In a YouTube video comment, Cody Heimbach said:
Volunatryism, or I suppose the idea of it, seems to be the ultimate goal. Every person looking after one another in a collective society of like-minded people who are free from tyranny and oppression; this would be the ultimate achievement. However, to live in such a utopia, wouldn’t other countries have to also partake in this ideal picture of humanity? Say Adam and others who feel similar to him get what they want and our government is abolished. What happens after a terrorist attack? Do the people in this society fund a military to fight? That would be a form of taxes. Do the people appoint an ambassador to negotiate with the party at fault? if so, then we have an elected official and, in turn, a government. And to my previous point of “ideal picture of humanity”; not everyone has the same ideals. What about sociopaths and psychopaths? I’m assuming that you’d be in favor of rehabilitation rather than prison, fore it is more humane. Do we force these people into treatment they might not want? You may also rightfully believe that force isn’t the answer. What if they commit a murder? Do we then force rehabilitation? Do we jail them? Do we deport them? All of which use force, none of which can be done without a government. The ideas behind voluntaryism are wishful and full of hope. Just as I wish and hope that one day our world will be ready for them. I just can’t forsee such a time.
And here is my response–
It’s only a tax if collection is imposed through force or the threat of force. Also you assume the need for revenge after a terrorist attack. Employing more violence after the fact isn’t going to solve anything. All violence does is create more violence. Starting a war over a terrorist attack would continue a chain of grief.
Also, it’s possible that a large population who isn’t so keen on punishment, global policing, secret wars, etc. wouldn’t attract terrorism in the first place. The 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing for instance, was claimed to be in revenge for Arab suffering caused by the Persian Gulf War.
Voluntaryism generally embraces one law- The NAP or Non-Aggression Principal. This means that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another person. Unless the military action is in legitimate, verifiable self defense of an impending threat, it would be morally wrong to do so. To communicate the idea, It’s easier to think of this in a smaller way. Some lone attacker is coming at you with a knife. You pull out your gun, shoot and kill the attacker in self defense. In doing so, you have not breached the non-aggression principal.
This concept can extend to a larger area in the form of defensive missiles, etc. but again, the idea is that by making initiating force unacceptable even if it’s done through a popular vote, violence over all will be decreased.
If you were to do away with police, the obligation to keep the streets free of rapists, murderers, and child molesters wouldn’t just go away. That responsibility would transfer to everyone. This goes back to the idea of government. Government is the idea that peace is achieved through the monopoly of force. Voluntaryism is the idea that peace is acheived through a balance of power.
Sure, you’re not going to get rid of the evildoers by abolishing a geographically based monopoly on force. All you’re going to do is transfer the power to “the people”. It’s my feeling that more people would open carry guns in a free society. I know I would. This I think would serve better than any current policing strategies. You know your neighbor Sara is a good person, and she’s packing. Roger across the street is packing, too. Everyone knows this, and house robberies would be minimal.
If any shit goes down, you’d have immediate backup, rather than calling the police who often just file a report after the fact. If the average latent criminal sees guns on every street corner, rather than an occasional roving police patrol, I think there would be a little more honesty overall.
To address your situation of dealing with a murderer. First of all, I think it’s important to differentiate murderers who did so while breaching the non-aggression principal. IE. a murderer who killed in self defense, not breaching the NAP would be left alone.
Anyway, you can deal with bad people this way. First, the public must first be made aware of this person’s actions. This must be communicated clearly and be widespread. Anyone labelled a NAP-breacher is simply not helped, not served in restaurants, stores, or commerce. They are publicly shamed. Their utility companies terminate their contract. Their housing provider terminates their contract. They need to eat but nobody will sell them food, so they have to leave that town, and go someplace where they can survive.
Sure, Voluntaryism is wishful, hopeful, and can’t win right now. But it’s the best I’ve heard of a perfect society, and can exist, even if it’s just in a localized fashion.