Danny,

Funny how I tended to disagree with most of the things you suggested I would probably agree with. I DON'T find it hunky dory that other people make major decisions concerning my life. I never have.

Sorry to be so negative, but I didn't find your article/post/whatzit to really have any point. I keep coming back to the "voluntary" issue. I have no problem with people organizing however they want and much of modern society is just fine, but the total disregard for the choices of others is not one of those things that I think is peachy keen.

As the T-shirt says, "What part of NO don't you understand?"

- NonE

Thanks, QuestEon; I really appreciate that. And I'm glad to have introduced you to A Softer World -- definitely one of the best webcomics out there. Another often under-appreciated masterpiece is Kate Beaton's comic, "Hark! A Vagrant."

NonE, people make major decisions concerning your life all the time. The availability of many of the products on which you depend (especially patented or branded ones) is a matter of others' choice, your job (if you're not self-employed, that is) is likely built in large part around things that other people think you should do, and the people with whom you interact and associate do so only partly through your own decisions. Pure voluntariness is an absurd criterion: your sphere of influence over the things that happen in your life is inherently very limited. That standard can only be met in seclusion.

Perhaps what you had in mind was something more along the lines of "non-interference"?

Danny, Your reply reminds me of what a friend of mine said in a discussion regarding coercion. He said that the word was meaningless, that there was no such thing as coercion. I asked, well what about someone holding a gun to your head and demanding some action on your part? He replied that you always have a choice to do as he demands or not to, therefore there is no such thing as coercion.

My thoughts on this (your reply and his as well) are that if words have no meaning then it is pointless to even attempt to communicate. Eye2i2 points out to me the Voltaire line about "if you wish to converse with me, first define your terms." But then, does not one need to use words to define one's words?

I fail to understand how you can suggest that force is voluntary. But then, we apparently live in different realities.

There is a vast difference between others making choices regarding the products they wish to make and market and whether or not I choose to buy them. Someone making pork sausage is not a claim on me that I have to eat it. Even if the only thing that I might find on the market shelf is pork sausage, that does not mean that I am being forced to buy pork sausage. I still have the choice to purchase this sausage or not. But to demand money from me to build roads, schools, whatever or take (under threat of force) my home (bought and paid for) from me if I don't, that is not voluntary. It seems that your definition of voluntary is similar to my friend's definition of coercion. You seem to think that holding a gun to my head is a voluntary interaction. I guess if I can choose to have my head blown off rather than pay your taxes then it really is voluntary.

Carl Drega, R.I.P.

- NonE

P.S. I would like to point out to you that this spring is going to be one of the most beautiful in the desert due to the amazing rains we've had so far. The last time we had this much rain was over ten years ago and I still remember the desert ablaze with flowers. I hope you'll take the time to head out and avail yourself of this once-in-a-longtime chance being offered you. It will be a memory you can treasure for years.

Bake,

Thanks for keeping me in line. I see your point, and note that I am probably responding to more than Danny's specific post above and perhaps more than Danny's posts over time.

But let me point to this statement:

Danny wrote:

Pure voluntariness is an absurd criterion: your sphere of influence over the things that happen in your life is inherently very limited.

I find that hard to translate as other than a claim of the right for some to coerce others. How is it that "voluntariness is absurd" because I must use coercion in order to make the world operate as I wish for it to operate? I am not suggesting that the world will be as I wish for it to be. I am simply suggesting that it is immoral for me to attempt to force others in order to make the world be as I would wish it to be.

This reminds me of one of the funny things I hear all the time on debates with statists. There will be a question put to a statist about free-market choices, to which the statist will reply, But then what if that doesn't work? What then? Which really means, What if the free choices that others make do not produce the outcome that I want? It makes the assumption that he knows what's right and is justified in whatever level of force is needed to bring the world around to his way of thinking. It's the ends justifying the means kind of thinking.

I am not claiming that my desire for there to be voluntary choices as the standard of human interaction would lead to a world which matched my view of things. I'm only saying that the results would be whatever they would be as a result of moral interactions. Or maybe another quote might convey it better than my poor, ham-handed attempts:

There is no way to peace, peace is the way.

- NonE

P.S. Let me add this: It seems to me that by definition, if one rejects Voluntaryism then one is claiming that coercion is acceptable. If you see another way of interpreting this, please point it out to me, but I can see no other logical way of parsing the idea. Either an interaction is voluntary or it is not. If it is not voluntary that, by definition, implies that it was under some level of coercion. What am I missing here? I really am flabbergasted that this is an issue of contention.

That others use force to get what they want is to be expected. It is the idea that such action is considered moral which amazes me. My basic point in all of this is that, to me, it is not at all hard to decide what makes a choice moral or not, and that is simply the question of whether or not it is voluntary. I'm not claiming that I will like the choices others make. Only that, unless they are being coercive, it is right and proper for them to do whatever the hell it is that they want to do - their lives are theirs, not mine.

- NonE

Third-party perspective here: it seems to me that the main issue here is the different perspectives from which you're approaching this. NonE, you seem to be posting from an extremely idealistic standpoint: non-vountaryism is immoral, and that's all there is to it. Which is fine; I think there's a place for that in discussions. Danny, on the other hand, seems to be approaching things from more of a pragmatic standpoint. Trying to look for real solutions to the complex problems of today's world.

I'd say that if you unflinchingly cling to the argument from morality in trying to problem-solve and keep dialogue open with people who don't necessarily share your position on morality, you're only going to get so far -- which will generally be not very far at all. This doesn't necessarily mean that Danny personally rejects the argument from morality, but I think it's important to at least be open to the possibility that the classic libertarian argument from morality is not always the right primary consideration to be making. It doesn't seem to be particularly intellectually honest to adopt the moralistic position a priori and subsequently refuse to consider any idea that falls outside of the subset of ideas that adhere to the argument from morality above all else. Others might disagree on that last point, and I say: Great! Everyone can bring their ideas -- grounded in their differing viewpoints and priorities -- to the table and we can compare them and choose between them all free-market-like!

So anyway, given the differences in your approaches, to avoid continuing to just talk past each other, it might be useful for you to give your specific points of contention with his article, rather than trying to distill the complexity of his discussion into a simple statement about coercion that is comparable to yours. The entire point of his article is that things aren't that simple!

I think Bake managed to capture my point relatively effectively. "Involuntary" and "coercive" are not synonymous. When I shiver in the cold, I have not necessarily taken on a voluntary action, but one wouldn't want to say I had been coerced. To say that everything should be voluntary would be to say that we should actively get to choose everything about our lives, which would be ridiculous -- we cannot have that kind of influence. Even to say that all aspects of our interactions with others should be voluntary wouldn't make sense, since others are constantly making choices which impact our lives. That's not to say that others are constantly coercing us. It's just that they are contributing to bringing about states of affairs which were out of our control and which have ramifications for our own lives.

That's why I asked if what you had in mind was more along the lines of "non-interference," which has much more to do with coercion than a criterion of "voluntariness." To see the difference, consider the behavior of two competitors in a free market. On a voluntariness criterion, the competitors would constantly be wronging each other -- surely each company would prefer that the other disappear, and the competitive pressure exerted by each on the other is certainly not taken on at the pure discretion of the recipient. On a non-interference criterion, however, both parties would be in the right so long as they did not interfere with each other's activities. Both competitors would be able to go about their business without having to worry about every possible impact they could possibly have on any other person, and they would be barred only from acts which could be coherently classified as coercive. I take it that's closer to what you had in mind, right?

If that's all right, then the main problem for your view is going to need to be getting justifications for property rights, contract law, and self-defense off the ground. All of these are inherently built around coercion, and it seems like a coherent libertarian view would want to find a place for them. As I see it, there are two ways to proceed: First, you could argue that when you defend yourself with an attacker or demand the enforcement of your contracts and property rights, you actually do not interfere with anyone in any way. A second way to proceed would be to claim that while self-defense and property/contract enforcement involve coercion, they are justified forms of coercion. In the case of self-defense, for example, it seems like my rights over my body justify interfering with your plans under certain conditions -- namely, when you have initiated force against me.

It seems to me that the second path is far more plausible, since it seems clear that we do indeed interfere with people's plans when we engage in self-defense or property/contract enforcement. But only on the first path would a pure "non-interference" criterion be in place. So since you seem to be sympathetic to such a criterion, perhaps you can make sense of it.

Danny,

A friend used to love the idea of voluntaryism, until she heard the phrase "mutual consent," which she believed was more descriptive of the idea, as she conceived it. Perhaps this will be helpful in grasping MY idea of voluntary.

The fact that the sun may be blocked by the clouds is not an issue of my interaction with others or the world, in my view - but it seems to be in yours. I do not intend, by my use of the idea "voluntary," that the world must revolve around whatever-the-hell I wish to happen. I only mean that it is wrong for me to force my wishes on another or for them to force theirs upon me: that all interactions between people should be freely chosen by those people.

And I extrapolate from there that this is the essence of morality.

Danny wrote:

To see the difference, consider the behavior of two competitors in a free market. On a voluntariness criterion, the competitors would constantly be wronging each other -- surely each company would prefer that the other disappear, and the competitive pressure exerted by each on the other is certainly not taken on at the pure discretion of the recipient.

I must say that the above quoted material makes no sense to me. How you perceive that another person, simply by existing (another business simply by existing), is "wronging" me... Say what? It appears that in order for an interaction to be voluntary in your world that there only be one person in your world - you. Isn't it possible for you to coexist with others on a voluntary basis with respect for each other's choices (or rather, with respect for the right of others to choose for themselves)?

Whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla really is not an issue that concerns me. Note: It may AFFECT me in that purveyors of such ice cream may freely choose to stock or not stock certain flavors, but this is THEIR free choice, and once again not an issue of morality or coercion or "wronginess." (ya gotta love whatzhisname and his "truthiness" idea.) I certainly don't have a right to force someone to stock a certain flavor of ice cream, or even to sell ice cream. Not my business.

- NonE

There seem to be two basic areas where NonEntity and Danny aren't quite seeing eye to eye.

One is on the scope of the discussion. I'm not quite clear on what NonEntity thinks this is. On one hand, he's said ""I DON'T find it hunky dory that other people make major decisions concerning my life.", which suggests that everything with a major impact should involve him (but which isn't feasible: a drug company choosing not to manufacture a drug which would save his life seems clearly outside the relevant scope, given his comments on weather, competing businesses, etc).

NonEntity almost hit the nail on the head when he said "It appears that in order for an interaction to be voluntary in your world that there only be one person in that world - you." Danny seems to almost have said the same thing, but in the context of all interactions: "Pure voluntariness is an absurd criterion: your sphere of influence over the things that happen in your life is inherently very limited. That standard can only be met in seclusion." Danny's conception, as far as I can tell, says that individual interactions can be voluntary, but that not everything is.

The other area of disagreement I see is terminology. It seems that Danny is saying that given his understanding, the term for what NonEntity is describing is actually "non-interference". NonEntity keeps describing something which appears to be in accordance with this term, but calling it "voluntaryism", which is a term Danny defines differently. If you are actually referring to roughly the same concept but have this terminological dispute, recognizing that may make each other's arguments look a good deal more sensible.

As a side effect of this terminology dispute, Danny's "two competitors in a free market" example can either look perfectly clear (the competitors ignore each other, but have actions which impact each other, so it's neither coercive nor voluntary, so it's a wrong against voluntarism, as it's not voluntary) or absolutely insane (they're ignoring each other, how is this relevant? It doesn't make any sense).