Anarchist, Libertarian or Voluntarism: Why I Use One Word Over Another by Travis Wilson

Publisher’s Note:   I welcome Travis’ energetic and scintillating attempt to refine the definitions of the stateless society he and I are trying to make a concrete idea for humanity. I use the term abolitionist now but he makes a string case for his choice. Enjoy. -BB

I have been thinking about the meaning of these words and of their reaction in society lately. There seems to me to be a very large majority of people who have a negative connotation to two of them and not so much knowledge of the last. So it is here that I will begin.

What Anarchy is and what it is not.

The vast majority of the public will react negatively to the use of the word anarchy. Through false description and definition imposed on them through government run schools and reinforced by media and social entertainment they have been lead to believe that only bad things could happen in a world with no government. Thunder Dome would become reality in their minds. Would it really though, would they allow that to happen in their presence, would everyone just go around murdering and looting?

“Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owed to it. The human race thrives only because of the lack of control, not because of it. I’m saying that we need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place. It is a paradox that we must forever explain.”

Jeffrey Tucker

It is generally described to be a world with no government. The term goes deeper than that though. It leaves a world with no central government and not without rules. Rules would still be in effect throughout the world, it would only be the enforcement of those rules that would change. Webster defines Anarchy in the typical false way as its main definition (: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws). This is the definition that most people are taught as the truth but further definitions by the same source state (a: absence of government //b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority//c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government) These are definitions that most self-proclaimed anarchist would somewhat agree upon.

The automatic connotation of Anarchy being a bad thing is something we must overcome. The changing of definitions is something that must be done through actions rather than words. So how do we expand the idea of peaceful anarchy and destroy a negative connotation to the word? To be sure this is a monumental task and one that would require the utmost care in its expansion. The idea that there are no rulers but rules still remain isn’t an easy sell for most people. The idea of self-reliance and self-control frightens people, and it should. They have lived in complete servitude to a government for too long. By relying on an outside entity to control the personal and economical habits they have castrated themselves from the ideas of freedom, free will, free choice, personal responsibility, and self- sufficiency.

Anarchy doesn’t have to mean the things that it is believed to mean now, and it will take some real positive work to bring a positive thought to the word. Through peaceful cooperation and discovering new ways to subvert the power of the state in our everyday lives we can bring the world to anarchy and not be a fearful thing.

Are you libertarian enough?

Within libertarianism there seems to be a litmus test that some will use to determine ones placement in the vast collection of the term. It is truly a broad term and a very much inclusive term and as such most people have a hard time defining it or determining their place within it. Libertarians believe for the most part in smaller government, some believe in constitutional government some do not. The term generally includes both Voluntarists and Anarchists in the definition, though there is some debate on that in my mind as well as others. But I like to leave that topic to self-discovery and the subjective view of the issue. The degree of your libertarianism is of much debate and discussion among other self-described libertarians and the actions and theory that you portray has a great deal to do with how you are perceived.

Some will say that certain traits within libertarianism are dangerous to modern life; Non-intervention foreign policies, pro-choice on abortion, ridding the country of drug laws and allowing uninhibited use of hard drugs, open borders. Those are the types of issues most Neo- Conservatives and Neo-Liberals will vehemently attack with illogical fallacies and hyper sensitive emotional responses. Now everyone is entitled to their opinions, I would have to recommend further education in these issues to gain a better understanding of the positions held by Libertarians.

Libertarianism is popular, and this can be a bad thing. Why do I say this? It has been increasingly apparent that some people will do whatever it takes to grasp or remain in power, even so much as to pretend to hold beliefs they certainly do not. It doesn’t take much looking to see the false prophets of the liberty movement and the libertarian creed. Now the Libertarian I am talking about is the philosophy, not the party. The party is just a vehicle for those who hold the philosophy, and of course those that falsify their claim to it.

Leaning libertarian. This is one of those terms that make no sense to me at all. I just don’t see how anyone can lean in the direction of philosophy but not accept it or live by it. I feel that those that claim to be “leaning” are those that are merely using the followers to their own self gain, what that gain may be is different among people, but the use of the followers remains the same.

I believe in a Voluntary Society.

What is Voluntarism? It is the belief that all actions of individuals should be free from coercion or force, they should be voluntary. The creed of Voluntarism is to allow all voluntary means so long as they do not interfere or impede on the rights of others and so long as the actions are not forced or coerced in any way.

Voluntarism does allow for governments to be formed but they may not touch or try to overtake those that reject their influence or control. This is a hard concept for many. True voluntarism should not prohibit those that wish to be governed to their choice. Those that wish to be governed and those they elect or choose to be the governors should have no say over the lives, property or actions of those that choose to live outside of that governance. Someone told me once that this is just a copout, an easy way to not address the issue, but I say this, if everyone chose to define themselves and their philosophy around the voluntary acts of individuals we would see the downfall of most forms of political control and governments around the world, with no need to say that these aspirations are anarchistic at all, and well beyond the goals of most libertarians.

So why say Voluntarism instead of Anarchy or Libertarianism?

From prior experience using all of these words I have found the greatest ability to progress the ideas and message of individual liberty by not using the word Anarchy for the simple reason as it invokes an automatic negative thought in the minds of the masses. The same is true of the word Libertarian. In the minds of Democrats and Republicans alike there is a negative connotation associated with the word. To be able to speak to those who hold these feelings against these words or labels we must move past the blockade of the definitions, we must find another route.

By choosing to use the word Voluntaryist rather than Anarchist or Libertarian it lends the speaker the chance to express the ideas without the over shadowing of the connotations of the latter two words. This is one way that we can progress conversation with others on like-minded goals or solutions to current problems. This is how we can influence the progress to goals and see real change in the power structures around the world.

Twitter: @patriotpapers

https://thejeffersonpapers.blogspot.com

 

Bill Buppert
thirdgun@hotmail.com
12 Comments
  • Ken
    Posted at 20:45h, 01 May Reply

    When I got to:
    “Some will say that certain traits within libertarianism are dangerous to modern life; ………….pro-choice on abortion, ………………..open borders”. I stopped reading. I am a 45 year old life long anarchist. I welcome you former state-ists to the party. Libertarians are pro choice?!?!? Abortion is a tool of the state. It is founded on eugenics, racism, and the force of the state to eliminate undesirables – one child policies. Any pro abortion “libertarian” is a Progressive stooge for the state. I suggest you go away.

    • Bill
      Posted at 08:21h, 03 May Reply

      Ken,

      I, too, am a pro-life abolitionist.

      Bill

      • Jim Klein
        Posted at 10:13h, 03 May Reply

        I understand that as a belief–who could be in favor of killing the very youngest babies–but how does that manifest in reality? IOW…what would you therefore DO because of that?

        • Bill
          Posted at 10:26h, 03 May Reply

          Jim,

          A world with rules and no rulers has many benefits such as shunning, boycotting of offenders and possibly Icelandic geld regimes through DROs. The world of possibilities is unlimited in a society built on peace and cooperation instead of brutish violence.

          True civilization is measured by the welfare of the most innocent and vulnerable unlike the horror-regimes that cloak the planet now.

          • Jim Klein
            Posted at 16:51h, 03 May

            Sure, peace and cooperation leads to what we may adequately call “rules,” meaning that to which the participants agree.

            The second part is true too, that success may be measured by the health and happiness of the participants, all of whom are in the class of the Innocent, at least to start.

            So while I agree with your values and what things should look like, I still don’t see the connection between “having rules” and women seeking abortions, right or wrong. What would those rules say, from where would they come, and why in the world would any person who thinks they may seek abortions in the future, go along?

            Basically the question is, “What do you intend to do about those who disagree?” I think you’re saying, “Nothing, forcefully,” so I’m only double-checking. Is that right?

            And sorry for the drift, but it piqued my interest.

    • Travis
      Posted at 20:46h, 03 May Reply

      I think the term pro-choice in this matter is slighlty askew from what it should mean. Saying you are pro-choice in the matter does not in any way corrolate to the belief that it is right, it is merely stating that most* libertarians would agree on choice in the matter belonging to the individual.

      As far as abortion being a tool of the state, yes in modern times I would agree with you, but is this to mean that the practice would not occur in a statless society? Of course not. It is a service that in my opinion is deplorable and I hope I am never in the situation to have to experience this first hand, but is a part of our world whether people are willing to admit it or not. The act of killing an unborn human is not a new practice and it is not something that was created by any state, it was created by a need for a service and by those willing to perform this service.

  • John Zube
    Posted at 03:21h, 03 May Reply

    Have a look at http://www.panarchy.org and http://www.butterbach.net for explicitly voluntarist ideas.

    I search for personal law is also worthwhile for this ancient voluntaristic tradition. Under personal law in India a vast number of results are offered but, apparently, they are still not sufficiently pondered in India. Otherwise it would not have chosen merely territorial majority despotism or democracy for its population. The above Travis Wilson article has at least one paragraph going in that direction.

  • MamaLiberty
    Posted at 05:33h, 04 May Reply

    Fear not, the statists will quickly muddle any logical definition of “Voluntarism” just as soon as any significant number of us begin to use it.

    I use terms that I think are far more inclusive: Self owner/self responsible. No single word can convey that, I’m afraid.

    Not no rules, no rulers and no slaves…

  • A PT
    Posted at 12:50h, 04 May Reply

    I am against abortion EXCEPT in a very specific instance.

    Long ago (1953) my then pregnant wife encountered a specific medical condition, which several doctors agreed would terminate in her demise if she elected to carry to term. (Remember, some people WILL choose the precise opposite of “our choice” and “play the odds.”) Death is one helluva choice in playing those odds, eh?

    It’s a seriously agonizing event to contemplate abortion even in the strictest of circumstances. We both agonized over the final decision: abortion. That was our agreed choice even though numerous family members chastised us severely in many cases disavowing us if we elected to “abort” the fetus. They did exactly that!

    Until you are placed in such a position, even as anti-abortion dogma would require, you have no idea how gut-wrenching it is without doubt. My consideration was also for two other children (selfish?); to be without their mother for the sake of not aborting the 8.5-month fetus in my wife’s seriously diminishing condition. So, she and I elected abortion. And, yes again, numerous family members elected to simply void my wife and me, telling us the God would punish us for our choice. (What kind of a God is that?) Frankly, I didn’t a damn and never did thereafter. I learned to live life without these “religious, toxic, anti-abortion zealots” whether family or friends that never walked in our (my wife’s and my shoes) lives to pay the “real price.” Everyone has “advice.” The ONLY advice that counted was the advice of my recently late wife and moi, 61-year ago. So, yes, abortion is a viable option even when the “anti-abortion collective” is against it. You don’t live my life and I will not live yours. Period.

    • Jim Klein
      Posted at 22:33h, 04 May Reply

      “You don’t live my life and I will not live yours. Period.”

      That’s the Key to the Mint, right there. Thanks for sharing.

    • Cole
      Posted at 08:28h, 20 January Reply

      Yeah that is a very mixed issue for libertarians some see it as a right of the mother others see it as infringing on the rights of the child

  • Dave Burns
    Posted at 18:59h, 10 June Reply

    The article consistently uses “voluntarism” to denote the belief but uses both “voluntaryist” and “voluntarist” for the believer. Voluntaryism and voluntarism are not the same things. I would explain the difference if it was truly clear to me. Try wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism

Post A Reply to Dave Burns Cancel Reply