landscape in northwest Indiana.

From Zero Hedge: Venezuela’s Socialist Hyperinflation Turned People Back To Barter System [Ed: that’s a return to primitive culture because it is preferable to a government one that promises sophistication.]

From the Independent: Germans want Donald Trump to pull US troops out of Germany, poll finds. US president has said American military spending to protect Europe is not sustainable

From the Gold Telegram: Everyone is Hoarding Gold [Ed: a financial must read.]

From the Voice of Europe: It takes twelve Germans to work and pay taxes in order to fund the cost of just one migrant [Ed: no wonder there is a popular backlash. Of course, there are other reasons.]

From the Huffington Post: Former Obama Officials Are Riding Out The Trump Years By Cashing In [Ed: I sometimes think that everyone who makes an honest living is a sucker, including me.]

From BT: Im So Disappointed With This Country Why John Cleese Is Abandoning Britain. [Ed: going to live on the Caribbean island of Nevis.]

From Patheos: A Judge Has Ruled Against Atheists Trying to Put Up the Least Offensive Ad Ever [Ed: It consisted of one word “Atheists.]

From the Judicial Watch: Tom Fitton: Media gave Obama Administration a Free Pass on Immigration [Ed: I am a fan of Tom Fitton, who is a voice of sanity and a bulldog in pursuing information.]

From Endpoints News: Novartis joins the Big Pharma exodus out of antibiotics, dumping research, cutting 140 and out-licensing programs [Ed: I am not sure this is a bad thing overall.] And a related item from Science: Hidden Conflicts? An investigation finds a pattern of after-the-fact compensation by pharma to those advising the U.S. government on drug approvals

From Wired: Sex, Beer, and Coding: Inside Facebooks Wild Early Days [Ed: better article than the title suggests.]

From Wolf Street: As Erdogan Cements His Hold Over Turkeys Economy, Global Investors Begin to Panic His Toxic Mix: destruction of the lira and a mountain of foreign-currency debt.

From Watts Up With That?: Remember when sea-level rise was going to cause Pacific Islands to disappear? Never mind. [Ed: Coral atolls getting larger, not sinking according to new study using satellite data.]

From Reuters: TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court [Ed: flying just became a bit more thuglike.]

From Agence France Presse: Trash piles up in US as China closes door to recycling [Ed: I believe this occurred quite a bit prior to the trade war, or its threat.]

Thursday 12 July 2018

Excerpt: Government makes law into a synonym for legislation: that is, edicts imposed by self-interested elites who wield power in pursuit of their own self interest. That bastardizes the word law and perverts its true meaning. The use of the word becomes weaponized against crytpo by reference to child pornography, sex trafficking, drug addiction, and other issues that cause minds to cloud over. The issue is too important to allow that to happen.

The law should apply to cryptocurrency. But what is meant by the law? Government should not be allowed to monopolize the concept as it monopolizes so many other essentials of life.

The term refers to nothing more than the rules that identify and regulate a system. When the system is human society, discussions of law tend to become matters of power because some people want to dominate. Human society is accustomed to politicians and other thugs who make the discussion of rules devolve into making beneficiaries of some at the expense of others. This is a brick wall that anarchy hits in its attempt to redefine society for the benefit of the average person. WHAT ABOUT LAW, is the shouted response it encounters? What about crime and the resolution of dispute? Without government, it is said, society will descend into chaos. This is the script crypto encounters when it tries to enter the mainstream of society. Click here for “The Satoshi Revolution” to date.

Wednesday 11 July 2018

From the BBC: Haiti fuel protesters anger turns on President Moise [Ed: they are calling for his resignation, with some lawmakers joining in. He will not go peacefully.]

From Josh Blackman: DOJ, Second Amendment Foundation Reach Settlement In Defense Distributed Lawsuit [Ed: very important news.]

From Ron Spot: How to file a complaint against a police officer [Ed: necessary and useful advice. Starting with “Never everwalk into a police station by yourself and try to file a complaint against a police officer.”]

From SHTF: ObamaCare Premiums Continue To Skyrocket; Insurers Blame Trump.

From the Moon of Alabama: BREXIT Still Not Gonna Happen [Ed: MoA is always a worthwhile read.]

From Reason: Facebook Algorithm Flags, Removes Declaration of Independence Text as Hate Speech. The social media site has a difficult time telling the difference between white nationalist ravings and the writing of Thomas Jefferson.

From congress.gov: H.R.6054 – Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018 [Ed: to provide penalty enhancements for committing certain offenses while in disguise, and for other purposes.]

From Safe Haven: A Strange New Twist In The Satoshi Nakamoto Saga [Ed: someone recently emerged, claiming to be Satoshi. Not bloody likely.]

From Target Liberty: Trump Has Given FULL PARDONS to Oregon Ranchers who Clashed with Federal Officials Over Land. [Ed: return to this link for updates.]

From Townhall: Dear Gun Control Advocates: Please, Stop Treating Female Gun Owners Like Victims

From Speigel: A Journey Down Austria’s Path to the Right [Ed: as goes Austria so, too, may go much of Europe.]

From the New York Times: Judge Rejects Long Detentions of Migrant Families, Dealing Trump Another Setback [Ed: Trump admin. had argued that long-term confinement was the only way to avoid separating families when parents were detained on criminal charges.]

From the London Review of Books: Hospitalism [Ed: In the days of Lister, Liston and Pasteur, some infections were thought to be an example of what was known as hospitalism: epticaemia, erysipelas, pyaemia and hospital gangrene. Fascinating history.]

From the NRA: California: MASSIVE Data Breach and Significant Registration Problems with CA DOJs Assault Weapon Registration System

From Zero Hedge: Pop-Up Protests, Liberal Meltdown Erupts After Trump Picks Kavanaugh For SCOTUS. And a related news item from the Daily Caller: Fox News Reporter Harassed, Threatened And Forced To Leave Supreme Court By Leftist Mob.

From the Vancouver Star: Canadian cannabis workers targeted by U.S. border guards for lifetime bans [Ed: even if they have never used the drug.]

Tuesday 10 July 2018

From Zero Hedge: UK Government Crisis Deepens As Boris Johnson Resigns, Pound Tumbles. Boris Johnson has resigned from the U.K. government, sending PM Theresa May deeper into crisis and raising the odds shell face a leadership challenge over her Brexit policy. [Ed: Farange predicts that May will be done and gone within a few weeks.] From Spiked: David Davis and the crisis of democracy [Ed: by the always insightful Brendan O’Neill. And a related commentary: This is so much bigger than Boris. Brexit wont be saved by cabinet resignations alone.

From Activist Post: Utah, Texas, and Wyoming Top 2018s Sound Money Index, Just Released by the Sound Money Defense League [Ed: key sentence…”The 2018 Sound Money Index is the first index of its kind, ranking all 50 states using 9 indicators.” But, personally, I think the only sound money is non-fiat, alternative money based on free-market principles.]]

From the Intercept: MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics. It Encourages and Rewards Them. [Ed: by the excellent Glenn Greenwald.]

From the Free Thought Project: This is the Future of Independent Media if We Do Nothing. “The Free Thought Project is going offline. We are doing so for 72 hours to demonstrate the inevitable effect of social media censorship, Google organic traffic throttling, and Facebooks attack on freedom-minded independent media.”

From Armstrong Economics: Civil Unrest in Haiti Leaves Americans Trapped. [Ed: of course, the dynamics in play have far broader significance.]

From the Local: Nantes riots ease as family of victim shot by French cop plans lawsuit [Ed: the police officer who killed the African migrant has been charged with manslaughter.]

From the Daily Bell: The Meaning Of Good And Evil In Perilous Times [Ed: I am seeing the word “narcissist more and more in the news.]

From Truth Dig: The Media Needs to Radically Change the Way It Covers ‘Foiled Terror Plots’ [Ed: as far as I can tell, most of the so-called plots are government set ups. Our government…saving us from itself.]

From Activist Post: Smart Technology That Tracks People Through Walls Raises Privacy Concerns

From Wire Points: The Truth About Illinois Pensions In One Stunning Chart [Ed: Illinois is far from alone in this predicament.

From Lew Rockwell: This Floating Utopia Will Have Its Own Government And Cryptocurrency By 2022 To Beat Rising Sea Levels [Ed: I am watching with interest, but I am investing in the improvement of my farm.]

From Target Liberty: War at Antiwar: It’s Gone Nuclear [Ed: my God, I am sorry to see this happen. I hope antiwar.com survives without damage.]

From Politico EU: A parallel currency for Italy is possible. Rome can regain control of its monetary policy without breaking the rules of the eurozone.

Monday 09 July 2018

From Zero Hedge: “An Absolute Bombshell”: Brexit Ministers Davis, Baker & Braverman Quit In Blow To Theresa May [Ed: it is not clear whether May can hang on.]

From Reason: Steve Ditko, RIP. The Objectivist comic book artist, co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, left an indelibly brilliant mark on popular culture. [Ed: RIP.]

From the Paris Review: Forty-Five Things I Learned in the Gulag [Ed: recommended. Hat tip to David.]

From the New York Times: Democratic Socialism Is Dem Doom [Ed: I agree with this analysis. Ocasio-Cortex won the NY primary NOT because of her ideas but because she showed up and ran an energetic campaign. He rival did neither.]

From the Voice of Europe: Swedish party wants to deport at least 500,000 migrants as integration completely fails [Ed: the migration issue is going to bring the far right into power in a number of nations.]

From the Organic Prepper: 8 OTC Items That Could Save Your Life [Ed: OTC=over the counter. These are important medical items.]

From the New York Post: Is Hillary Clinton secretly planning to run in 2020? [Ed: interesting analysis. Of course, she could be simply trying to be the power behind the throne.]

From Russia Insider: As Merkel’s Star Fades, This Is What Is Really Happening Behind the Scenes [Ed: a fascinating and clear read.]

From the New York Post: Protesters confront Mitch McConnell outside restaurant [Ed: this is a second incident that happened on Saturday.]

From Zero Hedge: Large-Scale Riots Continue In France For 4th Night [Ed: over police shooting of an African migrant. Meanwhile, Macron has backed down on his policy of heightened migration.]

From King World News: MAJOR ALERT: Andrew Maguire Says Major German Bank Just Refused To Hand Over Clients Physical Gold [Ed: fair warning.]

From Right Log: Shocker for Xi Jinping: Malaysia asks China to stop work on OBOR railway link [Ed: interesting information. I don’t know enough to judge the analysis.]

From Moon of Alabama: Syria – OPCW Issues First Report Of ‘Chemical Weapon Attack’ in Douma [Ed: the comments on the article are interesting as well.] And Syria – Mainstream Media Lie About Watchdog Report On The ‘Chemical Attack’ In Douma. And from Ratical, here is the entire text of a book entitled War is a Racket by Maj, Gen. Smedley Butler. The premise: war literally profits the few at the cost of the many. Still valid after all these years. A quick and recommended read.

From Lew Rockwell: Medieval Libertarianism. The stateless Middle Ages were the only example of a functioning anarchic order in the West. [Ed: I am more than intrigued. Not convinced, but willing to follow up.]

See the original post here:

News – WendyMcElroy.com

Introduction to Voluntaryism – The Art of Not Being Governed

The following is a post by guest-author Peter Miller.

In this essay I will discuss the philosophy of Voluntaryism. In Section 1, I will explain the basic principles of this philosophy, then in Section 2, I will discuss some of the more controversial logical conclusions of the philosophy. In Section 3, I will provide some responses to common objections that people raise to Voluntaryism, and I will wrap it all up in Section 4 with some general comments on the future of Voluntaryism.

1. What is Voluntaryism?

Conceptually, Voluntaryism is a very simple moral philosophy it is the basic proposition that all human interaction should be directly consensual. Voluntaryism rejects the initiation of force in all its various forms including physical violence, threats of violence, theft, bullying, slavery, rape, murder, etc. However, unlike Pacifism, Voluntaryism does not bar the victim of coercion from responding in a strictly self-defensive manner. And voluntaryism completely rejects any attempts to construe offense as defense, such as the phrase the best defense is a good offence. Finally (and this barely needs mentioning, but for the sake of providing a complete definition I will include it) voluntaryism does not discriminate on race, gender, age, sexual orientation or physical or mental ability.

Hopefully, up to this point readers will not think that anything remarkable has been said. The above definitions really should sound less like a novel philosophy and more like how I already live and experience my life. Indeed 90% of human interactions are already conducted in the voluntary manner described above. In the next section I will discuss the remaining 10% of interactions which contradict the voluntary philosophy. (note that 90% and 10% are just numbers I made up to signify most and a small amount respectively).

2. Some Controversial Conclusions of Voluntaryism

Based on the above definitions, most people would agree that voluntaryism is a moral philosophy worth upholding. However, in my experience almost all these people will alter their stance and completely reject Voluntaryism when they discover what the logical conclusions of Voluntaryism entail. Here I will list and briefly discuss some of the logical conclusions which people typically find controversial:

Voluntaryism rejects trade restrictions (such as prohibition of substances or weapons)

The uncoerced passage of goods between seller and buyer is one of the most important consequences of the Voluntaryist philosophy. For the exchange to be voluntary, both parties must be free to set their own terms for the exchange. The seller must be free to charge any price and the buyer must be free to request any price. Both parties must be free to reject the other partys price and indeed the whole trade if desired. Obviously theft is the polar opposite of this voluntary arrangement and therefore is completely rejected under Voluntaryism.

If the seller fears that the buyer may use the exchanged goods for a purpose which he (the seller) does not personally agree with then, according to the Voluntaryist philosophy, the seller is completely justified in refusing to trade. For example, the seller might fear that the buyer would use the weapons he sells to attack innocent people, in which case he would be free to boycott the deal. Likewise, someone may buy a house then discover that there are marijuana plants growing in the garden. If this person does not approve of the use of marijuana then, according to the voluntaryist philosophy, there is no requirement to sell the plants even if doing so would be profitable.

Voluntaryism supports the acquisition of any weapon for defensive purposes, and denies the legitimacy of a third party to interfere in a trade of such goods. Ownership and use of drugs (e.g. alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, heroin) are unrelated to coercion and is therefore fully permissible under the Voluntaryist philosophy. Therefore Voluntaryism does not permit a third party to interfere against the wishes of the buyer and seller in drug trades.

Voluntaryism rejects taxation (regardless of the purpose of this tax)

Taxes are a form of involuntary exchange, and are synonymous with theft. Without the initiation of force, taxes would cease to exist. Taxes are not subject to voluntary negotiation between buyer and seller, but rather they consist of a third party forcefully intervening in a transaction to extract an arbitrary amount.

As this is one of the hardest concepts for newcomers to Voluntaryism to understand, I will devote a large portion of the Section 3 to responding to common objections to the claim that taxation is theft.

Voluntaryism rejects both non-defensive wars and mandatory conscription for any war

As was briefly mentioned in the first (definitions) section, Voluntaryism can be distinguished from pacifism in that Voluntaryism permits self-defense while Pacifism does not. Therefore the Voluntaryist response to a threat of invasion is to fend off the attackers, using deadly force only as a last resort; whereas the pacifist response would be to stand by and observe (or be killed) as the attackers invade.

However, initiating an attack, regardless of the intended purpose of that attack, runs directly against the Voluntaryist philosophy. For example, if there is a strong suspicion that a neighboring regime is amassing for an attack, the Voluntaryist response would not be to preemptively attack the regime, but rather to ensure that all grievances are dealt with and restitution made for any wrongs. If the regime is unreasonable and still wishes to invade, then the Voluntaryist course of action might be to strengthen the defenses. It would probably also be wise to inform the regime that these defenses are not for the purpose of launching an attack, so as to minimize the chances of an arms race.

One other important issue relating to voluntary self-defense on a large scale is the procurement of mercenaries. According to Voluntaryism, mandatory conscription must be rejected as this involves forcing someone to do something (fight) against their own will. Rather, Voluntaryism requires that mercenaries freely choose to conduct any defensive activities. And of course those who wish for the mercenaries to defend them are free to provide incentives (e.g. money, land, etc.) in exchange.

In Section 3 I will respond to the objection that these mercenaries would turn on those whom they have agreed to defend.

Voluntaryism = Anarchy

As you will probably have noticed from the above conclusions, the main opponent of Voluntaryism is government. This may come as a shock to those who considered the definition of Voluntaryism given in the first section to be a good definition of morality. If voluntaryism is synonymous with morality then the opposite of Voluntaryism must also be the opposite of morality, which makes government inherently immoral.

This is not to say that all the things that government does are necessarily immoral, but rather that the manner in which these things are done is immoral. For example, providing welfare for the disabled would seem to be a very moral activity and this is indeed something which governments do. However, the manner by which the welfare money is obtained to give to the disabled is of vital importance. Governments obtain their money either through taxation or legal tender laws and the printing of money (inflation), both of which require the initiation of force, so the only moral action to take with this money is to return it to its victims. In Section 3 I will refute the objection that the poor and disabled would go without welfare in a voluntary society.

It also bears mentioning here that anarchy can mean different things to different people. Some people associate anarchy with chaos indeed this is a typical usage of the word, while others associate anarchy with a lack of private property (communism). However, when I say anarchy in this essay I simply mean no government. This does not mean no rules, but rather no involuntary rulers. Voluntaryism of course permits people to voluntarily subjugate themselves to rulers (for example, a personal trainer is a form of ruler, and so can be an employer), however it is the rulers who have not been appointed in a directly consensual manner who are illegitimate under Voluntaryism.

By this stage you may be feeling fairly shocked. My guess is that you had never considered things such as drug prohibition, taxation, or mandatory conscription to be immoral and, unless you are in a tiny minority, I am fairly certain that you have never considered anarchy to be moral. The sad fact is that the most powerful people in the world in which we live write laws which directly contravene the Voluntaryist philosophy. However, Voluntaryism is somewhat vindicated by the fact that the average person interacting with their friends, or buying things at the shops or just going about their everyday lives is already acting according to the Voluntaryist philosophy.

3. Responses to Common Objections to Voluntaryism

I will start this section with a brief discussion on a couple of the positive aspects of human nature namely human compassion for others who are less fortunate than ourselves, and the human tendency to work to improve our own lives both via individual creativity and via cooperation with others. I will be referring back to these points as I respond to some common objections to Voluntaryism later on in this section.

Just as almost all humans have two legs and two arms, so almost all humans feel compassion for each other. Researchers at Princeton university have found that the human brain seems wired up to respond to others suffering [1]. They found that helping others triggers activity in the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate, portions of the brain that turn on when people receive rewards or experience pleasure. This is a rather remarkable finding helping others brings the same pleasure we get from the gratification of personal desire. While it may be rare for someone to devote their entire life solely to helping others, it is not rare for a large number of people to devote a much smaller amount of effort to helping their fellow man. 1000 people donating their time and effort for merely an hour each week have a far greater effect than a single mother Teresa diligently devoting every hour of her life to the same cause.

Another positive aspect of human nature is the human tendency to work to improve ones own life. In its most basic (microeconomic) form this trait is essential for human survival. Examples include working to feed oneself, clothe oneself, and shelter oneself from harsh environments. The more complex (macroeconomic) form of this trait is responsible for all the economic progress we enjoy in our modern high-tech world. Examples include the development of the a combine harvester which enables a single farmer to do the same amount of work previously requiring thousands of people, the development of medical equipment and techniques which have helped extend the human lifespan from less than 30 years to over 75 years, and supersonic air travel which can transport people from one side of the globe to the other in under a day (to name a small fraction of human accomplishments!). All of these accomplishments are due to individual and collaborative human creativity. It also bears mentioning that coercion has never been necessary for the development of inventions. People do not need a gun to their head to develop innovative things they will do so both because they find it fulfilling and because the rewards are great.

With these human traits in mind I will now answer some of the most common objections to the Voluntaryist philosophy:

Without taxation the poor and disabled would starve to death

The first thing to note here is that the objection does not dispute the fact that taxation is theft. Rather, it focuses on the consequences of eliminating tax. In other words, this objection presupposes that the initiation of force (theft in this case) is justifiable so long as the ends are sufficiently worthy. This notion is actually part of another common philosophy known as consequentialism. Voluntaryism on the other hand comes under the deontological ethics category of philosophy. Entire books have been devoted to debating the relative merits of these two philosophies, so obviously I will not go to such a deep level here. However I will counter this particular claim by simply altering the ends in question.

Consider the following scenario there is a need to provide clean water, clothing, medical equipment, etc. to the worlds poorest people many of whom are currently living hand-to-mouth in Africa. I will proceed under the assumption that the person raising the objection agrees that providing these ends is a very worthy goal. Therefore I might propose to the objector the following means to achieve this goal: tomorrow I will begin stealing cars, starting with yours, and I will then be selling them to donate the proceeds to the starving African people. My guess is that the objector would be outraged at this idea. So I might continue, but dont you care about those who are starving in Africa?. And I would expect that the objector to respond, of course I do, but this worthy cause does not warrant your stealing my property. Id be prepared to donate voluntarily to an African charity, but you cant just take my things to finance your operation!

Hopefully this scenario demonstrates that stealing someones property is immoral, even for the noble motive of helping the poor and disabled. As I discussed at the start of this section, people are naturally compassionate, and when faced with others who are down on their luck they are naturally willing to lend a hand or give money or goods to help out.

Finally, I must add that 100% of people who raise objections to Voluntaryism will give this as one of their main objections, which I take as further proof that people are very interested in the well-being of the poor and disabled. my expectation would be that if government compulsion were removed from the equation then there would still be a widespread desire to ensure that the poor and disabled are well taken care of. Furthermore, in the absence of tax and inflation, vast additional resources would become available for this purpose.

Without taxation there would be no roads, public hospitals, police, etc.

This is another very common objection to Voluntaryism, and as with the previous objection, it does not dispute the fact that taxation is theft, but rather focuses on the consequences of eliminating tax. The underlying theme of this question is that without taxation the average person would not be able to afford basic necessities which are currently paid for with taxation. Some people will also point to the USA when stating this objection and say that when healthcare is not run by government then it costs people a lot more.

The stated objection is actually derived from another political philosophy which is very popular in western democracies today state socialism [2]. This becomes clearer when the objection is rephrased in a broader manner: it is acceptable to act in an immoral manner because doing so will result in cheaper goods or services.

There are two responses to this objection and I will give both. The first is that voluntaryism is a moral philosophy and so it is not directly concerned with economic efficiency. An example from history will serve well here. During the late 1700s in the USA, all cotton was grown and harvested by African-American slaves. The main fear of the day was that if slavery were abolished then cotton farmers profits would be lower as they would have to pay workers to do the work voluntarily. The voluntaryist response to this dilemma (which hopefully the objector will agree with) is that no amount of profit justifies enslaving someone. Likewise with roads, public hospitals and police no amount of cost reductions for some can justify stealing from others. If roads, hospitals and services which protect people can be provided via voluntary exchange (and I will explain in the next paragraph that they can), then this is completely in line with voluntaryism. But voluntaryism opposes these things both being funded by stolen money and being forcibly monopolized.

the previous paragraph may leave some readers feeling apprehensive that a voluntaryist society would be a very expensive one to live in. This leads to the second response to the objection government involvement is inherently expensive, and in fact societies in which all human interactions are directly consensual (i.e. a society of voluntary exchange) are the most economically efficient societies currently known to mankind. I wont delve too deeply into the topic of economics as it is large enough to fill many libraries, but suffice to say that:

This final point is the case for almost the entire American healthcare system, which people mistakenly cite as a model of voluntary exchange. An alternative healthcare system built on Voluntaryist principles would be the mutual-aid model which existed prior to the takeover of the healthcare market by government at the start of the twentieth century [6].

So to summarize, far from there being no roads, hospitals, and protective services in the absence of taxation, these services would actually be provided in an ethical manner and at much lower prices.

Without government warlords would take over

This objection comes up quite often. The first thing to note is the use of the word warlord to imply a coercive entity who is both legally and morally exempt. However, as discussed in Section 2, government is already the one coercive institution in almost all countries to be both legally and morally unaccountable. Governments write their own laws which govern their code of conduct, so if they wish to do something previously classified as illegal they can simply enact it into law. So the question really should be rephrased to, without a single morally exempt entity, other morally exempt entities might spring up. When put like this, the objection sounds rather strange. If the aim is to eliminate morally exempt entities then surely the first step should be to eliminate the existing one.

I suspect that when people raise this objection what they really mean is, what if, in a society run on voluntary principles, warlords were to enslave the entire population in a military style dictatorship?. The simple answer to this is that people in a voluntary society should always be prepared for such attempts and should set up mechanisms whereby this is not possible. I obviously cant predict the mechanisms that people may choose but here are some ideas:

Of course there are an infinite number of possible ways which the problem of security could be solved. In the absence of government, it would be in every persons immediate interest to seek out flaws in the security provision system and fix them. As mentioned at the start of Section 3 people are very creative when faced with challenges, and when large groups of people put their mind to a task they can be completely unstoppable. Viewed in this light, the protection offered by government defense forces no longer seems like the firewall it is commonly thought to be.

Without government the rich would take over and essentially run the country

As with the objection to voluntaryism on the grounds of warlords taking over, this objection already contains a loaded assumption. In this case the assumption is that so far the rich have not taken over and are not running the country. The reality though is that it is hard to find a country where this objection is not already the case. The average net worth of politicians is well in the millions and often in the billions of dollars in western democracies [8]. And likewise the consultants and business connections who influence these politicians are exceedingly wealthy (and in many cases are ex-politicians themselves) [9].

Voluntaryism has no objections to wealth, so long as it is earned through voluntary exchange. In fact wealth earned in this manner is a reward for providing a large number of people with the goods or services they desired. However wealth earned through legal privilege or by secretly granting political favors to business friends in exchange for a kickback is about as far from voluntary exchange as it gets.

The elimination of government, far from being beneficial to the rich, would actually close off a large source of their funding. Without the legal ability to tax or regulate money away from people, or even to print it for themselves [10] the rich would need to produce something of value to sell to willing customers.

Democratic government is already voluntary. We all agreed to be governed when we voted

While it may be true that casting ones own vote signifies ones willingness to be governed, it is certainly not true that this action signifies anybody elses willingness to be governed. If voting is synonymous with consent then those who do not vote have not given their consent, and this consent certainly cannot be given on that persons behalf. This fact is not altered by the ratio of voters to non-voters. Needless to say, voluntaryists refuse to vote.

If you dont like it here you can always leave

As with many of the previous objections, this objection contains a hidden agenda. This is best seen by rephrasing the objection: the system may well be immoral, but people like it this way. If you were to leave and stop bringing this issue up then we could all go back to pretending that things are fine.

As already discussed in Section 1, 90% of our lives in todays western democracies are already conducted according to the Voluntaryist philosophy. The remaining 10% involves peoples interactions with government. Personally I find government to be an annoyance, however not to such a point that it is unbearable. If the governments intrusion increased to a point where it did become unbearable I imagine I would seek out a new country which was more in line with voluntaryism (if one existed, if not then staying would still be the best option). However, until that happens I would prefer to attempt to open peoples minds to voluntaryism in the hope of bringing about a paradigm shift.

4. Conclusion

Now you have a fair understanding of Voluntaryism. No doubt you can think of a large number of further objections to this philosophy, maybe I will write more essays rebutting other objections. But in the meantime, rather than thinking, Voluntaryism is indeed a moral and admirable idea, but it would never work in practice, ask yourself why it would never work, and go one step further and think could it be made to work if enough people wanted it to?. Also consider whether Voluntaryism runs in line with or against human nature, and consider whether the deviations from Voluntaryism in our current world (mainly government and criminals) run in line with or against human nature. Every general objection that can be raised to Voluntaryism has been a problem at one stage of history or another, and has been solved in a voluntary manner previously. I think we have every reason to aim for such high standards again.

Finally, a quick discussion on the goals of Voluntaryism. Clearly the aim of this essay has been to try and convince the reader to join the Voluntaryist cause. But what is the Voluntaryist cause? Well really it is quite simple firstly to educate as many people as possible regarding the nature of morality. This is something that is not taught in schools, so, much as people in the 1300s took it for granted that the sun revolved around the earth, people today take it for granted that governments are capable of acting in a moral manner. If this educational enlightenment can be achieved then my guess is that the desire to eliminate forceful programs and (where applicable) replace these with voluntary alternatives will follow naturally from there.

If you agree with the Voluntaryist definition of morality I have given in the first section and if you can see how the consequences given in the second section are derived from the original definitions, and if you agree with the rebuttals in the third section then I have probably taught you all you need to know to begin your own journey of discovery. Here are some more resources for further investigation:

https://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose Larken Rose has some very good videos challenging common perceptions of government. In particular check out If You Were King and The Jones Plantation.

https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot Stephan Molyneuxhosts a radio show discussing every aspect of the life of a Voluntaryist. For starters check out The Story of Your Enslavement and The Bomb in the Brain. A side note here Stefan may not be the most consistent advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle, so remember to always critically analyze everything he says. I personally have found that I disagree with him on a number of things. Nevertheless, 90% of the time he is spot on and very instructive..

https://www.youtube.com/user/StormCloudsGathering Storm Clouds Gathering is a news channel which gives updates on current events in a voluntaryist perspective. The Psychology of Authority is an excellent one.

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnCapChase Chase Rachels gives some really good lectures on practical Voluntaryist alternatives to currently state monopolized industries, such as the roads, welfare, etc.

Mises.org if you prefer reading to watching videos, the Ludwig von Mises institute publishes many articles which discuss the economics of voluntary vs. involuntary exchange. They have a daily mailing list which is always well researched and very topical.

NotBeingGoverned.com finally another one for those who prefer reading. This blog has many excellent articles on voluntaryism and economics. Check out the Anarchy Never Been Tried? articles for historical examples with aspects of voluntary societies.

[1]The Compassionate Instinct

[2] Benjamin Tucker State Socialism and Anarchism

[3]Monopoly

[4] Can Government Make Essential Choices?

[5]Inefficient Government Rules and Regulations

[6]How Government Solved the Healthcare Crisis

[7]The Stateless Society An Examination of Alternatives

[8]Top 50 Richest Politicians

[9]Revolving Door (Politics)

[10]What is Quantitative Easing?

Read more from the original source:

Introduction to Voluntaryism – The Art of Not Being Governed

Voluntaryism | Define Voluntaryism at Dictionary.com

[vol-uhn-ter-ee-iz-uhm]

ExamplesWord Origin

Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2018

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

See original here:

Voluntaryism | Define Voluntaryism at Dictionary.com

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

Original post:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, “No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.” Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, “You cannot shoot a truth!” The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force “is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion,” and “if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak.” Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. “If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government.” Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. “In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer.”

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one’s rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. – Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

View post:

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

Go here to read the rest:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, “No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.” Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, “You cannot shoot a truth!” The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force “is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion,” and “if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak.” Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. “If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government.” Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. “In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer.”

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one’s rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. – Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

View post:

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

View original post here:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, “No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.” Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, “You cannot shoot a truth!” The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force “is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion,” and “if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak.” Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. “If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government.” Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. “In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer.”

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one’s rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. – Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

The rest is here:

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 is a look at the role emotions can play in voluntaryism, by Danilo and Jim.

Listen to Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 (59m, mp3, 96kbps)

Subscribe

via YouTube here.via RSS here.via iTunes here.via Stitcher here.via blubrry here.via Player.FM here.

Liked it? Support this contributor on Patreon!

A practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.

More here:

Philosophy of Voluntaryism 006 The Role for Emotions in …

Hatzalah – Wikipedia

This article is about the Emergency Medical Services organization. For the holocaust rescue organization, see Vaad Hatzalah.

Hatzalah (“rescue” or “relief” in Hebrew: ) is a volunteer Emergency Medical Service (EMS) organization serving mostly Jewish communities around the world. Most local branches operate independently of each other, but use the common name. The Hebrew spelling of the name is always the same, but there are many variations in transliteration, such as Hatzolah, Hatzoloh and Hatzola.[1] It is also often called Chevra Hatzalah, which loosely translates as “Company of Rescuers” or “Group of Rescuers.”

The original Hatzalah EMS was founded in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York, USA by Rabbi Hershel Weber in the late 1960s,[2] to improve rapid emergency medical response in the community, and to mitigate cultural concerns of a Yiddish-speaking, religious Hasidic community. The idea spread to other Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in the New York City area, and eventually to other regions, countries, and continents. Hatzalah is believed to be the largest volunteer ambulance service in the world.[3][4] Chevra Hatzalah in New York has more than a thousand volunteer EMTs and paramedics who answer more than 70,000 calls each year with private vehicles and a fleet of more than 90 ambulances.[5]

Hatzalah organizations now function in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico, Panama,[6] Russia,[7] South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom,[8] Ukraine, and in 10 states in the US: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Hatzalah branches are currently being organized in other states as well.

In Israel, there are two Hatzalah organizations operating on the national level, Ichud Hatzalah (Hebrew: ), Hebrew for, “United Hatzalah”, and Tzevet Hatzalah (Hebrew: ). While United Hatzalah is unarguably the larger of the two organizations, their volunteers are limited to direct response on scene care, versus Tzevet Hatzalah volunteers which are additionally licensed and authorized to provide emergency transport utilizing Magen David Adom ambulances.

Hatzalah uses a fly-car system, where members are assigned ad-hoc to respond to the emergency. The dispatcher requests any units for a particular emergency location. Members who think they will have best response times respond via handheld radios, and the dispatcher confirms the appropriate members. Two members will typically respond directly to the call in their private vehicles. A third member retrieves an ambulance from a base location.[9]

Each directly dispatched Hatzolah volunteer has a full medical technician “jump kit,” in their car, with oxygen, trauma, and appropriate pharmaceutical supplies. Paramedic (EMT-P) members carry more extensive equipment and supplies, including EKG, IV, injection, intubation, and more pharmaceuticals. Each volunteer is called a unit (as in, a crew of one), and is assigned a unit number that starts with a neighborhood code, followed by a serial number for that neighborhood (e.g., “F-100” means “Flatbush unit number 100″[10]). Ambulances also have unit numbers in the same format, with the first few numbers for each neighborhood reserved for the ambulance numbers.[9] Some neighborhoods have begun to assign 3-digit unit numbers to their ambulances, using numbers out of the range assigned to human member units (e.g. 900-numbers).

In some areas there may be periods where coverage is not strong enough, for example on a summer weekend. When this happens, coordinators may assign an on-call rotation. The rotation may still respond from their houses, or they may stay at the garage through their shift. In such periods, Hatzalah functions closer to a typical EMS crew setup, though the dispatchers may still seek non-on-call members to respond, and there will still often be a non-ambulance responder as first dispatched, even if that responder starts from the base.[10]

In Israel, United Hatzalah relies upon mobile phone technologies which include an SOS app and a special emergency phone number, 1221, with messages to news organizations distributed by WhatsApp.[11]

Hatzalah’s model provides for speedy first responder response times. Each Hatzalah neighborhood’s response time varies. For example, in Borough Park, Brooklyn daytime response in life threatening emergency are between 1-2 minutes and nighttime response times are 5-6 minutes.[12] In the Beverly-La Brea neighborhood of Los Angeles response times average at sixty to ninety seconds.[13]

Hatzalah is not a single organization. Each chapter operates autonomously, or in some cases, with varying levels of affiliation with neighboring Hatzalah chapters.[1][14]

In New York City’s Hatzalah, there is a very simple operational hierarchy. Usually, there are two or three members who are “coordinators,”[15] managing all operations aspects of the chapter.

As Orthodox Jews, many volunteers see each other daily during prayers, and especially on Shabbat. This allows them to remain organized despite the lack of an extensive formal hierarchy.

The coordinators are responsible for recruitment, interaction with municipal agency operations (police, fire, and EMS), first-line discipline, and day-to-day operations. The coordinators often are responsible, directly or via delegation, for arranging maintenance crews, who are often called service members or service units, and for purchasing supplies, ambulances, and other equipment. There is also an administrative function, often separate from the coordinator function. The chief administrator is often called a director or executive director, and this is sometimes a paid position. All other positions in Hatzalah, including coordinators, are held by unpaid volunteers.

Most of the New York State branches have some centralized administration and dispatch functions, known as “Central Hatzalah,” or simply, “Central.” The neighborhood organizations under Central are nevertheless independent. Most Hatzalah organizations pattern themselves after the Williamsburg and Central models (see operational descriptions below).

Formally, the New York City-area “Central Hatzalah” is called Chevra Hatzalah of New York. It combines dispatch and some other functions for over a dozen neighborhood organizations, including[14] Williamsburg,[2] Flatbush, Borough Park, Canarsie, Lower East Side, Upper West Side, Midtown, Washington Heights, Queens, Rockaways & Nassau County, Seagate, Catskills, Staten Island, Riverdale, and others. As each of these areas is otherwise independent, each has its own fundraising, management, garages, ambulances, and assigned members. Rockland County, NY branches have a centralized dispatch system as well, but their central organization is separate from the other New York State centralized functions, and they have a looser relationship with their New York State brethren, though there is a great deal of cooperation among them. Together, the combined New York State branches have grown to become the largest all-volunteer ambulance system in the United States.[12]

Within Israel the largest local organization is Magen David Adom.[citation needed]

Outside of New York and Israel, there are many smaller Hatzalah organizations. Each of these operates as a self-contained unit, with no centralized organization or coordination. However, where there are other Hatzalahs nearby, there is often a great deal of cooperation.

In the United Kingdom, Hatzalah use blue lights and sirens on their ambulances[16], but cannot legally do so on private vehicles.[17]

Hatzalah organizations are often involved in other community activities, on top of their primary mission of emergency medical work. Many neighborhood chapters sponsor and participate in community events, both within the local Jewish community, and in the broader community.

Flatbush Hatzalah frequently plays softball against teams from local police precincts, firehouses, and hospitals.[18]

Hatzalah of Passaic/Clifton works with the local Bikur Cholim[19] to put on a yearly Health & Safety Fair at no charge to the community, with participation from both Jewish and non-Jewish presenters, said to get a turnout possibly exceeding 25% of the local community.[20]

Many Hatzalahs worldwide[21][22][23] run public relations campaigns related to safe drinking on Purim and fire safety on Chanukah and during Passover preparations. Chevra Hatzolah in New York works closely with the FDNY on this matter.

A number of items that are either unique to Hatzalah, or that are relatively unusual for an EMS include:

Most EMS rely on crews with scheduled shifts operating from a known location. Due to its members and the communities they serve usually living in proximity, Hatzolah relies little on scheduled crews and stations and rather has all service members on call 24/7 and members responding from wherever they are.[24]

Language, religion, and culture barriers create challenges for an emergency medical service. Hatzalah is built to consider these challenges, especially with regard to halacha (Jewish law) and communities that only speak Yiddish or Hebrew.

A Jew reluctant to violate Sabbath rules when receiving medical attention may be more at ease and easily convinced of the medical urgency, when the EMT or paramedic is a fellow Orthodox Jew. A female worried about physical modesty and contact is helped by knowing that a Jewish provider is aware of the details of her concerns, and will act to reduce the problem as much as possible.

Hatzalah was the subject of controversy as articles in the New York Post[25] and JEMS Magazine[26] criticize the organization for its discriminatory practice of not allowing women to join. The group of Orthodox women founded an organization called Ezras Nashim an all-female Orthodox Jewish volunteer EMT ambulance service,[27] they cited the need for modesty and sensitivity to the needs of fellow Orthodox women, with the goal of preserving womens modesty in emergency medical situations, especially childbirth. “This is a woman’s job. Historically, women have always delivered babies in traditional Jewish values, pointing to the Hebrew Bible Book of Exodus where the first midwives were women Shiphrah and Puah.[28] In our community, women also have a very strong motivation to seek female doctors,” said their lawyer, Rachel Freier, a Brooklyn Civil Court Judge and Orthodox Jewish mother of six.[29]

New York State Assembly member Dov Hikind announced on his radio show his support for Ezras Nashim [30] and he was criticized by Hatzalah.[31] The group received approval from their community’s leading rabbis, including prominent Rabbi Yechezkel Roth of Karlsburg.[32] Until now, Hatzolah has operated under this controversial policy, despite receiving public funding, such as the nearly half a million dollars in funding to overhaul the communication system at Hatzolahs new command center in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn.[33]

In areas where the EMS charges a fee, lower income clientele lacking health insurance may have a reluctance to call for an ambulance unless the evidence of urgency is overwhelming. A volunteer service, with less overhead costs, tends to reduce that reluctance. Hatzolah will often handle “check-out” cases, without charge. In this way, the true emergencies among those check-outs may be recognized and treated quickly, where the caller might have otherwise not sought treatment.[34]

In contrast with most other EMS agencies, many Hatzalah volunteers will remain at the hospital with the patient long after bringing them to the emergency department. This is especially true during serious cases in order to help the patient and/or their families navigate the sometimes confusing series of events that occur during an emergency. Members will stay to explain, advocate and sometimes help make arrangements to bring in other specialists or arrange transfer to higher care facilities.

At times there have been difficulties in dealing with outside organizations, including other first-responders.[35][36]

In general, branches have excellent relations with state and local police and EMS.[37]

An example of those operating in uneven[38] or otherwise especially challenging situations[39] is Catskills Hatzolah, handling the swelling summer crowd.[40][41]

Israel’s United Hatzalah has shared its expertise with a group of Arab volunteers from East Jerusalem to form an emergency first response unit called Nuran. The group since has been dismantled and the volunteers were incorporated in United Hatzalah.

United Hatzalah’s relationship with Magen David Adom, however, is strained, and MDA has banned its members and volunteers from also volunteering in other rescue organizations, including Hatzalah.[42]

The Chevra NYC Central affiliates boast an excellent relationship with New York City and New York State agencies.[9]

On February 20, 2013, the Federal Communications Commission granted Chevrah Hatzalah’s request for a waiver to obtain calling party numbers (CPN) even when callers have caller ID blocking.[43] Calls to 911 are exempt from CPN blocking but calls to Chevrah Hatzalah do not go through 911. Other Hatzalah dispatch numbers, including other New York State Hatzalah groups, do not have this waiver, but some are working on it.

Hatzalah members were among the first responders to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[44] Alongside other rescue workers, Hatzalah volunteers rescued, treated, and transported countless victims of the terrorist attack.[44] In the process they earned great respect from their peers in the emergency service community.[45]

Hatzalah was not dispatched by the city’s 911 system, and a printout of the 911 job from FDNY EMS does not list them as responding units.[46] However, audio recordings exist of Hatzalah’s own dispatch, including members calling for help during the collapse of the first tower.[47] There are also well-known photos of destroyed Hatzalah ambulances[48][49] and the destroyed cars of Hatzalah members, in the aftermath of the attack.[50]The Hatzalah units were also referred to in a memoir of 9/11 by responding NYC fireman Dennis Smith in his book Report From Ground Zero. On page 231 of the first edition he wrote: “I met two guys from Engine 39. They brought me to EMS, the Hezbollah [sic] ambulance.” This was corrected in later editions.

Chapters of the organization exist in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, England, Israel, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, and in the United States. The chapters in each neighborhood or city operate independently though in many cases affiliations and levels of cooperation do exist between neighboring chapters.[1][51]

More:

Hatzalah – Wikipedia

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, “No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.” Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, “You cannot shoot a truth!” The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force “is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion,” and “if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak.” Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions. Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, “controlled” economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the “unforeseeable and unpredictable.” Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. “If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government.” Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. “In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer.”

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one’s rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to “wage a war for peace” or “fight politics by becoming political.” Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man’s freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man’s freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one’s body or property, but it cannot injure one’s philosophy of life. – Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one’s ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people’s lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person’s character.

See original here:

voluntaryist.com – Fundamentals of Voluntaryism


12345...10...