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'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:Property.png]]Property
Any action dictated by values, if ask yourself many many times why you did something, you find it. And for me this value is negative liberty. What is required to maximize it? Obviously, first thing required is selfownership, if someone else owns you, you are slave, opposite of being free. What is next? Can person own something else except himself? Let's assume everything else have no owner, and nobody can own it. In this case, you cannot interact with anything, can't even touch. What if everything is owned by everyone? In this case, you must ask everyone whether or not you can use anything, that's absurd because every action would take insane amount of time to performe. We can conclude, that ownership outside of your body must have a condition. There are two of them: claiming by word and claiming by action. Claim by word wouldn't be enough because it would require one to transmit this information about ownership constantly to all nearby people, meanwhile action is visible to everyone who stamble upon such property.

Thus, I can conclude that Lockean way of receiving property initially is required. That covers not only private property but also "personal" property, temporal characteristic of property in Mutualism, property in Gift Economy, even Communalism. Difference with them goes not in a fact that person can own and use resources, but how. By itself concept of property between different ideologies have enough in common to form voluntary associations between different views on it (with exception of Communalism, which is a strawman anyway).

Now I would like to explain how exactly I see property working in defferent systems:
 * [[File:Communalist.png]] - people claim ownership by action, but they cannot refuse a trade, on the other hand the person who took something from you cannot refuse trade either. I didn't expect much from a concept done for fun.
 * [[File:GE.png]] - people claim ownership by action, trade is voluntary, you can gift something back in the same time or later. Renting is impossible since you can't agree on returning ownership back.
 * [[File:Marketsoc.png]] - You cannot rent property therefore cannot hire workers, you need to share property with them for it. It seems to me as even harsher system than capitalism, and capitalism is going in this direction. [[File:Mutalist.png]]Prudon proposed duration of ownership, that you need to physically touch it from time to time, to continue for it to be yours. This condition doesn't affect freedom from my perspective.
 * [[File:Cap.png]] - Hire, Rent, Gift, everything you can do there.  We as capitalists don't care how people will use their property, what cannot be said for other systems. Ownership is permanent.
 * [[File:Soc-h.png]] - What they mostly focused about is needs oriented economy. All labor result is owned collectively by the whole commune, distributed through direct democracy, communes are volantire, obviously people of greater, rarer skill will get what they want or leave somewhere their skills would be valued fairer, while less demanded labor will be rewarded with minimum wage (food and shelter) or even kicked out of the commune, practically resulting in Market Socialism.
 * [[File:Cameralism.png]] [[File:Statesoc.png]] [[File:Statecap.png]] [[File:Corptism.png]] [[File:Socauth.png]] State Economy - I don't see difference between them. If voluntary association decided that it is the best for them, it's fine. All resources belongs to one entity. Trade, Rent, Gift forbidden or regulated.
 * [[File:Illeg.png]] - Involuntary trade as well as Communalism. Both sides are not equal in actions to choose, I don't see difference with what state does usually.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] - TBA

[[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
 * [[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
 * [[File:Potashism.png]] Potashism -
 * [[File:Bsaheedism-icon.png]] Bsaheedism

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 strictly against markets.
 * [[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 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

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.