Talk:Voluntaryism

"The Voluntaryist' was apparently a periodical. I am going to put its "Statement of Purpose" in the article. Hogeye 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

If I find the time, I'll try to remember to improve this article. Voluntaryism is discussed some in Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. It could be a useful source. Allixpeeke (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article could truly need some work. Maybe I'll get the time to do it but don't count on it.Lord Metroid (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cleanup done, expansion still needed. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Expansion done, although now a little clean-up may again be in order. Allixpeeke (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

LATER NOTE, originally repeated below, to clarify for future readers: My Apologies for Confusion!! First, because of recent changes on the disambiguation page, I got confused and thought that this WAS the original voluntarism article until was RE-named voluntaryism just a couple weeks ago.

Carol Moore 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I'm a libertarian which makes it particularly annoying to see people who may be some sort of libertarians obviously destroy an existing article formerly called Voluntarism (politics) which doubtless mentioned several of the broader political uses of the word "voluntarism" (use search engine for some examples):

Voluntarism disambiguation page shows relevant changes on these dates by these individuals:

1. 09:08, December 14, 2007 Lordmetroid (Talk | contribs) (425 bytes) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 15:06, December 8, 2007 Allixpeeke (Talk | contribs) (430 bytes) (undo)

This NOW forwards the disambiguation ONLY to this sectarian view called "VOLUNTARYISM" as if that is the only way the word voluntarism is used in politics, which is false and misleading. I can't even find the old article and will ask for editorial assistance since don't have a lot of time to figure it out again.

If you know where the article is, please bring it back and make the Voluntarism page link to ALL THREE pages. Thanks! Carol Moore 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The Voluntaryism (politics) did not cover anything of substance that the older Voluntaryism article didn't already cover. Because of the great number of tags and notices and no one had taken upon himself to correct all these issues I boldy went ahead and merged the two articles which was got their material from the same source. I deemed the example section to be inappropriately essay-like and read-like advertisement which is according to wikipedia policy is not to be used so I refrained from such implementation in the merger. But there is no POV issue as far as I percieve it, could you further explain what you find inappropriate? Lord Metroid (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, do you know how I can find the text of the original VOLUNTARISM (POLITICS) article? This article I can see always was called voluntaryism.

Second, it may have been a poorly written article, but it probably reflected the fact that voluntarism is used in a number of ways that are NOT voluntaryism, and therefore should not have been merged or redirected here. Obviously having the exact original text would be helpful.

IF such text cannot be found, I guess I can VOLUNTEER (har har) to rewrite an article so that the disambiguation will go to all three defintions.

Carol Moore 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I linked all older article versions in my previous reply. What do you find is POVed? Lord Metroid (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, didn't recognize it as link to old article since looked like a link to current article til now looked at html. Will study and comment. Carol Moore 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

First this article on "voluntaryism" is describing a specific philosophy, i.e.: Voluntaryism is the philosophical belief that the only legitimate interactions in between and among people is done on a freely chosen basis through voluntary association and agreements. I have no problem with this philosophy having it's own article, just that it should NOT have replaced the "voluntarism" article which clearly did NOT reflect the various ways it is used below. Just the first page of a google search showed these different definitions and further searches probably would reveal more definitive sources.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/V0144400.html voluntarism: The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end. 2.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voluntaristic vol·un·ta·rism: The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end.

Volunt/ar/eer/ism: What's the Difference? By Susan J. Ellis So many people ask me whether there is a distinction between "volunteerism" and "voluntarism" that I have written up my answer. Here it is: "Voluntarism" (the older term) refers to everything voluntary. In the United States this includes, for example, religion. It certainly encompasses the entire "voluntary sector," but "voluntary" in the "voluntarism" context means not mandated by law (as government is). Many voluntary sector (nonprofit) agencies have a volunteer board because that is a legal requirement, but may not utilize volunteers in direct service in any way. There are subjects within "voluntarism" that have nothing to do with volunteers: things like UBIT legislation; proposal writing; compensation law.

Voluntarism By Susan Perkins, Graduate Student, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Definition "Voluntarism is the voluntary (acting of one's own accord) participation in a certain action, or a system based on this." Webster's Dictionary. NOTE: This is a long article with lots of examples that could form a good basis for wiki article

Center for Study of Philanthropy and Voluntarism

UNITED KINGDOM:VOLUNTARISM The British system of industrial relations has frequently been described as voluntarist, by which is usually meant the abstention of the state from direct intervention in the handling of industrial relations. ETC...

TWO BOOKS: 1) Landscapes of voluntarism, New spaces of health, welfare and governance, Edited by Christine Milligan and David Conradson

2) Liberalism: Voluntarism and Individuality in Political Theory, by Richard E. Flathman - 1992 - Philosophy - 232 pages

Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

So my question is which is to be done:

a) copy current version of voluntaryism into a NEW voluntaryism article and revert this one back to original voluntarism, which then would be changed to add this info and of course link to voluntaryism article?

b) leave this voluntaryism as is and just start whole new voluntarism article.

I'll do the work and put a basic article together and do the disambiguation. Just need opinion on which article should be the brand new one. Thanks. Carol Moore 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I see... There is an additional concept called voluntarism. What I think, would be best is to move this article to voluntaryism (politics) and create a voluntarism (concept) article for what you describe, reassign all inter-wiki links appropiatley and let this article redirect to voluntarism from which readers can find any kind of voluntar- article. This way the readers can easier find the particular topic they are searching for through the hub Voluntarism. Achieving a structured and easily navigated set of very similiar named articles. What do you think? Lord Metroid (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the dictionary meanings of "voluntarism" there are two, one being any kind of voluntary action the other being the philosophical concept. I only included the political meanings above.

That fact was originally reflected correctly at the voluntarism disambiguation page below, which I think should be re-instated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntarism&oldid=133102390

* Voluntarism (philosophy), a term coined for various philsophical positions by different philosophers, including Duns Scotus, Schopenhauer, Tönnies and Dingler.

* Voluntarism (politics), a term used in politics and economics which emphasises voluntary cooperation and natural law.

Voluntaryism is a spin off of voluntarism which says that ONLY voluntary political/economic action of any kind is legitimate. It's fine to have it's own page and all these changes made in last couple days debated there on their own merits.

But I correct myself and it should NOT be disambiguated off of voluntarism since it is not yet a dictionary recognized spin off of voluntarism so it easily could be considered WP:Original Research. However, the fact that voluntaryism is a spin off SHOULD be reflect in the voluntarism article.

And also thinking about it, the NEW article should be voluntaryism and this should revert back to the original one and I'll immediately revise it to broader meeting reflected in articles above - and we can tweak them once there are two articles. Carol Moore 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I do not really understand what you have in mind. You first say that Voluntaryism should have it's own article called Voluntaryism which is exactly the present case. Then you say you want this article to be reverted back, to what I do not know. I find reverting this article to be innapropiate because Voluntaryism in the political sense as shown by the referencing on this article has a relative long history. I think we can remake Voluntarism to an article about the concept voluntarism. And add a {{for}} tags at the top for both articles to redirect accidental lost readers. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is currently written on the voluntaryism page is correct for the specific political ideology known as voluntaryism and finding its roots in the anarchistic writings of Auberon Herbert. Ms. Moore, if you wish to write an article on the general ideal of voluntarism (concept), this is fine—I doubt anyone would object. If you want to make reference, in that article, to both voluntarism (philosophy) and to voluntaryism (politics), that is also definitely find—and again, I doubt anyone would have any objection. Finally, if you wish for all three of these to appear on the voluntarism (disambiguation) page, all the more power to you. In fact, I would say that your doing so would be a win-win for all of us. :)

Allixpeeke (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I just went ahead and updated the disambiguation page in a manner I expect will be to everyone's liking. :) Allixpeeke (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. I also added the libertarian and anarchism templates to this page for what I suspect are obvious reasons. :)Reply

The problem is that voluntarism is not just a concept but a form of action or practice. Defined above as: The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end. It's sort of a less ideological version of voluntaryism, which is really more an ideology than politics. It's sort of like panarchy and panarchism, where the first was a word defined differently by several people and the second was a specific philosophy based on one definition.

If you look at Voluntarism By Susan Perkins, she talks about very specific historical actors: Squanto, William Penn, Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville, Underground Railroad, Civil War volunatarism, Dorthea Dix, Clara Barton, Jane Addams, Peace Corps, and existing networks.

I'll go ahead and write it but properly defined and then someone else, maybe an administrator at some point, can fix the appropriate page names/disambiguation. Carol Moore 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I don't want it to seem like I'm making any impositions upon you. Do you think voluntarism (tendency) would be better than voluntarism (concept)? Or perhaps you have something better in mind? I don't believe I've ever seen a category with a parenthetical "tendency" or "practice", but then I don't know, in full, what you are planning for the new entry, so perhaps it will work. The only other concern I would have is: do we need an entry for both a concept (e.g. panarchy) and the ideology that advocates it (e.g. panarchism)? Apparently I'm not the only person who has thought this, as is evidence by the suggestion here that panarchy and panarchism be merged. But I'm flexible, and if there is enough difference between the tendency toward voluntarism and the political philosophy of voluntaryism, then it would surely be a welcome addition. Allixpeeke (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

First Wikipedia:Disambiguation is flexible, but I don't think you get the point. DICTIONARY meaning has Voluntarism as a philosophy and a mode of political action. The original disambiguation called it politics. Voluntaryism is an ideological spin off of voluntarism, which should be noted in the article.

Therefore disambiguation page should read

Voluntarism can refer to:

• Voluntarism (philosophy), a term coined for various philsophical positions by different philosophers, including Duns Scotus, Schopenhauer, Tönnies and Dingler.
• Voluntarism (politics), the use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end.

See also

• Volunteerism, the willingness of people to work on behalf of others without the expectation of pay or other tangible gain.
• Voluntaryism, a philosophical belief that the only legitimate interactions between and among people are done on a freely chosen basis through voluntary association and agreement. (NOTE: the actual definition on the page. CM)

Carol Moore 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

PS on Panarchy/Panarchism: Please read the debate on both TALK pages. I actually just removed the merge suggestion since discussion went dead a couple months ago with more opposition to moving than support. Panarchy is a word that has evolved several somewhat different meanings. The original meaning has developed into separate philosophy of panarchism. The problem with merging them is that people who do NOT like the anarchistic definition will come in and mess with or delete panarchism. See history of fights about it. So best to leave it relatively unmolested in its own article. Carol Moore 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Whereas voluntaryism is a clearly political ideology, voluntarism sounds, honestly, rather non-political. Maintenance of institutions is not inherently political, for example. Neither is the carrying out of a policy or the achieving of an end. Respectfully,
Alex Peak
Allixpeeke (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

My Apologies for Confusion!! First, because of recent changes on the disambiguation page, I got confused and thought that this WAS the original voluntarism article until was RE-named voluntaryism just a couple weeks ago. (See my message above Deleting Voluntarism (Politics) Page and Redirecting to Voluntaryism BIG POV Problem.) The responders did not understand my confusion. My apologies!!

Voluntarism broadly defined is political - as is voluntaryism - but I won't debate what to call them right now. Just put something on talk page about the debate and let's see what others who come along in the future have to say!

User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI Voluntarism. Probably will do some more work on in a few days; first draft. Carol Moore 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Cool, everything worked out all right and the new article looks very promising. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am posting the following article written by Carl Watner, the foremost expositor, scholar, and proponent of voluntaryism today. The current article on voluntaryism contains mispellings and many examples of awkward phrasing. It also places undue weight on the views of Auberon Herbert, who, as Watner explains below, is not a true voluntaryist. I recommend that the current article be replaced by Watner's new article. Barring that, perhaps a link to a page featuring Watner's article could be inserted in the current article. Watner's article could then be entitled something like "History, Theory, and Practice of Voluntaryism."

Please share your comments on Watner's article and on my proposal. I will convey then convey your comments to Carl before we decide what to do. (I also realize I need to work on some of the sub-headings, but I'm still learning the Wikipedia cheat sheet!)

Thank you very much,

Dr. Peter Spotswood Dillard

This article is about the philosophy of life that holds that everything that is invasive and coercive, including Government, is evil and ought to be abandoned, and that mankind ought to embrace the Voluntary system, which includes all that is non-governmental and non-compulsory, in other words all that people do for themselves, their neighbors, and their posterity, of their own free will.

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that association among people should only be by mutual consent. It represents a means, and end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take, only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. Since voluntaryists hold that the means must be consistent with the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, voluntaryists advocate the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State and their behavior toward it. The voluntaryist insight that all tyranny and governments are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient and, in fact, the only way to attain a voluntaryist society.

Voluntaryism is grounded on two axioms. First, the self-ownership axiom holds that each person is and ought to be in control of their own mind, body, and soul. Second, the homesteading axiom holds that each person by the application of his or her own labor to un-owned resources thereby becomes its rightful and legitimate owner.

It is a common place observation that human action represents behavior aiming at an improvement over the current state of affairs (from the individual actor's point of view). Otherwise, that person would not initiate action to bring about change. Therefore, every market transaction is intended (and normally achieves) an improvement in satisfaction and benefits both parties to the exchange. Thus, both parties to a trade improve their state of affairs. On the free and unhampered market this occurs millions and millions of time each day. Its cumulative effect is the prosperity and high standard of living that people experience in a free market economy. Government intervention and central planning (based on compulsion) can only force some people to do what they would otherwise not choose to do, and thereby lessens their satisfaction and impedes economic progress.

Voluntaryists argue that although certain goods and services are necessary to human survival, it is not necessary that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means in the collection of revenues and in outlawing would-be service providers. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the fruits of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do something they ordinarily wouldn't do, usually by passing laws or electing people to office. These laws and officials ultimately depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow the government or use the electoral process to change it; it merely requires that they cease to support their government and obey its orders, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight.

Libertarian theory, relying upon the self-ownership and homesteading axioms, condemns all invasive acts and rejects the initiation of violence. Anarchists, in particular, assert that the State acts aggressively when it engages in taxation and coercively monopolizes the provision of certain public services such as the roads, courts, police, and armed forces. It is this anarchist insight into the nature of the State - that the State is inherently and necessarily an invasive institution - which distinguishes the anarchist from other libertarians.

By this definition, voluntaryists are clearly peaceful anarchists. Many late 20th and early 21st Century voluntaryists based their thinking upon the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre, who rejected the concept of "limited" government. Every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so." Second, every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation." "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."

What especially distinguishes voluntaryists from other free-market anarchists is their insistence on strategy; especially their reliance on nonviolence and non-electoral means to achieve a free society. Like many European and American anarchists during the 19th and 20th Centuries, voluntaryists shun involvement with electoral politics. Rejection of the political means is premised on the insight that governments depend on the cooperation of those they rule. Etienne de la Boetie, a mid-16th Century Frenchmen, who was the first to point out this voluntaryist insight, called for peaceful non-cooperation and non-violent resistance to the State. Despite the advocacy of violence by a number of anarchists throughout history, most anarchists have sought to persuade people, rather than coerce them. Le Boetie's call for peaceful resistance has been echoed by contemporary anarchists, as well as by a significant number of those who have been described as near-anarchist in their thinking, such as Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Gandhi.

Voluntaryism has a long and rich historical tradition in the English-speaking world. Its heritage can be traced at least as far back as the Leveller movement of mid-17th Century England. The Levellers can be best identified by their spokesmen John Lilburne (?1614-1657) and Richard Overton (?1600-?1660s) who "clashed with the Presbyterian puritans, who wanted to preserve a state-church with coercive powers and to deny liberty of worship to the puritan sects."

The Levellers were nonconformist religious types who agitated for the separation of church and state. During the late 16th and 17th Centuries, the church covenant was a common means of organizing the radical religious sects. The church to their way of thinking was a voluntary association of equals. To both the Levellers and later thinkers this furnished a powerful theoretical and practical model for the civil state. If it was proper for their church congregations to be based on consent, then it was proper to apply the same principle of consent to its secular counterpart. For example, the Leveller 'large' Petition of 1647 contained a proposal "that tythes and all other inforced maintenances, may be for ever abolished, and nothing in place thereof imposed, but that all Ministers may be payd only by those who voluntarily choose them, and contract with them for their labours." One only need substitute "taxes" for "tythes" and "government officials" for "Ministers" to see how close the Levellers were to the idea of a voluntary state.

The Levellers also held tenaciously to the idea of self-proprietorship. As Richard Overton wrote: "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]." They realized that it was impossible to assert one's private right of judgment in religious matters (what we would call today, liberty of conscience) without upholding the same right for everyone else, even the unregenerate. The existence of a State church in England has caused continuous friction since the time of the Levellers because there were always those conscientious objectors who either opposed its religious doctrine and/or their forced contributions towards its support.

Voluntaryists also became involved in another controversy in England, from about the mid-1840s to the mid-1860s. In 1843, Parliament considered legislation which would require part-time compulsory attendance at school of those children working in factories. The effective control over these schools was to be placed in the hands of the established Church of England, and the schools were to be supported largely from funds raised out of local taxation. Nonconformists, mostly Baptists and Congregationalists, became alarmed. They had been under the ban of the law for more than a century. At one time or another they could not be married in their own churches, were compelled to pay church rates against their will, and had to teach their children underground for fear of arrest. They became known as voluntaryists because they consistently rejected all state aid and interference in education, just as they rejected the state in the religious sphere of their lives. Three of the most notable voluntaryists included the young Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who published his first series of articles "The Proper Sphere of Government," beginning in 1842; Edward Baines, Jr., (1800-1890) editor and proprietor of the LEEDS MERCURY; and Edward Miall (1809-1881), Congregationalist minister, and founder-editor of THE NONCONFORMIST (1841), who wrote VIEWS OF THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE (1845).

The educational voluntaryists wanted free trade in education, just as they supported free trade in corn or cotton. Their concern "for liberty can scarcely be exaggerated." They believed that "government would employ education for its own ends" (teaching habits of obedience and indoctrination), and that government-controlled schools would ultimately teach children to rely on the State for all things. Baines, for example, noted that "[w]e cannot violate the principles of liberty in regard to education without furnishing at once a precedent and inducement to violate them in regard to other matters." Baines conceded that the then current system of education (both private and charitable) had deficiencies, but he argued that freedom should not be abridged on that account. Should freedom of the press be compromised because we have bad newspapers? "I maintain that Liberty is the chief cause of excellence; but it would cease to be Liberty if you proscribed everything inferior."

Although educational voluntaryism failed to stop the movement for compulsory schools in England, voluntaryism as a political creed was revived during the 1880s by another Englishman, Auberon Herbert (1838-1906). Herbert served a two-year term in the House of Commons, but after meeting Herbert Spencer in 1874, decided not to run for re-election. He wrote "State Education: A Help or Hindrance?" in 1880, and began using the word "voluntaryist" to label his advocacy of "voluntary" taxation. He began publishing his journal, THE FREE LIFE (Organ of Voluntary Taxation and the Voluntary State) in 1890. Herbert was not a pure voluntaryist because, although he held that it was possible for state revenues to be generated by offering competitive services on the free market, he continued to advocate a single monopolistic state for every given geographic territory, Some of his essays are titled "The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life" (1897), and "A Plea for Voluntaryism," (posthumously, 1908).

Although there was never an explicit "voluntaryist" movement in America till the late 20th Century, earlier Americans did agitate for the disestablishment of government-supported churches in several of the original thirteen States. These conscientious objectors believed mere birth in a given geographic area did not mean that one consented to membership or automatically wished to support a State church. Their objection to taxation in support of the church was two-fold: taxation not only gave the State some right of control over the church; it also represented a way of coercing the non-member or the unbeliever into supporting the church. In New England, where both Massachusetts and Connecticut started out with state churches, many people believed that they needed to pay a tax for the general support of religion - for the same reasons they paid taxes to maintain the roads and the courts. It was simply inconceivable to many of them that society could long exist without state support of religion. Practically no one comprehended the idea that although governmentally-supplied goods and services (such as roads, or schools, or churches) might be essential to human welfare, it was not necessary that they be provided by the government.

There were at least two well-known Americans who espoused voluntaryist causes during the mid-19th Century. Henry David Thoreau's (1817-1862) first brush with the law in his home state of Massachusetts came in 1838, when he turned twenty-one. The State demanded that he pay the one dollar ministerial tax, in support of a clergyman, "whose preaching my father attended but never I myself." When Thoreau refused to pay the tax, it was probably paid by one of his aunts. In order to avoid the ministerial tax in the future, Thoreau had to sign an affidavit attesting he was not a member of the church.

Thoreau's famous overnight imprisonment for his failure to pay another municipal tax, the poll tax, to the town of Concord was recorded in his essay, "Resistance to Civil Government," first published in 1849. It is often referred to as "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," because in it he recognized that government was dependent on the cooperation of its citizens. While he was not a thoroughly consistent voluntaryist, he did write that he wished never to "rely on the protection of the State," and that he refused to tender it his allegiance so long as it supported slavery. He distinguished himself from "those who call[ed] themselves no-government men": "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government," conveniently overlooking the fact that improving an institution does not change its essential (in this case, coercive) nature. Despite this, Thoreau opened his essay by stating his belief that "That government is best which governs not at all," a point which all voluntaryists heartily embrace.

One of those "no-government men" was William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), famous abolitionist and publisher of THE LIBERATOR. Nearly all abolitionists identified with the self-ownership principle, that each person - as an individual - owned and should control his or her own mind and body free of outside coercive interference. The abolitionist called for the immediate and unconditional cessation of slavery because they saw slavery as man-stealing in its most direct and worst form. Slavery reflected the theft of a person's self-ownership rights (just as taxes reflect the theft of a person's property). The slave was a chattel with no rights of its own. The abolitionists realized that each human being, man, woman, and child, was naturally invested with sovereignty over him or her self and that no one could exercise forcible control over another without breaching the self-ownership principle. Garrison, too, was not a pure voluntaryist for he supported the federal government's war against the States from 1861 to 1865.

Probably the most consistent voluntaryist of that era was Charles Lane (1800-1870). He was friendly with Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thoreau. Between January and June 1843 a series of nine letters he penned were published in such abolitionist’s papers as THE LIBERATOR and THE HERALD OF FREEDOM. The title under which they were published was "A Voluntary Political Government," and in them Lane described the State in terms of institutionalized violence and referred to its "club law, its mere brigand right of a strong arm, [supported] by guns and bayonets." He saw the coercive State on par with "forced" Christianity. "Everyone can see that the church is wrong when it comes to men with the [B]ible in one hand, and the sword in the other." "Is it not equally diabolical for the State to do so?" Lane believed that governmental rule was only tolerated by public opinion because the fact was not yet recognized that all the true purposes of the State could be carried out on the voluntary principle, just as churches could be sustained voluntarily. Reliance on the voluntary principle could only come about through "kind, orderly, and moral means" that were consistent with the totally voluntary society he was advocating. "Let us have a voluntary State as well as a voluntary Church, and we may possibly then have some claim to the appeallation of free men."

Late 20th and early 21st Century libertarians readily appreciate the parallel between the disestablishment of State churches and the abandonment of the State itself. Although the label "voluntaryist" practically died out after the death of Auberon Herbert, its use was renewed in late 1982, when George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began publishing THE VOLUNTARYIST. George Smith suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties (especially the Libertarian Party) were antithetical to their ideas. In their "Statement of Purpose" in NEITHER BULLETS NOR BALLOTS: Essays on Voluntaryism (1983), Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics "in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals," and explained that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their "Statement of Purpose" they wrote: "Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends."

THE VOLUNTARYIST newsletter, which began publication in late 1982, is one of the longest-lived libertarian publications in the world. Edited and published by Carl Watner since 1986, the most significant articles from the first 100 issues were anthologized in book-length form and published as I MUST SPEAK OUT: The Best of THE VOLUNTARYIST 1982-1999 (Carl Watner, ed., San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1999). Another voluntaryist anthology buttressed the case for non-voting: Carl Watner with Wendy McElroy (eds.), DISSENTING ELECTORATE: Those Who Refuse to Vote and the Legitimacy of Their Opposition (Jefferson: McFarland and Company, 2001). The masthead of THE VOLUNTARYIST, perhaps, best epitomizes the voluntaryist outlook: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." This statement penned by Gandhi emphasizes that the world can only be changed one person at a time, and then, only if that person wills it. The only thing that the individual can do "is present society with 'one improved unit'." As Albert Jay Nock put it, "[A]ges of experience testify that the only way society can be improved is by the individualist method ..., that is, the method of each 'one' doing his best to improve 'one.'" This is the quiet, peaceful, patient way of changing society because it concentrates on bettering the character of men and women as individuals. As the individual units change, the improvement of society will take care of itself. In other words, "if one take care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

Introductory and General Observations:

Voluntaryists meet objections to their doctrine by examining them from both the moral and practical viewpoint. From the moral side, they ask whose property is involved, has anyone's consent been obtained, is any property being used against the owner's will? From the practical side, they ask how would the situation be handled in a statist society, how is it being handled now, how might it be addressed in the absence of government intervention? Voluntaryists also realize that some social ills will always be with us. Nonetheless they ask, of the two ways to organize human society, voluntarily versus coercively, which system is likely to produce less harm, be most beneficial to people, and be more consistent with our commonly accepted ethical norms?

Voluntaryists recognize that normally the most moral behavior achieves the most practical results. In certain emergency or "life boat" situations there may be a tension between what appears to be the moral and the practical. In such cases, some voluntaryists may choose to act contrary to their principles, while others may remain true to them and suffer the consequences. However, in both cases voluntaryists continue to recognize that self-ownership, homesteading, and non-aggression are the basis of their doctrine, and that human freedom is a higher objective than the arbitrary fulfillment of certain people's needs and desires. [Ringer, 135]

Objection 1: What would happen to the poor in a voluntaryist world?

The plight of the poor in a free society focuses on many of the major objections to voluntaryism. From the practical side, who would care for them? (Any one who wants to devote their time, energy, and resources to them.) Would they be left to starve? (Yes, they might be if there was no one willing to help them.) What ultimately is our responsibility toward our fellow man, whether he be better off or worse off than others? (Strict justice consists in not acting invasively toward others.) Do the poor have a right to alms? (No, according to the homesteading axiom the rightfully owned property of others is to be respected, not stolen.)

The Moral Perspective

The first fact we must recognize is that nature is niggardly and that goods and services of value are scarce. Left alone on an island, how does a man care for himself? Man only survives by using his mind and body to provide himself with food, shelter, and clothing. The presence of other men makes the division of labor and specialization in production possible, but it does not essentially change the nature of the world. When man lives alone on an island, and when there is no interaction with others, the question of justice does not arise.

However, in the context of human society, justice, for the voluntaryist, is a negative duty. It consists in respecting other people's bodies and property, and in doing them no physical harm. For the voluntaryist, justice does not imply any special obligation of benevolence or charity. Nothing is due a man in strict justice but what is his own. Perhaps he may have an ethical duty towards helping others; either their merits or their sufferings may reasonably lead them to expect something from others which is not strictly their own. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, "Man, no doubt, owes many other ... duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, ... . But these are simply ... duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them." [vices are not crimes ix-x]

As for considering the justice of forced charity, Robert Ringer explained, "I do not believe that I or any other person has the right to force other men to be charitable. In other words, I am not against charity, but I am against the use of force." [Restoring the American Dream, 134] The fact that someone thinks others are not contributing enough to charity or to the poor is no justification for forcing them to contribute more. If a man has legitimately earned his property, it is theft to take it from him against his will for any purpose. One man's honestly earned wealth is not another man's entitlement (nor the cause of another's impoverishment). We might not like one person being rich and another being poor, but it is not our right to take from one and give to another. If we think the poor are too poor, then we may devote more of our own resources and property to them, and we also may try to persuade others to do so. What we may not do is place someone in jail because he refuses to abide by our dictates in the matter; we may not pass a law that, in effect, does the same thing; and we may not use the plight of the poor as a justification for stealing the property of others, even if, after the fact, we give the stolen property to the poor.

The Practical Perspective

Americans have often been referred to as the most generous people on earth. Although there has never been a true voluntaryist society, America from its colonial roots to the early 20th Century more closely approximated voluntaryist parameters than many other nations. What do we find happening in such circumstances?

In early America, private and community care for the poor often preceded government's assumption of those responsibilities. If Americans wanted a school, a library, an orphanage, or a hospital they simply built it for themselves. The vitality and success of American communities rested on their voluntary nature. History and theory demonstrate that a free people produce many more goods and services than their counterparts in a centrally organized economy. Thus, there is more to go around in a free society, and the poor there generally have a higher standard of living than the poor in a collectivist society. This economic largess is largely the result of the investment in tools and individual saving which is promoted by the free market economy.

Not only were there probably fewer "poor" in America, but those of the lower classes were able to better care for themselves and their poorer kin. Until the advent of State welfare in the early 20th Century, mutual aid societies, church and fraternal organizations flourished. By 1920, about 18 million Americans belonged to some type of mutual aid society or fraternal order, which often provided some form of health, disability, and death benefits to their members. With the advent of the Great Depression (which voluntaryists assert was caused by government financial policies), government welfare programs began crowding out private efforts.

The private sector in America has not only proved itself capable of producing and creating large amounts of wealth, but it has also demonstrated its willingness to contribute to community causes and helping the poor. The record of American philanthropy is so impressive that it would require several books to list its achievements. So when one asks, "What would happen to the poor in a free society?" one only has to look at American history for an answer. As James Bryce writing in 1888 observed, "In works of active beneficence, no country has surpassed, perhaps none has equaled the United States."

Objection 2: The voluntaryist insight points out that the State depends on the cooperation of its citizens. Aren't these citizens showing by their actions that they are consenting to the government they have?

Answer: Yes, citizens may obey their governments, but they are no more consenting to their "voluntary" enslavement than a victim of a robbery consents to his victimization. The victim of a robbery (your money or your life) "voluntarily" hands over his wallet to prevent a worse occurrence (his own death). When governments eliminate criminal penalties for failure to file and pay taxes, we can begin looking at how much real support governments might obtain voluntarily.

Objection 3: If there were no government, what would prevent criminals from taking over control of society?

Answer: First of all, voluntaryists would point out that criminals have taken over control of our society. It is only the fact that our criminal governors have so legitimated themselves in the eyes of most people that they are no longer considered criminal.

The existence of a peaceful society depends upon the fact that the large majority of people residing therein respect other people and their property. In the absence of coercive government to "protect" these peaceful people, there would be private defense and mutual protection agencies, voluntarily funded, to protect people from would-be aggressors. Each patron would contract for the level of protection he or she desired and could afford. In such a society, sureties and insurance companies would probably provide a great deal of protection, since they would have the most to lose from destruction and theft of property and life. Sureties or bonding companies would ultimately be responsible for the good behavior of those they covered.

Objection 4: Who would pay for the roads?

Answer: Those who use them and require their existence. Although roads have been a government monopoly throughout much of history, there is much historical evidence that roads could built and operated on a for-profit basis. Government monopolization and control of the roads has led to many inefficiencies, deaths, and environmental destruction.

Objection 5: Is it right that voluntaryists benefit from government services and yet do not wish to pay for them?

Answer: Voluntaryist recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If a thief steals your watch, outlaws all other forms of telling time, tells you the time, and then demands that you pay him for providing you with this service, would you consider yourself obligated to pay him? Of course not. Similarly, the voluntaryist holds that the government should not be providing any services in the first place (any more than the thief should have stolen your watch or outlawed would-be competitors). When governments use coercion to enforce their will, many problematic situations arise. Voluntaryists try to resolve them by abandoning government, and using private services when available and affordable.

See Also

References See Mark Spangler, editor, CLICHES OF POLITICS, (Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996). Earlier editions were titled "Cliches of Socialism." This anthology dispels many of the myths that justify the pleas for political solutions to our social problems.

External Links

Psdillard (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've placed Voluntaryist Carl Watner's new article on the main page. Minor edits are welcome, particularly the insertion of internal links.Psdillard (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled across this article from the Libertarian Party, and was interested in the subject, but the article as it stands is decidedly un-Wikipedian. The rewrite cleanup tag seemed most relevant according to the cleanup rules, although significant reorganization and wikification would be sufficient. Evan Deaubl (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Evan Deaubl,

The new article is not from the Libertarian Party but by Carl Watner, a notable voluntaryist who opposes the LP and any other political organization.

Please describe what sort of reorganization and "wikification" you think the article needs. I will then direct Mr. Watner to your comments, and we can proceed from there.

Thank you for your feedback.

Psdillard (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I actually didn't have any suggestions offhand, and I wasn't indicating that the article was related to the LP in any way; that is just how I ended up getting to this page (I just realized my previous statement was unclear; I got here from the Libertarian Party page on Wikipedia, not from an LP site). My understanding is that putting a cleanup tag on a page "puts it on the radar" as a page that people who are interested in cleaning up Wikipedia can (and should) work on. So my main motivation for adding the tag was to get the page noticed in order to hopefully bring some more experienced Wikipedia editors into the mix. I'm nowhere near experienced enough to tackle an article of this size. :-) Evan Deaubl (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would just like to point out that User:Psdillard, apart from editing disruptively, has been copying and pasting text from here. I hope that next time his edits will be reverted sooner. --Cambrasa confab 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Turned out it was just a case of accidental page blanking by someone who knows the copyright holder - sorry --Cambrasa confab 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cambrasa is absolutely wrong on both counts. The text I copied and pasted was not taken without permission from The Voluntaryist website. Rather, it is a new article by Carl Watner that he asked me to post. Cambrasa would know that if he/she had taken the time to read and understand the discussion page.

Nor have I edited disruptively. I proposed replacing the old voluntaryist article with Mr. Watner's new one and allowed plenty of time for comments before I did so. I even e-mailed all of the previous commentators asking for their feedback. When no one objected, I went ahead and posted Watner's new article. A disruptive person subsequently reverted it to the old article, which I reverted back to the new article. When I did so, I made the mistake of first deleting the old article entirely in the hopes that the new article would then come up automatically. I have since learned that one should merge edits into the article to be edited.

I resent your accusations, Cambrasa. I see that you are responsible for restoring the old article. Shame on you for not first bringing your concerns to the discussion page and talking about them before you reverted. I'll be restoring Watner's article. Leave it alone.Psdillard (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, cool down, it's not that big of a deal. First I saw that you had blanked the page. Then I saw that your text had some neutrality issues, which I will address below. Then I saw that it had been copied and pasted from a website. Then I briefly skimmed over the talk page, where you didn't make it very clear that you had Carl Watner's permission. So I assumed some disruptive editing was going on, which obviously wasn't the case. It's just a misunderstanding, so my apologies. --Cambrasa confab 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I accept your apology, Cambrasa. Thank you.

I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer earlier that I had Carl Watner's position to post the article. Below is a statement from Mr. Watner that should clarify the situation.

"To Whom It May Concern:

Peter Spotswood Dillard has posted, at my request, my article on "Voluntaryism" to wikipedia. It was intended to supercede a shorter article by others, which was incomplete and in some respects misleading. He has my full support in maintaining and posting the article I have written. I believe my own article is more encompassing and answers objections which were not addressed in the prior article.

Sincerely,

Carl Watner" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdillard (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Peter Dillard has replaced the old article with an essay written by Carl Watner, on his instruction. Carl Watner seems to be a notable proponent of voluntaryism, so that in itself is not a problem.

However, there are several problems with the article as it stands now:

1:A lot of it seems to be original research. Even though Carl Watner is a notable academic, this essay has only been published on his website and not in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is not a reliable source. Also, since this article is now primarily based on Carl Watner's essay, it violates point 7 on Wikipedia's policy for self-published sources. Finally, many parts of this article arrive at conclusions through synthesis rather than stating where the conclusions came from, violanting WP:SYN.

2:The article is written in a horribly biased tone. It reads more like a manifesto than an encyclopedia article. It is full of emotive vocabulary - "X is evil", instructional and presumptious language - "Do the poor have a right to alms?", hyperboles - "Voluntarism represents a means, and end, and an insight", and value judgements - "... whereupon [government] will fall of its own dead weight". All that it's missing is a "long live voluntrayism!" at the end.

The worst thing about this article is that it presents several contentious claims as if they were widely accepted facts, without citing sources - "History and theory demonstrate that a free people produce many more goods and services than their counterparts in a centrally organized economy. Thus, there is more to go around in a free society, and the poor there generally have a higher standard of living than the poor in a collectivist society". Note: This article does not say "According to voluntaryists, history and theory demostrate...". It just says "History and theory demostrate..." even though there are plenty of theorists, economists and historians more notable than Carl Watner who would contest this claim.

3:The article casts voluntaryism and voluntaryists in a very positive light. Since Carl Watner seems to be one of the key proponents of voluntaryism, this raises conflict of interest concerns.

--Cambrasa confab 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I think that the article is unacceptable in its current form. Yes, it may be written by an expert, and it may contain more legitimate information than before, but this information is presented in such a biased manner that it is actually worse than the previous article. I suggest reverting it to the old version with immediate effect, and taking the current version to a sandbox, where it should go through a major re-work before being reinserted. --Cambrasa confab 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with Cambrasa that there are problems with Watner's article which justify "reverting it to the old version with immediate effect." Nor do I think Watner's article should be taken to the sandbox and subjected to a major "rework before being reinserted." The problems Cambrasa raises can be addressed without imposing such drastic measures.

I will address Cambrasa's specific criticisms:

(1) I do not see how Watner's article violates point 7 of Wikipedia's policy for self-published sources. Plenty of reliable, peer-reviewed sources are cited at the end of the article. Nor do I see how the articles arrives at its conclusions through "synthesis." On the contrary, Watner argues for his conclusions from initial premises that he makes explicit. He even addresses possible objections to voluntaryism.

Exactly. Watner argues for his conclusions. That is the problem. Wikipedia is not a place for arguing. Wikipedia is only a compendium or arguments that have been made in reliable sources. Please read WP:SYN again. --Cambrasa confab 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(2) Concerning the charge that the article is written in "a horribly biased tone," to the extent that there may be some bias in the article it can be removed through minor rephrasing. Cambrasa even suggests how this might be done for some cases by prefacing categorical assertions with the clause, "According to voluntaryists..." Or "Do the poor have a right to alms?" might be replaced with "Voluntaryists question whether the poor even have a right to alms." In other cases, some of the rhetoric might be toned down a bit. However, these slight changes do not require the extreme approach Cambrasa proposes.

The problem is that this article is very long and consistently biased. When you have to make a "minor rephrasing" to every second sentence it does amount to a major re-write. This article is going to sit around in this form for God knows how long before somebody can be bothered to fix it - probably weeks or months. Psdillard has certainly expressed no desire to make the needed changes - why should he? The copied-and-pasted version serves his purposes, and creating an encyclopedia does not seem to be one of them. In the mean time thousands of people are going to read it, and by the time it's finally fixed the damage will arleady be done.--Cambrasa confab 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(3) By Cambrasa's reasoning, a Hindu should not write an Wikipedia article on any aspect of Hinduism or provide a possible rationale for any Hindu belief because doing so creates a conflict of interest. Or an article casting the theory of special relativity in a positive light should immediately be sent to the sandbox and subjected to a major "rework" (or at least be tagged as suspiciously non-neutral) if it is written by Einstein, a leading proponent of theory. Surely such a requirement is much too stringent. Proponents should be allowed to write articles about the views they hold as long as they provide reliable sources and give explicit reasons for their assertions. Watner does both. I'm confident that he would be willing to add additional peer-reviewed sources, including a few that defend an anti-voluntaryist position, were he asked to do so. But again, that only requires minor editing, not wholesale rewriting. And as I noted earlier, Watner not only gives explicit reasons for his conclusions, he also responds to possible objections. Not every conceivable objection need be met for an article to pass Wikipedia muster.

All the objections have been set up, and knocked down, by himself. Not exactly the best way to make an article more balanced. Watner does not cite sources where they are needed most, namely where he has written contentious assertions. Whole sections, especially in the beginning, are completely lacking in sources. If Watner can show us some stuff he has published in peer-reviewed sources, then great, but before he has done that: back to the Sandbox --Cambrasa confab 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I noted before, the old article was awkwardly written, and it skewed the account of voluntaryism by placing undue emphasis on the views of Auberon Herbert. Watner's new article avoids these pitfalls, provides an abundance of historical background, and gives the reader a clear idea of where the voluntaryist is coming from. The few infelicities Cambrasa perceives in the article can be easily rectified.Psdillard (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cambrasa, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

An encyclopedia entry can certainly present the arguments typically given for a position. How else is it going to inform the reader not only about the content of a position but also about its official rationale? If your worry is that Mr. Watner is arguing for voluntaryism, then as I said before he can easily amend his statements to the form: "Voluntaryists typically argue that..." Do you really think inserting these qualifiers requires so much work that Watner's article should be tossed into the sandbox and torn apart until it is reduced to something unrecognizable? Come on.

As for my "purposes," you don't know what you're talking about here. Let's avoid attributing personal agendas and stick to the issue of whether Watner's article needs to be subjected to a major rewrite while a plainly inferior piece is put back in its place.

And as I said before, it's easy for Watner to add a few more peer-reviewed sources, including some that criticize voluntaryism and similar anarchist views. And again, in presenting the objections he can easily tone it down by writing sentences along the lines of: "Sometimes it is objected to voluntaryism that..." and "To this objection, voluntaryists reply..." In these instances citations to articles in The Voluntaryist would be sufficient, since that's where many of the objections are considered and addressed by actual voluntaryists. Even if it is not a purely non-partisan scholarly journal, nevertheless it is a significant source for understanding the nature of the view under discussion. Some of the articles there have even been peer-reviewed, both by voluntaryists and by those opposed to voluntaryism.

I suggest that we give Mr. Watner the opportunity to make these minor edits by inserting them into the current version, not relegate his work to the sandbox and replace it with the old article (which has probably misled readers a lot more about the nature of voluntaryism). I'm not going to make the edits because it's not my article. However, I can help Watner as he makes them. If he decides that making these edits requires a substantial revision of the article, then he can let you take it to the sandbox.Psdillard (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You don't really seem to understand the philosophy of Wikipedia. First you upload an article that makes a mockery of two of the five pillars. Then you claim it is an "improvement", and dismiss the blatant violations of Wikipedia policy as trivial. Then you say that you're not prepared to fix those allegedly minor issues because it's "Watner's article", not yours. Well of course people are going to question your motives.

You do realise that if you upload something to Wikipedia you agree to publish it under GFDL? I hope you have discussed this with the author. That means this is not "Watner's article" anymore. In other words, neither you nor Watner get to decide what happens to it. From now on the community decides. Of course both of you are welcome to join in, but patent policy breaches can and will be dealth with by anyone who chooses to do so. Anything that is controversial and unsourced may be deleted without warning and does not require previous consultation with the original authour.

Oh and there is one more thing I don't understand. If Mr.Watner is prepared to write a neutral version of this article, why not do it in the sandbox? What's the rush to get it published? Can't it wait another couple of weeks? --Cambrasa confab 05:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I decided to add qualifying phrases and to change a few words to make the article more neutral. As I suspected, it wasn't difficult at all. Mr. Watner can review the revisions when he gets a chance and comment on them if he wishes. He can also add some more references where needed, including a few from works by those opposed to voluntaryism. I believe we can continue to make good progress by making additional minor edits like the ones I've mentioned. In my judgment, there is no need to send the article to the sandbox for wholesale revision.

Cambrasa, you're being a real pain. Rather than cooperate, you snipe away with snide comments and criticisms that I've already addressed. There's no "rush" to publish Watner's article. It's merely that your reasons for gutting it don't warrant doing so. At most, they warrant the sort of minor edits I made and that others are welcome to make as well. Stop being an obstructionist and start contributing something positive. Otherwise, go away. Psdillard (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The additional edits Cambrasa has made are quite helpful, especially the insertion of internal links and indications of where citations are needed. Now that's more like it.Psdillard (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Phew, I've fixed this monster now. Still needs some work, but I think in this form it finally deserves being called an "encylopedia article". I'll add a copyedit template because the references still need to be formatted. --Cambrasa confab 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Voluntaryism is a philosophy that holds that any form of invasion and coercion is morally objectionable and should be abandoned" - This is a poor definition. anything that is invasive and coercive? really? What about punishement of criminals? That's coercive. I doubt voluntaryists want to abandon punishment. I'll change the definition --Cambrasa confab 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned up a number of typos I found in the last revision. Also in that version, the last sentence in the section entitled "The practical perspective in the case of the United States" reads like a total non sequitur. (The sentence in question was "A study by The Economist has concluded that social mobility is low in America when compared to other rich nations, especially among the bottom fifth of society, and that meritocratic competition only takes places within elites rather than 'among the full range of talents that the country has to offer'".) Its relevance to the immediately foregoing material isn't made clear. Is it supposed to be another objection? A reference to a source offering an alternative to the voluntaryist viewpoint on the plight of the poor? Hence I have deleted both it and the accompanying reference to the study from The Economist. This material should be reincorporated into the article only if its rationale for being there is made perfectly clear.Psdillard (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any difference between voluntarism and mainstream philosophy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if Wikipedia was polled on the issue, over 80% of respondents would identify with "voluntarism". EDIT -- check that: there's a lot more extremism here than I thought. Nevermind. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Voluntaryists might appeal to the following analogy: if a thief steals your watch, outlaws all other forms of telling time, tells you the time, and then demands that you pay him for providing you with this service, would you consider yourself obligated to pay him? Of course not."

Am I the only one who sees how easily that could be reworked into a scathing critique of the very capitalism this ideology espouses? Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and rework it into a scathing commentary of capitalism, because I don't see what your point is. EVCM (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not 100% whether the Gandhi mentioned is Mahatma Gandhi, or S.I. Gandhi. Any RS for that?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply