Individual Voluntaryism

[[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
People form a voluntary association based on the agreement they made. It would be small, around 150 people, and it wouldn't be constant, since people change their mind, they might start to dislike their agreement in the future. There is no need for specific economic model, but probably they will agree on  or. How land for individual ownership will be distributed is only a concern of the agreement, it means all members must be satisfied with borders they want to establish, which makes property collective concept. I don't believe in labor theory of value, not going to follow anarchists tradition of,   or. Instead I prefer value subjectivity of marginalists, which among anarchists is only used by. I'm not sure what economic model aligns with this, but I guess it is.

[[File:Authunity.png]] Auth or [[File:Libunity-yellow.png]] Libert
Since association is voluntary relations are purely anarchic, people that break the agreement will probably leave by themself or start to work against association, which will lead to their death. Nothing can be said about it's position on compass, and it have "right" to do anything. It can be subjugated by stronger individuals or it can subjugate all others, act like an  class inside of hierarchical structure. I cannot preduct whether equal stances of relations between associations are possible.

[[File:Indust.png]] Technological progress [[File:Neotribe.png]]
Industrialism and mass society are closely related, but mass society is impossible without coercion, if we value individual we must put pursute of progress aside. But don't misunderstand me, I'm not against such progress, I even believe it is vital to protect communes or cooperatives from threats and will be happy to see advancment inside of atomized society.

[[File:Aoir.png]] Anarchy(ism) [[File:Awaj.png]]
Many people raise here Ancient Greek translation of this word, but do we actually care? I do not accept authority of the dictionary nor authority of majority, as long as people understand what I mean - it is fine. So for me anarchy is absence of coercion, it means no individual can enforce his will upon you, so to achieve Anarchy you either need to kill everyone or to become the strongest individual, both of them are utopian goals that cannot be achieved, however you can create anarchic relations inside this world of endless coercion, form a small unity where everyone use eachother out of common interest. You don't need to view anarchy as a political regime, but type of relation between people, you already formed anarchy with people that you call friends, you only need to expand this network.

[[File:Poststruct.png]] Why we should all become post-structuralists
Modern state supporters often say conflicting things, you shouldn't try to find coherent believes they can present one value today and mirror opposite of it tomorrow. It is because they have no values, only the will to power and it makes them stronger, Machiavellian idea that amorality makes individual stronger, combined with rejection of metanarrative allows them to win any debate, once you give them any idea you believe is important, they will deconstruct it and use against you.

This is why we need to accept that metanarratives doesn't exist. You have only two options, become statist, and accept that only power accomulation matters, or take freedom of association, because there is nothing else what you can offer against them.

Alignments
Ideologies= Positive: Neutral: Negative: Self-Inserts=
 * [[File:Neotribe.png]] Neotribalism - Oh God, it is literally me!
 * [[File:Egomut.png]] - Only might and contract exist.
 * [[File:Sep.png]] - The State's property right supported only by might.
 * [[File:Existentialist_Anarchism.png]] - There will never be the end of the history.
 * [[File:Socan2.png]] - If Inky is right on this one, I generally like stance on property and acceptance of market economy.
 * [[File:Illeg.png]] - Initially I was against such association, but actually it have nothing in common with organized crime. Anyway, such activism today is a direct road to jail.
 * [[File:Panarchy.png]] - If only morality was universal...
 * [[File:Volu.png]] - I know some theorists there that reject natural rights, but I guess common image of this ideology envisioned like Radical Liberalism.
 * [[File:Avar.png]] - Hedonism is an option too, but I am not taking this, however if it is true and all people do only what they want, then I am indeed an avaritionist.
 * [[File:Indlibsoc.png]] - Not a fan of anti-work, it also advocates for abolishment of any property whatsoever, explains socialism like its heaven on earth: no pain, no hardships.
 * [[File:Antwork.png]] Anti-Work - It doesn't work.
 * [[File:Situ.png]] - It is so easy to put failure of your ideas on propaganda. But putting it aside, since 1960 left-wing ideas winning everywhere, 90% of the philosophers, screenwriter, writers are socialists or around that, evil corporation became cliche, critique of capitalism is literally everywhere.
 * [[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 anarcho-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:Vesselism_icon.png]] Vesselism - Basically me, but hey, what's the deal with virtue ethics?
 * [[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:Bsaheedism-icon.png]] Bsaheedism - Wholesome individual.
 * [[File:Ioist.png]] - You made a claim on your page that you use Utilitarianism, but in our conversation you showed that you don't like a negative part of it, may your journey show all flaws this ethics consists.
 * [[File:Ashley.png]] AshleyHere Thought - Based social and individual anarchism synthesis.

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:XT.png]] XarTario - A lot of state coercion, but allows to separate from it.
 * [[File:Tomjaz.png]] Tomjazzism - Confederalism is nice. You like Mutualism, I can't align myself with it since it believes in labor theory of value, you might not like it too, idk. And also another "objective" idea, is universal morality, I really would like to learn what theory backs it up.

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 would call Social Contract fixed idea.
 * [[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 - Taxation for owning land is robbery.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - I don't want to pay taxes.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - I don't want to pay taxes.

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 Gustave de Molinari - The Evenings of the Rue Saint-Lazare, Eleventh Evening Roderick T. Long - A Panarchist Anthology Benjamin Tucker - Individual Liberty Kaneko Fumiko - Because I Wanted To Max Stirner - The Unique and Its Property Robert LeFevre - Autarchy Versus Anarchy

Plan to read
Benjamin Tucker - Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One Sigmund Freud - Civilization and it's Disconnects

Comments
XarTario - Were you ever influenced by panarchism? Apparently, voluntary associations don't need a specific economic system but have specific/preferred ways on their economies, so for monetary wages, will there also be a co-existence to also pay people with food and essential resources for working or do they have specific/preferred ways to do wages? For anyone that refuses to sign a non-aggression contract, wouldn't that encourage certain people, certain entities, certain state and local governments, etc. to segregate them in/exclude them from society? Lastly, can I be added to your self-insert relations section, depending on how incomplete my self-insert page is?
 * - 1. Yes, I was influenced by panarchism, but panarchism imposes certain limitations that makes it incompatible with voluntaryism. 2. As I told association will probably be part of a larger system, so between each other they might use money issued by government, or will use gold, or will exchange items, doesn't matter. 3.Not only segregate, look how government deal with groups that don't obey, people get in jail, depends on situation, it might be that such association would be impossible to segregate because it provides valueble services. 4. No just like 2 countries doesn't create society, association will be always separate from it, only people inside of association is a society.  5. I will read it closely and decide later.

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 course.

Liberty-Loverism -Why kratorocracy?
 * - It is how this world works, to have even basic rights like right to live or right to use results of your labor, you must have might, I don't believe we all can just agree to respect them, because people have their own understanding of what is good, and what is justice.

Pantheon - Add me liberal.