Questions about Voluntaryism

[pondjohn]

Hi Roger/all,

I've been reading about voluntaryism and I had a few questions. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Who owns resources such as National Parks?

In fact, how is any property ownership determined?

[rogerver]

If you ask 5 different libertarians, you will likely get at least 6 different answers, especially regarding the national parks.

Im a fan of the John Locke idea, that you own your own body, so you own your own body's labor.
If you then mix your own labor with something in nature that was previously unowned, like cutting down trees and building a house for example, it then becomes your property because it contains your labor that clearly is your own property.
This is why slavery is wrong. (You are stealing someone's labor directly)
It is also why property theft is wrong. (You are stealing something that contains someone's labor)

Regarding national parks, I'm a fan of Harry Browne's idea of auctioning them all off over a couple years, and using the proceeds to buy private annuities for everyone who has been promised a government pension of some sort. Everyone already over 40 or 45 who has been promised Social Security, for example. Everyone else under that age would be set free from the Social Security tax and would be free to plan for their own retirements however they would like.

I'm curious to hear where you have been reading up on Voluntaryism, and where you first heard about it.
Thanks for taking the time to participate!

[pondjohn]

Thank you for you response Roger.

I read that you had wanted to debate Bernie Sanders, which pointed m towards your belief in Voluntaryism. Looking at my history I read from francoistremblay.wordpress.com, voluntaryist.com and notbeinggoverned.com

My initial reaction was probably the same to most people, I'm sceptical and a statist. However, I believe in further enquiry and keeping an open mind, and reading about it created a lot of questions I thought I would seek answers for.

Your response kind of leads me to my next question... Voluntaryism seems to have a consensus problem. You said that even voluntaryists themselves likely can't form a consensus on the National Parks.

Humans all have hugely different wants, needs and world views. How on earth do you begin to meet all those wants and needs?

Like the National Parks, some people believe that the National Parks should be preserved, that people shouldn't chop down trees or build homes there, that everybody should be able to go and enjoy nature. If you go and start chopping trees down and building on that land, doesn't that deny other people's mutual consent?

That should be an easy one. Especially when it comes to getting mutual consent on conflicting religious ideas. How do you even begin to work parts of the world that are deeply fragmented by conflicting world views? What happens to Jerusalem?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Thank you for you response Roger.

I read that you had wanted to debate Bernie Sanders, which pointed m towards your belief in Voluntaryism. Looking at my history I read from francoistremblay.wordpress.com, voluntaryist.com and notbeinggoverned.com

My initial reaction was probably the same to most people, I'm sceptical and a statist. However, I believe in further enquiry and keeping an open mind, and reading about it created a lot of questions I thought I would seek answers for.

Your response kind of leads me to my next question... Voluntaryism seems to have a consensus problem. You said that even voluntaryists themselves likely can't form a consensus on the National Parks.

Humans all have hugely different wants, needs and world views. How on earth do you begin to meet all those wants and needs?

Like the National Parks, some people believe that the National Parks should be preserved, that people shouldn't chop down trees or build homes there, that everybody should be able to go and enjoy nature. If you go and start chopping trees down and building on that land, doesn't that deny other people's mutual consent?

That should be an easy one. Especially when it comes to getting mutual consent on conflicting religious ideas. How do you even begin to work parts of the world that are deeply fragmented by conflicting world views? What happens to Jerusalem?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

In Bitcoins case, you can't form consensus with those who have committed property theft.

[rogerver]

Sorry for taking so long to reply!

Your response kind of leads me to my next question... Voluntaryism seems to have a consensus problem. You said that even voluntaryists themselves likely can't form a consensus on the National Parks.

Maybe there is disagreement on the specifics on how to get from the crazy world we have today to one based on self ownership and the non agression principle, but all voluntaryists agree that it should be done without violence.

Humans all have hugely different wants, needs and world views. How on earth do you begin to meet all those wants and needs?

Those wants and needs should all be met in a million different ways, but without violence.

Like the National Parks, some people believe that the National Parks should be preserved, that people shouldn't chop down trees or build homes there, that everybody should be able to go and enjoy nature. If you go and start chopping trees down and building on that land, doesn't that deny other people's mutual consent?

I don't necessarily have an answer for you on this one either, but I can tell you that I'm not willing to kill anyone over a tree or a national park. Many groups like the Sierra Club and others, raise funds to buy land solely for the purpose of conserving it. I'm sure many people who value this sort of thing would be willing to donate money towards it.

That should be an easy one. Especially when it comes to getting mutual consent on conflicting religious ideas. How do you even begin to work parts of the world that are deeply fragmented by conflicting world views?

I suppose my answers may sound repetitive, but I think they are true. I don't know how every situation should be handled, but they should be handled without initiatory violence. Any one should be allowed to believe anything they want, and do anything that is peaceful.

What happens to Jerusalem?

Obviously there is a bit of a mess there, but it seems that the vast majority of that mess has been created by the competing governments vying for control of that area. Since I don't even believe in the very existence of States, I suppose that whole area should be left to the closest thing there is to a current owner for each parcel. Any "Govt" owned assets should be auctioned off with the proceeds used to pay any government debts.
Everything you have asked about are difficult problems, but just because there are difficult problems in the world, I don't think that justifies the existence of a ruling class that get to boss everyone else around. I own myself, and you own you. Just because we can't agree on the best way to handle forest conservation doesn't mean that another group of people get to boss everyone else around.
I really love how this short video sums things up:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4pXwmis7A

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

Thank you too! I love these sorts of conversations, but with all the Bitcoin work, it is hard to make the time.