Individual Voluntaryism

Запёкшуюся тряпку заскорузлого права

Всемирные солдаты заучили дословно

Единственный параграф мирового устава:

Соблюдай лишь один закон

Соблюдай лишь один закон

Соблюдай лишь один закон

Кто сильнее-тот и прав!

[[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 I never saw explanation in other ideologies. I didn't finish reading it yet, but it seems like panarchy doesn't accept  of one association from other one or from all of them, but it defeats the idea of "Everyone gets what they wants". 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
"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.

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:Sep.png]] - The State's property right supported only by might.
 * [[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: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:Illeg.png]] - Depends on context.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - Global market is great, but everything else about this ideology isn't. World today could be worse.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]]  & [[File:GE.png]]  &  [[File:Marketsoc.png]]  - Nothing stops people from practicing this economic model between eachother under capitalism. So, I assume you all just want to enforce others to practice what you believe fair.
 * [[File:Soc-h.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.

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.

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:Potashism.png]] Potashism - Not against market relationships.
 * [[File:Bsaheedism-icon.png]] Bsaheedism - Horrible posthumanism, but not against voluntary hierarchies.
 * [[File:Anbun.png]] Anarcho-Buniism - I don't want to live under syndicalism, but at least I don't have to.

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 moral nihilist.
 * [[File:ChronicFemcel-newicon.png]] ChronicFemcel Thought - Robber.
 * [[File:NguyenreichismIcon.png]] Bruhman Thought - Literally admited he wants to kill me.
 * [[File:Tony.png]] Retroliberalism - Robber.

Political stuff I read
George Orwell - 1984 Saul Newman - The Politics of Postanarchism Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson Bob Black - An Anarchist Response to Crime Bob Black - The Abolition of Work Jonas Nilsson - Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn Paul Émile de Puydt - Panarchy Adam Knott - Principles of Panarchism the philosophy of political coexistence Max Borders - The Real Social Contract Max Borders - Towards YouTopia Max Nettlau - Panarchy. A forgotten idea of 1860 Robert Nozick - Anachy, State and Utopia Hans-Hermann Hoppe - The Ultimate Justification of Private Property Ethics Murray N. Rothbard - Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State Gustave de Molinari - On the Production of Security

Plan to read
Gian Piero de Bellis - On Panarchy. A brief review and a personal view Gian Piero de Bellis - Discovering de Puydt

Gustave de Molinari - The Evenings of the Rue Saint-Lazare, Eleventh Evening

Charles de Brouckère - Review of Panarchy by Paul-Émile de Puydt

Werner Ackermann - The Cosmopolitan Union

Le Grand E. Day - The Theory of Multigovernment Le Grand E. Day - The Northridge Incident Le Grand E. Day - A Letter from the Future Le Grand E. Day - Writings on Panarchy

John Gall - Systemantics

John Zube - On Tolerance John Zube - The Gospel of Panarchy John Zube - Some Notes for a Talk on Panarchism to Anarchists John Zube - Further Notes on Panarchism and Anarchism John Zube - Anarchy, Panarchy and Statism John Zube - The Road to Voluntarism John Zube - Some Panarchistic Notions John Zube - Panarchy. Described by the simple system of Aphthonius John Zube - Notes on panarchy and post-territorialism John Zube - Thoughts on Panarchy John Zube - Hyphenated Libertarianism John Zube - Alternatives John Zube - Plans for Action

Carl Watner - The Struggle for Religious Freedom and the Voluntaryist Tradition Carl Watner - The Exit Option Carl Watner - Ropes of Sand: Voluntaryism and Secessionism Carl Watner - The Territorial Assumption: Rationale for Conquest

David Taylor - For Panarchy

Roderick T. Long - Virtual Cantons Roderick T. Long - One Nation, Two Systems: The Doughnut Model Roderick T. Long - A Panarchist Anthology

Yves Plasseraud - Choose Your Own Nationality

Bruno S. Frey - A Utopia? Government without Territorial Monopoly

Gene Callahan - The Right to Walk Away

Richard C.B. Johnsson - Non-Territorial Governance, Mankind's Forgotten Legacy Richard C.B. Johnsson - To the Monopolists of All Parties Richard C.B. Johnsson - Territoriality vs. Land Property

Michael S. Rozeff - A Foundation for Panarchy Michael S. Rozeff - Everything the Government Touches ... Michael S. Rozeff - For the Freedom of Political Association Michael S. Rozeff - Why Government Should Be Voluntarily Chosen Michael S. Rozeff - Liberty in the Choice of Governance Michael S. Rozeff - A Society of Contract and Consent Michael S. Rozeff - Why I Am a Panarchist Michael S. Rozeff - Essentials of Panarchism Michael S. Rozeff - Do You Really Want To Be a Republican or a Democrat? Michael S. Rozeff - Personal Secession – The Way to Freedom

Adam Knott - The Present State of Liberty Adam Knott - The Practice of Panarchism Adam Knott - The Problem of Libertarianism

Aviezer Tucker - The Panarchist Solution. Sovereignty without Territory, Emigration without Movement

Susanne Tarkowski - To be governed by TED (Talk on personal choice and non-territorial governance)

Paul Bonneau - Panarchy, not Anarchy, Is the Answer Paul Bonneau - Everyone gets what he wants Paul Bonneau - Private Property vs. 'Your Stuff' Paul Bonneau - The Advantage of Panarchy Paul Bonneau - A Method for Achieving Panarchy

Trent MacDonald - The Unbundled State

James Clayton - unSTATEd? (from a Canadian perspective) James Clayton - Mutual Non-aggression Is Mutually Beneficial

Arnold Kling - Exit, Voice, and Freedom: An Example

James Herod - Palestine: The No-State Solution

Dwight Johnson - The end of modern serfdom

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?
 * [[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.