RE: “Defining Voluntaryism” - No, private property is not “optional” (addressing @lukestokes)
It matters not if “Wikipedia” specifically states it or not.
How else do we come about "commonly accepted, actual definitions" without referring to encyclopedias, dictionaries, and the like? How else do we determine commonly accepted?
Why make this post about "Luke" instead of just your views on voluntaryism in general, especially considering our history where I've made it clear what I prefer (and you seem to be making it clear you have no regard for my preferences)? When someone has no regards for someone else's preferences (focus on the ideas, not on singling out people), is that not similar to troll behavior, trying to provoke a reaction or response?
Regardless, your post implies I don't personally agree that self-ownership and private property is critically important to a voluntary society (I do, as my posts for over two years indicate). I also think there is room for the words we use to include people who don't violate the non-aggression principle and follow the base meaning of "a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary" as I mentioned in my comment and is on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of Voluntaryism and that it should focus more on the importance of private property as extrapolated from self-ownership (as mentioned in videos like the philosophy of liberty, which I completely agree with), then why not take it up on the discussion page of Wikipedia which would help even more people understand these concepts? I don't see the value of a "Luke thinks X and here's why he's wrong" post.
Our conversation in context wasn't about owning your own body, if I remember correctly. I think it was also about a person and whether or not a label fit them or not. Either way, I appreciate you trying to educate people on Voluntaryism and its principles. Please continue to do so. Please also appreciate that I'm busy trying to build things to make the world a more voluntary place. That's a better use of my time then having to defend myself and what I really stand for.
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
I agree with you that Voluntaryism only works with with a solid understanding of self-ownership and property rights for private property is a natural extension of that. I also recognize the challenges that no human being owns the planet. Land ownership is complicated and it's just one example of some sticky points related to property that I've spent years debating with people in ancom/ancap groups. I don't see the value in the debate anymore. Instead, I prefer we focus on things the ancoms (as much as you and I may disagree with them) can agree with us on such as the evils of central banking, nation-state government violence, etc, etc.
I made this post to notify others, and also to help clarify the Voluntaryist position, because you are openly identifying yourself as a voluntaryist. You stated that you did not wish to communicate with me, so the fact that you would comment or even read this was not necessarily expected. I tagged you to notify other voluntaryists, so they can be sure to take statements you make on well-defined voluntaryist topics with a grain of salt.
Your implied logic that because the wikipedia page does not mention private property explicitly, some conceptions of Voluntaryism (the libertarian philosophy) can exist without it, is incorrect and dangerous, as ISO is private property. The root of it, actually.
Property extends from ISO, and is ISO, so I corrected you.
That is awesome, Luke, and I am happy to hear it. I am also trying to building things, which is why I wish to clarify these issues. Without a solid, rigorously understood logical foundation, nothing can be built--as evidenced by what happens when we follow politicians who say they love things like freedom and liberty while denigrating principles in their campaigns. If principles are not understood, destruction, pain, and immense harm both moral and physical ensue. I know for a fact these are things neither you or I support.
You don't need to "defend yourself" if you don't want to. I am simply pointing out the error in your assertion. You don't need to view everything as a personal attack, man.
Yep, and that is why private property (ISO) is always part of any legitimate definition of the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism. I am not sure why you need to make this personal, and are reticent to concede this simple point, but oh well.
Thanks Luke.
Why not start some discussions on the Wikipedia discuss page which currently lacks a meaningful mention of property? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time considering how many people use Wikipedia?
You say I can just ignore your posts about me and my views, but life doesn't work that way. My reputation matters to me because I've worked very hard to build it and ensure my online and offline realities are consistent. From my perspective, your post seemed to misrepresent my actual views. Should I just let that go or say something? You say it's "not about you" but the post is directly about "Luke says this" instead of just "Here's an important part of Voluntaryism that I think isn't represented enough" or some such thing. You make it about me while saying it's not about me. We've talked about this over and over again, but I still don't feel heard.
Let's try a different approach. Let's talk about the ideas of property rights within an interesting concept, UBI. What are your thoughts on Universal Resource Inheritance and the follow up clarification In Defense of Universal Resource Inheritance? That would be more interesting to me. Let's talk about ideas and not about what one person thinks or what someone else thinks. IMO, we don't need to police people's minds or tell them how many grains of salt they can use when they think. :)
Can we interact respectfully and explore complicated, nuanced ideas?
Let's try having a fun, useful conversation about ideas, not about people.
"The presumption is that a few rich central planners (the 1%) can better invest resources than entrepreneurs serving the masses which vote on the products and services they desire by spending their inheritance."
Wow, that article... Just, wow... He calls business owners central planners, but who would he replace those people with other than ACTUAL central planners. Have we not fucking done this before? We don't have enough failed examples from the PRESENT and PAST?!
I just lost ALL respect for Dan Larimer. Communism does not work and never will work. Redistribution of wealth does not work and never will work. Only FOOLS or horribly ignorant people would believe it could. /sigh
I agree, forced REdistribution never works. Voluntary distribution might though (like we have here on Steemit, distributing the rewards pool populated with voluntary inflation). I don't think Dan is a fool or horribly ignorant. I also doubt he'd use force on these ideas, but maybe others would. Thanks for your input.
Seriously. Central planning? Larimer also suggested that we should give up privacy and become completely transparent as a means to fight the state. And...from the article you linked...a “libertarian” tax?
No wonder you supported Adam “fingerprint to homestead” Kokesh.
Kommie Kool-Aid city.
Time to drop the V and stick to the crypto spreadsheets, Luke.
Forced central planning is unethical and ALWAYS objectively results in greater violent conflict. This is why voluntaryists reject it.
EDIT: Now I am sure you will ignore my points and focus on the fact that my message this time was a bit personal. Well, after being browbeaten for months now by you falsely stating and implying that I focus mainly on people and not ideas when I raise arguments, and most recently victim shaming me in regard to the Kokesh threats (as though the whole thing was partially my fault) and in regard to several issues, I suppose I have decided to return the favor.
If you are worried about your rep as a voluntaryist, yes, you might find it advantageous to correct your misunderstandings. I don’t see how if you are correct now, this will negatively affect your reputation anyway. But, perhaps that is the thing of primary importance to you, how others view you?
The beauty of being consistent is you don’t have to worry about it so much. The truth always comes out. If I have said anything horrible or inaccurate about your positions, I would like to know. I will make good, apologize, and correct those things when you show me.
I want you to consider that perhaps certain responses may not have been so seemingly hyperbolic had you not climed that my protests against Jokesh were just “trolling” or because I was “seeking attention.”
You belittle people without even knowing it.
Now I’ve gotten personal, and it doesn’t change my logical argument at all. It stands alone, still.
Thanks for giving your perspective. Did you read the follow up also? It seems many came to the same conclusion that his views were communistic in nature. Note, I didn't give my opinion on that post for or against it, I just asked for yours.
Edit: I replied before I saw your updated comment. I don't think I ever said you were just trolling. I've pointed out my perspective on your actions and why I saw them as I did, but you did not respond to those points. Different personalities and perspectives I guess. Have a good one.
I responded to those points, Luke.
I am actually glad you came here now and commented so much. For all the word salads in which you fail to take any position, actual voluntaryists can see the non-arguments for what they are.
Was I just seeking attention, Luke?
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is real, it would seem.
Trolling implies someone that is trying to hide and spreading false info. When did I do that to Adam? Cite something. Pathetic.
How do you personally define the meaning of words? Trolling to me does not imply that at all. My definition is closer to:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling
My perspective related to your actions have to do with how you’ve treated me. If we can’t agree on the meanings of words then attempts at communication are pointless.
Then fucking stop talking to me, man. I don’t like you.
And my comments weren’t “random,” either. 🤦♂️
And I wasn’t looking for a “knee-jerk” reaction, but was trying to raise awareness.
What an asshole thing to say to me. That the Kokesh stuff was about “attention” and “trolling.”
You have brought up the Wiki twice. Wiki is a joke. It is full of disinformation and is never going to be a reliable source of truth. Why would anyone bother and waste their time there? I certainly will not.
Are there other encyclopedias or dictionaries or sources you use for common shared understanding for the current meaning and usage of words?
It's called Voluntaryism because it implies all interaction is voluntary. If someone plans to take my private property by force, it cannot possibly be voluntary. Why is that.... no, I won't write it. I'm done with you.
Where did I imply otherwise? I didn’t write the post I linked to nor did I say I agree or disagree with it. I asked you a question. If Wikipedia is not part of your sources for coming up with shared understanding of words, what is? How can you effectively communicate with others without shared understanding?
My point was made logically and clearly. I explained why I tagged you. I was not having "conversations about people." Thanks, Luke.