Toward the Voluntary Society: An Introduction

All too often, political philosophy is an exercise in utopianism, the construction of imaginary, idealized societies. On their face, these visions are impossible to realize given disparate human motivations, actions, and desires. The processes proposed are also frequently illogical, invoking non sequitur after non sequitur in their explication.

Marxism is perhaps the most famous example. On his projected path to a stateless, classless communist society, Karl Marx predicted that, despite their own rising standards of living, the working classes in prosperous capitalist economies would revolt against the owning and ruling classes. Thereafter, socialist dictatorships would be established to control every aspect of cultural and economic development in order to eventually eliminate all human inequality. Then, somehow, this totalitarian state would simply surrender all of its power, giving way to a completely free society, where each individual person would produce according to his ability and consume according to his need. Though all attempts at its practical application have failed at every step, Marxist ideology is still immensely popular for obvious reasons.

The reasons why Marxism would never work should be equally obvious, but I’m not writing today to critique Marx. Rather, I want to introduce another political philosophy and explicate it without magical thinking or utopian idealism. The voluntary society I will describe may be no more achievable than Marx’s communist paradise, but I think it can be approached much more closely through the application of ideologically consistent libertarian philosophies and realistic political processes.

All of this presupposes that human freedom is a desirable outcome. I can understand and accept that not everyone shares this goal. Indeed, slave states have flourished throughout human history and have created widely revered cultural landmarks. For those who see such states as the superior way to live, nothing that I can say or do will ever change their minds. Instead, I want to chart a possible course for those who do value human freedom but struggle to understand why the current paradigm also appears to be failing to deliver it.

I will follow with a series of essays discussing various aspects of the voluntary society and how they might realistically be achieved. None of these will demand the adoption of any one model of social or economic organization. In fact, I will argue that all organizational models are permissible within a voluntary society so long as they adhere to just two fundamental moral principles.

On that moral foundation, we can move toward the voluntary society in a logical fashion. This will also account and allow for human differences that other political philosophies have simply and improbably hoped to erase. The choices demanded won’t be easy by any means, and some of the ancillary outcomes that will be implied may be disconcerting where they can’t be mitigated, but this is the only path toward lasting freedom—one that won’t vanish in the mirage of utopian fantasy.

Of Wolves and Men

The photograph above has been circulating on social media in recent weeks. It purports to show a wolf pack, wherein the old, sick, and weak set the pace for the group from the front, the young and strong make up the center, and the dominant male watches over everything from the rear. Some of my “liberal” friends have commented favorably on this social structure. One even remarked that it’s “how we should act …”

While the picture is beautiful and illustrates how different social groups can survive, I find it deeply ironic that compassionate “liberals” would recommend it as a model for human society. Let’s look at the wolf pack more closely to see why.

The old, sick, and weak are placed in the vanguard of the pack. This may let them set the pace, but it also puts them at the greatest risk for attack by hostile wolves or other predators. Should an attack come, then the stronger members of the pack have the option to flee safely or to counterattack the distracted enemy.

When the pack makes a kill, the wolves usually feed by rank. The dominant pair eat their fill, followed by the lower ranks. The old, sick, and weak get whatever scraps are left when the stronger wolves are done. As a result, they may grow weaker still.

Rivals for dominance within the pack are often expelled or killed. Outcasts face great difficulty surviving on their own—much greater difficulty than a single, able-bodied human would face. If these lone wolves manage to survive but can’t eventually start their own packs, the may turn to poaching and other desperate pursuits, making them the criminals of the wolf world.

Wolf packs are also highly territorial. When they meet, there is usually hostility. In other words, the primary relationship between different wolf populations is warfare. These conflicts are one of the main causes of death among wolves, accounting for over half of all fatalities in some cases.

And when the old, sick, and weak wolves can no longer walk, they will ultimately be abandoned by the pack to die in isolation and suffering. In lean times, they may even be killed and eaten by their own pack mates.

When our old, sick, and weak can no longer move, we will carry them—sometimes to a fault. Human groups can be just as competitive as rival wolf packs, but we thrive through cooperative competition (at least within free markets). We try to shelter our outcasts and to protect our defenseless. Despite our self-ascribed penchant for violence, the trend for advancing human civilizations has been the pursuit of peaceful relations between nations.

Our principal failure, at least in the enlightened portion of human society, is not a lack of compassion. It is misplaced and misdirected compassion. We have allowed the hand extended in help to be used to pull all of us down. We have failed to properly understand social problems, and we have repeatedly failed to learn the lessons of history.

Ironically, wolf society is exactly the harsh, dog-eat-dog paradigm that so many “liberals” falsely accuse “conservatives” and libertarians of desiring. Those of us on the political right (nominally or otherwise) who advocate for individual freedom, personal responsibility, and equality of opportunity do so because of our compassion for others and because of our desire to reduce human suffering. We want to see the weak grow stronger, the disadvantaged become prosperous, and the downtrodden regain dignity. Through no ill intent of its ideological proponents, the left would expand poverty, helplessness, and subjugation as a cause and consequence of its pursuit and application of political power.

And when the leftists finally succeed, human society may indeed begin to resemble the brutal reality of the wolf pack once again.

Of Family and Political Philosophies

I was asked how my brother and I ended up with such differing political views. It was a pointed question that deserved a considered answer. I will pour myself another drink and answer it again here.

I would describe my brother as a highly intelligent modern “liberal.” He has intentions as noble as anyone’s and may not be as ideologically inconsistent as most, but his consistency is at least soft, and I suspect that he can be swayed fairly easily by appeals to “social justice” or political utilitarianism. He studied computer science and now works in the well-paid programming field—when he can.

Our father is a self-described bleeding-heart liberal and was born to working-class parents who came of age during the labor movement. He would even consider himself a communist at times, but in practice, I find him to be a garden-variety Keynesian—which would be perfectly reasonable in a fiscally responsible regime. He studied engineering and followed his father into the trades as a machinist. He has been a modestly successful small businessman, weathering the ups and downs of the industrial economy in southern California.

Our mother has wandered more both politically and geographically, but she has trended slightly more “conservative” throughout the years. She wanted nothing more than to be a wife and mother but found herself a single parent working at low-paying clerical jobs. She eventually left the crowded, regimented world of suburban California for the open, semi-rural environment of Cache Valley in Utah.

I can be described as a libertarian or as a classical liberal, someone who advocates equality before the law and individual freedom for all. In fact, I would make a better communist than my father, but I keep my communism in storage next to my perpetual-motion machine. I studied history, wherein I discovered that humanity has not changed at all in the last 20,000 years, despite the historical chauvinism that visits every new generation. I have also worked in academia for almost two decades now, so I’ve had plenty of opportunities to see the dark side of the ivory towers.

My parents taught me to be financially responsible and to respect others. Why those qualities should be expected of an individual but not of the governments constituted by individuals at large, I cannot say. However, it is that fundamental hypocrisy that irks me so.

It took me 30 years, but I ultimately confronted and rejected utilitarianism. Until then, I was surely as self-important and chauvinistic as anyone. I made a very conscious decision on that day in September. The ends do not justify the means. My previous worldview was destroyed utterly, and my grief is still as raw and primal as ever, but I am a better and more moral man for it—shamed and humbled though I may be.

Philosophically and morally, that decision left me with only one ideologically consistent path to follow. I would like to think that, when shown the same historical facts, any intelligent person would reach the same conclusions, but that is simply not the case. Utilitarianism is an incredibly seductive philosophy, appearing to offer the collective power to do great good—though the underlying causes of various social problems are often misunderstood—and too few will look beyond that promise to see that it can also be used to justify great evil. Indeed, regimes that I would die fighting have accomplished very great things.

I could say more, namely about the moral courage required to allow others to fail, but I think that I’ve answered the question. Different political philosophies are valid and have been proven so by their historical success, but that doesn’t make them necessarily moral. I chose objective morality for its own sake—or perhaps because the alternatives too horrified me. Everything else is mere detail.

Taxation and Revenue

Though it has become politically irrelevant and I am now committed to soaking the rich until California blooms or burns or at least until I have my share of the spoils,* I have been asked why I previously “voted against my job” and opposed tax increases, so I will answer that question as a final nod toward fiscal wisdom and responsibility.

In the simplest terms, tax rates are not directly proportional to tax revenues. Beyond a certain point, higher tax rates will actually result in reduced revenues as the economy declines in response to the rising costs and as overburdened taxpayers find ways to avoid or evade taxes. Of course, the reverse is also true. To an extent, lower tax rates can allow for economic growth that increases tax revenues in the long term.

Stated another way, if the private sector prospers, then the public sector will prosper in turn. If the public sector demands too much from the private sector, and the private sector suffers as a result, then the public sector will also suffer in the end.

I don’t know where we are on the curve, but I’m fairly certain it is somewhere beyond the point of revenue maximization. That was my pragmatic reason for opposing higher taxes.

*Apparently, it’s greed only if you make more than $250,000 per year.

Ever the Rush to Judgment

In all very numerous assemblies … passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.

–James Madison

It has been a bitter few weeks in the struggle for human freedom, not so much because of actual setbacks or defeats—though we’ve had those too. Instead, we’ve seen the usual political opportunism that attends controversial events but this time in the ugly company of both popular disregard for the constitutional separation of powers and the emotionally expedient disrespect for fundamental American legal principles, such as due process of law and the presumption of innocence. For me, this is always a painful reminder of how little the people understand or value liberty.

My disappointment is the greater, because it is my own friends and colleagues whom I cannot sway in the face of salacious hearsay spread by the mainstream media. These are otherwise intelligent individuals who profess desire for “social justice” but have let their own emotions and prejudices blind them. Now, in fits of vengeful rage, they would forsake the social and legal barriers that preserve and defend actual justice in a rush to condemn people and events about which they are not properly informed.

It’s moments like this when my own resolve weakens. If reason will always face defeat at the hands of passion, why continue the pretense of debate? Why not abandon the polite, legalistic contest for ordered liberty and hoist the black flag of bloody revolution? Or somewhat more mildly, should I simply surrender to the unhappy idea that to live free means to live as an outlaw—or at least to live as an outsider within a society ruled by the mob’s caprice?

No. I am not ready to retire from the battle of ideas just yet. Important victories for civil rights are in the offing, even if they seem perpetually two years away at the moment.

Ideological Consistency

I have a series of philosophical posts that I’ve been typically lax in completing. While continuing to delay that work, I will explain another concept that informs my thinking. That is ideological consistency, a notion I have mentioned many times in passing elsewhere.

Ideological consistency should be a simple concept to understand. Very plainly, it means keeping one’s philosophical ideas consistent with each other, even when that requires accepting related aspects that one may dislike. For example, opposing censorship while personally disliking “offensive” content would be ideologically consistent.

Nevertheless, many people clearly struggle with this concept and cling to contradictory philosophical positions. Such people are ideologically inconsistent. This is one of the major problems within American politics—a problem exacerbated by the fact that all political discourse must be jammed through the constraints of our artificial two-party system.

Both Republicans and Democrats suffer from ideological inconsistency. Republicans who want a strong national defense but smaller government and lower taxes are not ideologically consistent. Democrats who support the right to privacy but want universal gun registration are not ideologically consistent. These are but two examples of many.

Ideological inconsistency creates internal instability that often makes a given political goal much more difficult, if not impossible to achieve.