Audience

This message is for people who accept science as their epistemological paradigm. You purse truth above all other epistemological goals. You avoid unwarranted conclusions when you have time to consider them. More specifically, if in some unusual situation you were to draw a conclusion for which there is no evidence you would judiciously avoid using that kind of conclusion as a justification to act against the will of a peaceful person. If you accept those principles, then this message is for you, otherwise you are not the intended audience and you will not see explanations to address your beliefs and assumptions.

If you are already a voluntaryist, anarchist, or Libertarian and support your position with theological arguments about God or rights that come from God, this is not for you. I will make a negative argument that does not rely on rights or divine beings.

My Assumptions and Argument

Six Points

1. I will be addressing relationships among adults in this blog. I am not addressing relationships (here or in my other posts unless I clearly state otherwise) that include children or people who would be judged mentally incompetent.
2. About you:
       A. You have a preference to live in a society in which people do not initiate force against peaceful people.
       B. You are willing to abide by a principle of not initiating force against peaceful people.
3. Governments initiate force and use threats of force against peaceful people to implement policies.
4. It would be an empirical claim to suggest that governments are doing something different from using ordinary coercion against peaceful people (i.e., that the use of force is somehow appropriate and not merely instrumental to achieve a goal that was subjectively chosen in violation of the will of other peaceful people).
5. There is a lack of objective evidence to suggest that one person is morally superior to another in a way that gives that person some type of special privilege to control the behavior of a peaceful person against that person's will to achieve a subjectively chosen goal. Your subjective preferences are not objectively better than mine.
6. There is a lack of objective evidence to suggest that the force initiated by governments against peaceful people is different from ordinary coercion. This coercion is in violation of my subjective preference to live in a society in which people do not initiate force against peaceful people. It would be internally inconsistent for me to support the current form of government.

That's it! For people who already think scientifically and have the courage to reject a belief that exists in the absence of evidence, the argument above should start you on the path of voluntaryism. The task of ridding yourself of unwarranted beliefs is easier said than done. I struggled for 6 months trying to reconcile my knowledge of science and a moral perception about nature.

Your First Response

If you are new to voluntaryism, you probably have a bundle of beliefs and worries about what might happen if you start to remove your support of government. Don't worry, your next steps are not all-or-nothing. You can withdraw your support for illegitimate government in your area. You can speak against tyranny in your area. You can adjust your actions as you see fit to adapt to a changing future. Maybe in negotiations with others, you tolerate some type of government action. You are in control of your actions, and where you will end up, I don't know.

How Will Society Function Without Government?

First, let me say that I do not expect an overnight transition to anarchism that leaves millions of people unprepared to live without government handouts. There will be plenty of opportunities for you to adapt to changing circumstances over the years. Barring an apocalypse or civil war, I suspect that any movement toward voluntaryism would first look something more like a small government (Libertarian style), meaning that you would have plenty of time to contemplate.

People who are new to anarchism and voluntaryism often avoid changing their mind about the legitimacy of government until after they see a clear picture of how society will function in the distant future. If this is the case for you, I have not communicated what I was trying to communicate.

I was trying to communicate that the acts of government are not worthy of support regardless of the outcome. If you fear that you might not have a iPhone if the government changes, and you continue to support the government for that purpose, then it sounds like you condone using force against peaceful people if you benefit financially. I suggest you steal from old ladies if that is how you think--you will benefit financially by initiating force against peaceful people.

The most sudden change that I could predict (in my lifetime for people in the USA) is the possibility that the federal government will be either removed or reduced as a result of a convention of states (see also https://conventionofstates.com/). That would leave state and local governments. In places like California, it probably means an outright switch to socialism. In other states, it might mean smaller government. In some states it might mean that Christianity is the state religion. I don't know, but there might be some states that are more free.

Unlike other voluntaryists, I do not claim that a fully voluntaryist planet or voluntaryists USA is likely or that it would result in great financial increases for all. I suspect that there would be extreme conflict between the poorest people and everyone else. I don't see that conflict as a result of voluntaryism as much as I see it as a result of government policies that have created an entire class of people who have now become generationally unemployable and incapable of sustaining themselves. The harm has already happened, the scale of that harm increases each year, and the longer we wait, the harder that transition will be. Regardless of the accuracy of my predictions here, I do know that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that government is legitimate.

If anarchism were to happen tonight, I would expect other types of conflict to happen... much like the situation in Iraq after the USA "liberated" it. That does not have to be the case if people adopt a few principles related to intellectual humility and keeping their hands to themselves. I will be outlining those principles in this blog. The first look at them is here. If the philosophical change happens first, the reduction in state-sponsored initiation of force against peaceful people would easier to attain.

About This Blog and This Post

This blog is mostly about finding ways to communicate so that we can reach a mutual understanding and agree to not harm peaceful people.

Please resteem! There is more content coming, so follow me! https://steemit.com/@cnacws.

I am open to suggestions and talking with people of all political persuasions, so leave a comment.

thx