In this new series we will be talking about the fundamentals of anarchism/voluntaryism.
I would have thought writing such a series would be silly a mere three or four years ago, as it seemed these things were basically understood by most voluntaryists.
Even the title “VOLUNTARY-ist” literally spells out the fundamental, central axiomatic tenet which is, namely, the reality of individual-self-ownership and the resulting logical conclusion that ALL HUMAN INTERACTION SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY.
It seems, however, that many self-labeled “voluntaryists” are particularly susceptible to the dazzling bright lights of election seasons, the cultural biases that come with living in various geo-political regions, and the strange notion that even as a voluntaryist, it is sometimes okay to compromise the lives of “just a few” individuals to bring about a “greater good.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. By defintion, if it ain’t voluntary, it ain’t voluntaryism. Get it?
Today’s Lesson: Voting.
In the same way that this:
does not grant its wearer magical authority over other human beings,
Neither does this:
grant the winner magical authority over anyone or anything.
Why not? Because said “authority,” in both cases, is not voluntarily and consensually recognized.
It doesn’t matter if the police officer or winning candidate is trying to do some great work “for the people,” or for the “greater good.” The process itself, being force-based (relying on the initiation of force against non-violent individuals) is illegitimate as per voluntaryist property ethic.
Even in cases such as local votes, where some vote may bring about temporary relief from the state’s violence in some fashion, there is always another side to the coin. The shadow side.
Take cannabis legalization for example. Users of the plant may be very happy. Those extorted “taxpayers” who now have to pay for all the new bureaucracy and regulatory bodies surrounding the newly legalized drug may not be so happy.
Is the act itself of voting violent? No. Is it immoral? Yes. Are the results of votes always violent? Yes. Someone always is violated. The process itself is based on an unethical violent foundation.
Is the “authority” granted by this violent, force-based process ever legitimate as per voluntaryist standards?
No.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)