- Assertions The [philosophic burden of proof](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
Statist political philosophies generally (with slight variation) *assert*:
- A monolithic inflexible idea or system should be enforced on all subjects within a territory
- Man may be made involuntary servant to a centralized coercive force
- This centralized force may compel action, limit permissible action, acquire resources, act as representation, and conduct wars.
- A specific statist political philosophy is ideal, benevolent, and necessary for human well-being, and necessary to adequately provide a specific set of services.
If you examine a system like Representative Democracy, you will notice an immensely complex system. Each layer of complexity is designed to patch gaping holes in the system (i.e. constitution, checks and balances, FDIC, etc), which is like putting band-aids on infected wounds.
In contrast, I propose:
- It is inherently illegitimate for any man to be made involuntary servant.
The capacity of human intellect, creativity, and interaction has an almost unlimited number of possibilities, consisting of an entire spectrum of choices known or yet to be imagined by billions of people existing or yet to be born. Therefore proposing that a single inflexible idea (regulation, central banking, fractional reserve banking, government, democracy, socialism, religion, etc) should be enforced on all of humanity within a geographical, is a very significant and even narcissistic proposition.
Further, one’s inability to imagine alternatives does not imply their advocacy is superior amongst such a vast spectrum of alternatives. In contrast to modern advances in human knowledge and technology, political structures are heavily entrenched in flawed ideals hundreds to thousands of years old.
The Uninformed Assertion Monster
In the course of discussing voluntarism, inevitably you will be attacked frequently by the Uninformed Assertion Monster!!!! *(the horror)*
- *"Roads can never be built in a free society"*
- *"There is no security or law without government"*
- *"Anarchists are naive and it will never work"*
There are a variety of means of handing this monster, but I have had success with the following technique:
- *"In order to avoid significant missteps, please ask questions before making assertions about a concept you are unfamiliar with."*
The above delivery is slightly condescending, so feel free to modify it in the context of your discussion. Typically the way this works is:
* Me: *"Describe voluntarism…"*
* Statist: *"Pesants!!!! Fear my uninformed assertions monster!!!"
* Me: *"Call out assertion & then educate"*
With the above model, I typically do not argue directly against their assertions, but rather focus on approaching matters from an educational perspective. This is valuable in avoiding traps that *distract* from core principles, ethics, and economics. If they step out of line, i may treat them as an unruly and ignorant pupil, for example….
* Statist: "But no one would ever fund roads because of market failure, bla, bla"*
* Me: *"Your inability to imagine alternatives and innovate solutions in no way implies that innovative solutions do not exist. Again, please ask questions before making assertions."*
*P.S. This is just one method, more often I focus on asking questions until they trip over themselves.*
Assertion of Duty
Saying "individual X has duty Y" is an assertion. As with all assertions, the [philosophic burden of proof](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
Further, if one asserts man has an obligation, that obligation must be derived from something. If an assertion is presumed or derived from nothingness, I can equally assign obligation of bathroom-cleaning 'privileges' every Wednesday to anyone who argues otherwise.
As with most assertions, at best one can disprove or demonstrate flaws in the presentation of an assertion, but typically one cannot conclusively prove that no obligations exist any more than one can disprove the existence of the benevolent flying spaghetti monster that demands your worship. The question remains, according to what basis does this assertion arise, and what kinds of obligations are implied?
If we *presume* this duty in question is a moral obligation, as a moral obligation, it must be universal and not arbitrary. If we further *presume* this duty is in the form of an involuntary transfer of resources or labor *(i.e. a tax given to a centralized governing body)*, then it cannot be presumed that this duty is derived from the voluntary choices of an individual. Therefore proposals that an obligation of tax arises voluntarily is a self contradiction.
Voluntarism and having the answers
*"Should Voluntarists seek or attempt to answer the meaning of life every question about a voluntarist society?"*
One of the greatest flaws of statism and especially democracy is deeply embedded in it's frequent use of assertions and absolutes. It is after-all a *"Central Planner Fallacy** to pretend to have all the answers to every one of life's complex situations.
Voluntarism is *mostly* an anti-assertion; voluntarism isn't an assertion of non-violence because one cannot "do" non-violence. Voluntarism is not a political philosophy in the same way atheism/agnosticism is not a religion. It's the same as "rights do not exist" but rather what exists is the violation, or a *"violent act in response to peaceful activities."*
When discussing voluntarism alternatives (i.e. DROs) to the state, I am always explicit that these are merely some of the alternatives I am aware of, however I am in no way advocating imposing these on anyone.
With enough investigation, eventually one will understand that superior alternatives exist for every (dis)"services" the state claims to provide, and that pursing this knowledge is mostly a waste of time, except perhaps for diffusing irrational fears of a very large dangerous pack of animals.
We recognize the merit of voluntary, consensual, and non-violent human interaction as far more productive in comparison to involuntary and violent human interaction *(i.e. violations of the non-aggression principle)* whose effect is net-destructive in nearly every case. While the voluntarist recognizes the destructive nature of 99% of violence, he is not asserting non-violence, but denying the violent assertion in the same way one denies any random or unusual assertion which lacks sufficient supporting evidence and carries much evidence to the contrary.