Voluntarism vs. Democracy

Thanks, Danielle, Re: Political Ideology and Issues of Comparison Pro says “Con argues that libertarianism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed, while libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally the same. That is entirely false.” Further stating “In a technical context, libertarianism does stem from classical liberalism.” I did not argue that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally the same. I argued that Libertarianism thought stems from Liberalism ideology, and it is a branch of that ideology. Much like say the Methodist church is a branch or sect of Christianity, though not synonymous with all other types of Christians. So the question has become did libertarianism stem from classical liberalism. “During the 18th century, classical liberal ideas flourished in Europe and North America. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by classical liberal ideas.” John Locke greatly influenced both libertarianism and the modern world in his writings published before and after the English Revolution of 1688, especially A Letter Concerning Toleration (1667), Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). In the latter he established the basis of liberal political theory: that people's rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights.”(1) (this is on a page about Libertarianism) There you have it. Libertarians were influenced by classical liberal ideology. Again those listed on Pro’s link as libertarian ideologues who helped develop volunteerism includes John Locke and John Stuart Mill. These two are quintessential Liberals. In Fact John Locke is “widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism.”(2) “libertarianism as a basic natural rights doctrine, in the spirit of Locke”(3) In other words, the two (libertarianism and Lberalism) are not mutually exclusive, and they are in fact… indisputable connected. Pro says “The NAP stands in direct contrast to principles of democracy. Libertarians are also opposed to democracy. These two things are NOT the same. In the last round, I detailed explicit differences between democracy and libertarianism.” I have already demonstrated quotes from voluntarist listed in Pro’s sources to be largely in favor of democracy. It is reinforced by the quotes above. Again I reiterate that John Stuart Mill presented the Harm principle. This principle is mostly synonymous with the NAP and he is referenced on pro’s link. He published “Considerations on Representative Government is a book by John Stuart Mill published in 1861.As the title suggests, it is an argument for representative government, the ideal form of government in Mill's opinion.” Pro even said “Indeed Con repeats in the conclusion of his last round that the founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and John Locke would all have supported a voluntarist government. This is an interesting argument, as the founding fathers were infinitely more libertarian than the politicians (and voters) of America today.” This just proves my point. So called voluntarists who formulated the NAP not only find the concept compatible with democracy, but advocated for such a government. Pro says “It is truly unfortunate that this debate has turned into a semantics discussion over definitions.” This is unfortunate. However, it is clear that when pro concludes that “The NAP stands in direct contrast to principles of democracy. Libertarians are also opposed to democracy.” We can know that is entirely untrue. Re: Democracy vs. Republic Pro clings to the argument of tyranny of the majority. Again this is easily handled with checks and balances. While Pro seems to feel that is not enough, it is the realistic option that leads the rights of individuals to be respected as much if not more than any other type or form of government. Re: Clarifications on Voluntarism Pro says “Con writes, "Pro seems to be implying that because a democracy, for example the USA, has in its history allowed the people to violate the NAP that Democracy itself allows such an action. This does not follow." You'll notice that Con never explains how/why it does not follow, since it absolutely does. Democracy violates the NAP including examples like taxation and establishing victimless, voluntary crimes (prostitution, gambling, etc.). This inhibits liberty, and is encouraged by government policy such as for-profit prisons. “ (a)The US is a democracy (b) The US has violated the NAP If (a) and (b) then Democracies in theroy are necessarily doomed to violation of the NAP Do you see the jump in logic… (a) Kasmic is a man (b) Kasmic is using a syllogism If (a) and (b) then All men use syllogisms When I say “it does not follow” I mean logically. Pro is using the USA as an example of All democracies and All democratic theories. The examples given are not inherient to the type of government known as a democracy, rather just examples of what some democracies have done. It is like saying that men are strait. To be man means to be strait. Many/most men are, yet not all. Ergo, to be strait is not inherient to being a man. Likewise, some democracies have violated the NAP. These examples however are not inherient to the form of government known as a democracy. It cannot be concluded that Democracy inheriently allows violation of the NAP. Conclusion Pro’s contentions are placed on specific examples of democracies however, not on the concept of democracies. Thus these contentions do not support her burden of argument. Again I share from Pro’s round one “I will be arguing that voluntarism is the superior moral principle to democracy.” No such argument has be made on moral grounds. Rather Pro has in a way cherry picked specific democracies that have done things beyond the NAP. However, these examples are not inherent to democracies. I maintain that this debate has an issue as these two ideals are not at odds with each other. Rather, they stem from the same Ideology, Liberalism. This clearly being the case, it cannot logically be concluded that “Voluntarism is is the superior moral principle to democracy.” Especially as democracy is a form of government, and voluntarism is a ideology. They can go hand in hand. I apologize to pro if she found this debate “unfortunate” as I did not intend on a semantical debate. I would be open to debating again in a case where a clear comparison can be made. I.E. a form of government vs a form of government. A political ideology vs political ideology. Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://www.boundless.com... (3) http://plato.stanford.edu...