Voluntarism vs. Democracy

Thanks, kasmic. Re: Political Ideology and Issues of Comparison It is truly unfortunate that this debate has turned into a semantics discussion over definitions. Con argues that libertarianism and anarchism are fundamentally opposed, while libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally the same. That is entirely false. In a technical context, libertarianism does stem from classical liberalism. However, classical liberalism is nothing like the liberalism of today (which emphasizes democratic principles). Meanwhile, libertarians and anarchists share a MUCH similar ideology [1]. In particular, both of these ideologies fundamentally agree on the NAP [2]. The NAP Wikipedia page (sourced in an earlier round) outlines how the NAP is inherent to both the libertarian and anarchist principles.One author writes, "I typically describe myself as a libertarian anarchist... Libertarian is a more friendly word; anarchist is generally perceived to be hostile... Yet some people, especially people who are libertarian or anarchists, view the words as essentially the same thing." He explains what I tried to in the last round, though perhaps does a better job of it. He notes libertarianism is an ethical doctrine. It is concerned with rights. Most commonly this right is referred to as the right to self ownership, which includes the right to the product of your labor. He continues, "The libertarian principle of non-aggression simply is a means of asserting the premise of self ownership. The non-aggression principle states that one may/should not use coercive physical force to violate the self ownership of any other person. The principle clearly understood merely asserts that all actions should be voluntarily untaken... The use of force is illegitimate for libertarians... What is clear is that libertarians oppose government. Government is any actor, individual, or collective that negates the liberty of self ownership - any entity that claims control over another person or persons" [3]. This is where the comparison/correlation with anarchism comes in. "Anarchism (voluntarism) has nothing to do with rights or ethics. The concept of 'philosophical anarchism' may, but that is very similar if not the same as libertarianism. Anarchism is a political concept that promotes ideas hostile to the State. The State can essentially be viewed as a self enforcing monopoly with power over a specified although possibly indefinite region. Because governing institutions are most effective at depriving individuals of liberty, they are well equipped to claim dominion over and submission to itself, while aiming to protect itself from competition" [3]. In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive, and they are similar.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. While libertarianism and anarchy are not exactly the same, they are very similar and far more similar than libertarianism and democracy. Con is correct that democracy is a much greater part of liberalism than libertarianism. Libertarians oppose democratic principles and support the NAP for the reasons I've outlined in the last round, particularly in reference to the founding fathers. Matthew Yglesias writes, "Libertarians have always been against democracy (the rapprochement with democracy being one of the key steps in the transition from classical to modern liberalism)" [4]. Libertarian leaning politician Rand Paul agrees that people's fundamental rights should not be up for democratic vote [5]. Re: Democracy vs. Republic Con says a democratic republic is superior to a democracy, because it could "could check the power of the people while the people retain sovereignty." In a republic, the law is still dictated by the whims of the people or the people they elect. Furthermore, I've explained in the last round that checks and balances not only still allow for atrocities like slavery and genocide, but ignore the rights of the smallest minority: the individual, who may not consent to be governed by a particular institution or set of laws they find fundamentally oppressive and aggressive. Re: Clarifications on Voluntarism 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. Con notes, "For emphasis again she says 'Democracy allows for taxation; voluntarism pretty much does not.' Pretty" much" does" not. Does this mean that somewhere some voluntarist do?" Sure Con - allow me to clarify. While voluntarists do not support COMPULSORY taxation, that does not mean a group of people within society will not agree to collect funds to pay for particular services fostering efficiency. I used the phrase "pretty much" to explain that while taxation is prohibited in a voluntarist society (as taxes are property and wealth demanded through force), they might set up a similar system as a way to help society function, i.e. pay for things like a local fire department. So while it will not be identical to taxation, it will pretty much resemble a similar system except with a lot more transparency and less waste. Studies have been done proving the utility of libertarian governments. Research measuring public vs. private sector efficiency shows countries with small public sectors report the "best" economic performance, and countries with small public sectors report significantly higher efficiency. These findings suggest diminishing marginal products of higher public spending would be useful [6]. The NAP inhibits the pubic sector, and functions solely on the productive private (rather than parasitic public) sector. Re: Principles That Lead to Democracy People have the equal right to non-aggression. Likewise people should have the liberty to act however they want, so long as it does not aggress against or infringe upon the rights of others. Again, this is the primary distinction of the NAP vs. democracy. Con says that he didn't say people must consent to secure rights, but that governments are instituted to secure those rights. Here's a direct quote: "Governments being instituted to secure these rights". 'deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'" His quote implies that the government derives consent from the people to institute and secure rights, which is just another way of saying exactly what I said. Either way, in a democracy people consent to vote on or have others vote on what rights we allegedly have. For instance, people argue that we have the right to health care, but that is debated. People argue that we have the right to sue people for not serving us, but that is debated. What I'm arguing is that the NAP are the only rights that are seemingly inherent (if inherent rights could exist), and all other so-called rights are just moral fabrications at the whim of the masses. For instance a few years ago, the majority of the population did not believe people had a right to health care. Now a lot more people do believe in that right. If rights become things we can make up or take away as we please, it creates problematic potential for abuses of power. On the other hand, a government that abides strictly by the NAP as opposed to democracy would prevent legalizing aggression (or state sanctioned aggression) contrary to democracy. Re: Criticisms of Democracy It seems Con has forfeited every single criticism of democracy that I have made. To reiterate, I have provided a handful of legitimate points about why democracy is inferior to the NAP. I have also explained ad nauseum why they are not synonymous concepts. Democracy allows you vote to implement or take away rights; the NAP does not. It is too late for Con to introduce any new arguments in the last round. Once again, problems with democracy include the tyranny of the majority, inefficiency, and inherently flawed incentives regarding the goals of voters vs. the politicians. Also, extend all of my arguments regarding ignorant, uninformed, biased and otherwise malicious voters who through democracy promote confirmation and other cognitive biases in decision making. Con has not disputed any of my claims regarding the incapacity of most voters to make the best decisions. Furthermore, extend all of my arguments on efficiency. Con did not address my points regarding the incentives of politicians and voters to be contrary to each other and individual rights (liberty). Finally extend my arguments on legislating away property (among other) rights. My opponent never justified legal theft, or the forcible seizing of one's earnings or property for no other reason than they have acquired more than others approve of. In fact he hasn't justified democracy at all outside of saying "that's the way things are and how some philosophers agree it should be." On the contrary, I have submitted my counter to democracy (the NAP) as not only a different form of government, but a more moral and pragmatic function of government. Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://nap.univacc.net...[3] http://www.newkindofmind.com...[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] http://blogs.crikey.com.au...[6] http://beforeitsnews.com...