Individuals exist within societies. If Voluntaryism does not suit one because it allows for this, that is perfectly fine. There’s no need to redefine the clearly defined term, however.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Individuals exist within societies. If Voluntaryism does not suit one because it allows for this, that is perfectly fine. There’s no need to redefine the clearly defined term, however.
What is the optimum measures of sovereignty then, the society or the individual?
Why is it important to define that?
It’s not my place to decide for anyone other than myself. I am the highest authority in my life. Societies do not act, think, or move. Only individuals can do this. An individual can exist without a society, no society can exist without individuals. The individual is primary, and paramount.
I agree with the premise brought forward. I don't see the consistency in saying that individualism is the primary then hold any position in which you can give authority of action as the agent of a social construct. How does Voluntaryism handle that?
This is the problem. Voluntaryism doesn’t “handle” things. It is a very simple legal code/philosophy which says “don’t violate property.” Where is the authoritarianism in being part of something voluntarily and consensually?
Even for someone who disagrees with downvoting, this is not for voluntaryism to decide. Do you see? The moment force is involved, then the philosophy has something to say.
The moment aggression is used by the professed non aggressor the validity of honesty has passed.
On this platform as on any other, definitions should be defended. When someone is trying to change the definition of a key term people use to describe themselves, they shouldn't be surprised by resistance to their effort. There are people on here calling themselves voluntaryists, and they don't even believe in private property.
How can you believe in taking my private property and still believe in voluntary interaction? It just isn't possible. Some things must be defended too. If we do not defend them, who will? Are we going to simply let the enemies of individual liberty change the definitions of terms and the symbols without any consequences?
I agree, and to that point I have not seen any inconsistencies in the way you approach individual liberty or the application of non-aggression.
Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of your writing, but the little I have is clear, well defined in concept and context.
The longer I am here the more I appreciate the term 'individual liberty'. Do you see individual sovereignty as inherent in the term or is it in a narrow sense?
Aggression in view of Voluntaryism is an attack on property which has already been clearly defined, and covered. If you disagree with the Voluntaryist philosophy, that is fine. I cannot keep explaining this to you. Sorry.