Individual Voluntaryism

"This is the old self-insert of . Honestly I don't know which one of them is really me, but if you are curious check the new one ."

[[File:Consti.png]] Social Contract
War of all against all never actually ended, we might say that social contract was established in Switzerland and  USA, but certainly not anywhere else. Social contract by definiton is a consent to surrender some of your freedoms in exchange for protection of your remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Many libertarians believe in the NAP, non-agression principle, but it is basically a natural right, which automatically applied on all human beings. Instead I want a non-agression contract, only those who accepted it recieve it's benefits and limitations. To end the war we need to sign one, and anyone who will refuse it, just prefer a "state of nature", thus will be treated as enemies. Everything further will only describe society that is bound by this agreement. Relationships with those who aren't can be described with one of the Anarchy of international relations theories.

[[File:Leftunity.png]] Left or [[File:Rightunity-yellow.png]] Right
My preferable social structure is, people form voluntary association or choose existing ones to live in it. It is what some,  ,   and   propose, but I favour ancap's distribution of land system, because some associatons, would prefer   for privacy, because of xenophobia or out of religious concerns. I'm right because of it, but inside of association people can form any economic model: ,  ,  ,  , it doesn't matter for me.

[[File:Authunity.png]] Auth or [[File:Libunity-yellow.png]] Libert
Every association is voluntary, so owner can't hold people and can't include them against their will, unless they made irreversable damage, everyone should be able to leave. I'm libertarian because of it, even tho, there are systems that offers the same and considered authoritarian, but aside from this, all other rules, laws and fines can be very strict or very loose, it doesn't matter for me.

[[File:Reactcross.png]] React or [[File:Prog-u.png]] Prog
It doesn't affect anything sugnificant, both can live separate from each other.

[[File:Envi.png]] Enviroment or [[File:Indust.png]] Industry
As you can guess idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't fit there... well, it doesn't exist then. However all other problems, proven or not can be fought locally by associations however they see possible.

[[File:Deontology.png]] Deontological Ethics [[File:Kant2.png]]
"Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" - Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor

[[File:Egoimp.png]] Politics are always about coercion [[File:Libhawk.png]]
It took me some time to realise, but full voluntaryism is impossible. Since I believe that peace for people like me can only be achieved by enforcing idea to everyone around that our property is ours and we can use it however we like. Socialists have other opinion, if they don't, why they didn't made socialism between eachother extraterrestrialy? The same applies to market socialists and georgists, obviously they want to enforce others, maybe capitalism is less demanding but still, it is political, not another lifestyle.

Let's say I and people like me created an agreement, whoever outside of it will not respect our property, just like the state doesn't respect it, we will eliminate them, or enforce to accept our agreement, and will go further until the last enemy is defeated, that happened with liberalism, but it would happen with any other ideology as well.

On property
In the 1690th John Locke formulated labor theory of property, for resource to become your property, you need to combine your labour with it. As you can see today, this principle does not apply, some places of untouched land are under ownership and technically whole territory is under state control, which ownership all right libertarians deny. But Lockean principle is not comfortable to use today for various reasons. Alternative of it is to only count property as owned when owner is ready to protect it. In this case, untouched nature can be under ownership and abandoned structures not permanently unaccessible.

Overall there are only two ways to ensure property rights, by might and by contract, contract should include everyone around you, it means they must be satisfied with borders you want to establish, which makes property collective.

Alignments
Ideologies= Positive: Neutral: Negative: Self-Inserts=
 * [[File:Panarchy.png]] - To stop the terrorism and fight for power, we just need to allow people to pursue their happiness however they want.
 * [[File:Ancapf.png]] - I can't say it is an anarchism, and capitalism only on macro scale, demand for market regulations is still a demand which market can satisfy.
 * [[File:Cball-CSA.png]] - Friendly relationships between independent states. Closest to the perfection from all practiced ideologies.
 * [[File:Neocam.png]] - One of the possible expressions of propertarian ethics. Only one condition have to be maintained and it is freedom to leave, Moldbug himself explains, that it is in their best interest to keep this freedom for free movement of capital. Oh well, if it would work in praxis I wouldn't care how auth or libert it is.
 * [[File:Sep.png]] - The State's property right supported only by might.
 * [[File:Anmona.png]] - Supporter of voluntary hierarchies.
 * [[File:Paleolib.png]] - Since they support confeds, I'm sure they are fine with self determination.
 * [[File:Neolud.png]] - The way I see his story, is that he wanted to live alone, but others came and attacked his property (forest), so he started to defend it. I don't know his followers, but doubt they think the same.
 * [[File:Existentialist_Anarchism.png]] - There will never be the end of the history.
 * [[File:Socan2.png]] - More realistic version of [[File:Ancom.png]], I can even consider it closer to Anarcho-Capitalism then Mutualism.
 * [[File:Egomut.png]] - Tucker has greatly influenced anarcho-capitalism, and he moved away from mutualism significantly to be called georgist, since the land question is the only question where we disagree.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - Global market is great, but everything else about this ideology isn't. World today could be worse.
 * [[File:MoralNihil.png]] Moral Nihilism
 * [[File:Consequentialism.png]] Consequentialism
 * [[File:Utility.png]] Utilitarianism
 * [[File:Humanismpix.png]]

Friendly

 * [[File:Heinrich.png]] Heinrich-Cheungism - His endgoal is horrible, but he also believes his system can be build after anacho-capitalism.
 * [[File:TechEsoFash.png]] Techno-Esoteric Fascism - Did something change? Also uploading mind in a computer will kill your soul.
 * [[File:Inky.png]] Inkyism - His endgoal is fine, but he also a strong supporter of austrian economics school, so we have no ground for debate.
 * [[File:Anbun.png]] Anarcho-Buniism - Helped me many times, despite not being property supporter.

Ideologically close

 * [[File:JoeyFloppa_boo.png]] JoeyFloppaism
 * [[File:Polfaxicon.png]] Neo-Polfaxism
 * [[File:Vesselism_icon.png]] Vesselism - Basically me, but hey, what's the deal with virtue ethics?
 * [[File:Libcon.png]] ResponsibleCitizen
 * [[File:Lexsiek1.png]] Lexsiek - Transhumanism is nice as a mean to live normal life for people that did survive horrible incidents, but brain modifications or replacement is basically a murder. I'm not against euthanasia or right to suicide anyway. I don't believe agorism will make any change, but doing something is better than doing nothing.
 * [[File:Icecream6969.png]] Davilandism - Have to agree Anarcho-Capitalism is neofeudalism, but pure feudalism have cringe slavery.
 * [[File:R-i.png]] Neo-Bannnedism - Freedom of movement, gun rights and property rights - this is all I would ever want.

Negotiable
I wouldn't want to live in their vision of the perfect society, but atleast they give right to secess.
 * [[File:BeryAbLib.png]] Beryism - I have contradictionary feeling, on the one hand he is ok with self determination i.e not participating in his system, on the other he is georgist, system that treats anyone who holds land as a thief.
 * [[File:Tony567(2).png]] Tony567 Thought - Same as above, why do you even believe georgism can be pluralistic?
 * [[File:Potashism.png]] Potashism - Not against market relationships.
 * [[File:HelloThere314Icon.png]] HelloThere314ism - Georgism and pluralism again, well, if you believe its possible, we can agree with each other.

Opponents

 * [[File:Councilguy2.png]] Post-Councilism - Robber.
 * [[File:Ultro.png]] Ultroneism - Interesting to talk with, radicalized me to accept greater degree of decentralisation and inspired to read more philosophy. But he is Postmodernist.
 * [[File:ChronicFemcel-newicon.png]] ChronicFemcel Thought - Robber.
 * [[File:NguyenreichismIcon.png]] Bruhman Thought - Literally admited he wants to kill me.
 * [[File:Tony.png]] Retroliberalism - Robber.
 * [[File:TheIced.png]] The Iced - We both like Switzerland, but I suppose for a different reason, it's not less "federalist" than USA. Moderate federalism for me is a sign that people are not allowed to leave, and georgism is a sign that people are not allowed to even do what they want on their land. I wouldn't hate that system if I would be in it, tho.
 * [[File:Annilfemalev5.png]] AshleyHere Thought - Moral nihilist.

Comments
Tony- Quick question what do you not like about retroliberlaism i thought it would be put in negotiable
 * [[File:Duckf.png]] - Taxation and state internet control would mean you can't allow people to quit your model and live their own life.

- Really cool you added me to the alligments, but a couple of questions. 1: How do you plan to achieve your ideology if not throught something similar to agorism? do you just think revoluntion is going to work? And even if you did overthrow the governemnt you think it's throught revoluntion you'll have a stable foundation from which you can create your ideal world? 2: Why would putting your conciousness in a computer and literally becoming immortal be murder? shouldn't it be the literal opposite of murder? The Iced - Add me, please?
 * [[File:Duckf.png]] - 1. I really don't have 100% safe scenario. Revolution have risks but I think it worth to try. Agorism on the other hand... Imagine you will succeed and a lot of people will stop paying taxes, does it mean state will surrender? Obviously no, they will take what they need to exist by force, and if you will start to resist it won't be any different from civil war. 2. Just my religious beliefs, I don't accept determinism, but science is pretty sure that there is no free will, science is designed to formulate laws and to use them to predict future, but absence of free will makes such value as liberty - pointless. If I believe in free will I must seek answers outside of scientific field and to accept metaphysical explanation, such as soul, and if we don't have any means to interact with it, then we are pretty much bound to our brain. This thought experiment convinced me Teletransportation_paradox.
 * - I think simply calling myself an agorist isn't too honest, agorism, crypto-anarchism and others are more of my way to create this "foundation" for an anarchist society, we create non-state alternatives to state services and help people become more independent from the state in every way we can, but at the end we will need a little bit of force to defend our freedom when the state realizes what's happening, I think the best way to achieve my and your goals is slowly bulding up the pillars for anarchy, a gradual change. because if you just dismantle the state you'll have a society with no structure, only a power vacuum, you'll create a short period of chaos that will kill a lot of people, then you get various groups trying to stop the chaos and gain power which creates a civil war and then you get another state, probably more tyranical and corrupt than the last. I won't talk about the 2 because I don't want to start discussing religion and stuff. Anyways, thank you for the response.

AshleyHere - Bruh I’m not a nihilist for rejecting morality.
 * [[File:Duckf.png]] - People who rejected morality are called moral nihilists.

- Add me?

HelloThere314 - I think you greatly misunderstand me. I despise plurality, I focus my efforts on the individual. My collectivism is out of a common interest of individuality through unions of egoists. My georgist leanings come from my perception of land being the greatest factor in production. You also seriously misunderstand compost as well as well as egoism.
 * - My bad, I thought plurality is a central part of pluralism, but it means something completly different, what I basically meant is tolerance toward different ways of organisation. About last part, I didn't tell you anything or expressed anything on this page, you can list where exactly I'm wrong on my understanding, we can continue in discord, if you want it of cource.