(“voluntaryist” is the dumbest most redundant sounding word ever. Why can’t they just call it a voluntary society like they understand grammar and syntax? But at least I can honestly claim to have independently invented “Volitionism/Volitionist” 🙂 oh well, anyway…)
A “voluntaryist society”…
I find it amazing that people can engage in this level of doublethink. I say doublethink because ignorance alone simply can’t explain it when in fact the ignorance can be cured in a single logically obvious sentence.
The whole point of society is to exploit economies of scale, and you can’t, physically, logically, as in square-circle can’t, have a society of true individuals without some degree of hierarchical control over the individual by the society.
You must do one or the other or your society will be destroyed from within eventually:
1. Edit people in some way such that their desires/will do not induce society destroying actions.
2. Constrain people with such desires/will from doing harm.
The End!
All this claptrap about systems of dispute resolution makes the fatal assumption that there IS a resolution all parties can agree on. But reality is bound by no such edict.
It’s like a meta-myth, a belief that the concept of irreconcilable differences is a myth.
Can society be made more free? Yes, obviously.
Can it be improved by additional freedoms? Yes.
Can punishment itself be feasibly removed from society? Yes.
Can a society be constructed that gives maximum feasible respect to the sanctity of volition? You’re goddamn right it can.
HOWEVER!
Can everybody get what they want? > No. <
I’m so tired of this debate. It’s virtually identical to debating creationists.
Libertarians of this extreme are little more than right wingers who want to build a society around the excuses they need to allow their compassion to atrophy entirely, while having their ego stroked for being good people at the same time.
http://underlore.com/islanders/ (And its links, which are admittedly months of reading.)
