” Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying the United States? Do we smell nothing as yet of the American decomposition? States, too, decompose. The United States is dead. The United States remains dead…

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard…”

Apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

“It will be noted that there is a sense in which for Plato and Rousseau, as for Hobbs and Hume, the justification of government is self-interest.  The difference comes in the view of the “self” and its “interest.”  Hobbs and Hume try to maintain the original self basically unchanged, with its drive for power and possessions.  Plato and Rousseau, on the other hand, recognize that the justification of government requires a different kind of self, one whose ruling influence is not the drive for aggrandizement of its impulses without regard for objective deserts or the rights of others.  This difference in the conception of the self is sometimes put as a distinction between an “empirical” self and a “trancendental” self.  The distinction may also be put, however, as a contrast between and “egocentric” self and a “reasonable” self…”

And in discussing the various approaches to the justification of government, Gewirth writes that ”The individualist utilitarians…justify too little, because on the basis of egoism the individual’s duty to obey government cannot sufficiently be established.  The organicist utilitarians…justify too much, because they tend to swallow the individual’s desires into the social whole, in that they view the rational will as aiming not at his own self-interest but only at the interests of society, hence they leave the individual no rights against the whole…”  he then goes on to explain that a deontological “natural rights” view is a happy medium, with individuals seeking their own self-interest, but also recognizing inherent rights of others.  This view is similar, however to the organicists in that it assumes that “oughtness” can be determined without reference to the individual–that I should do something simply because it is “reasonable” or fits some logical syllogism or imagined “rule.”

And this is why the justification of government requires a redefinition of the self.  I hold it to be self-evident that the only reasonable motivation for doing anything is to maximize one’s own sense of fulfillment.  If this seems questionable, just ask yourself if you would do something you knew would make you miserable in all ways, emotionally, physically, and spiritually.  I would argue that even altruistic behavior in humans is motivated by a desire for fulfillment.

Can there be another motivation?  Is it reasonable for me to do something that will only hurt me in every way?  How can it be so? Saying that I should seek the good of society apart from my own interest is no different than saying I should seek the good of the planet Neptune or that I should live my life according to a random set of rules. 

It seems that Gewirth might agree with me.  Why else would he have written that Plato and Rousseau ”recognize that the justification of government requires a different kind of self”?  The only way to justify government is to imagine that “I” am “society”.  In that case, the problem I have stated disappears.  “My” good is the good of society.  By this strange twist of logic, it becomes reasonable to do something that would result in outright and utter misery for myself if only it could advance the fulfillment of “society”.

Of course, the problem is that I am not society.  It is interesting that Gewirth tries to call this the “reasonable” self.  I fail to see how it is reasonable that “I”=”society”.  Some attempt to justify this assertion by saying that man would not be man without society–reason and language could not develop in an isolated man.  Therefore, society comes logically prior to the individual and so it must remain prior.  One might as well say that I am the universe on the same basis, I suppose, or that I am the laws of physics, or the big bang.  It seems to me that the term “I” loses all meaning apart from the individual.

What am “I” if not the being that thinks my thoughts and acts according to my will?  “I think, therefore I am.” 

I think, act, and experience the world as an individual.  I am part of society, but it is, after all,  ”I” who am part of society.  Because it is as this individual “I” that I have my experience and thoughts and fulfillment, it can only be as this individual I that I seek fulfillment for myself. 

And so we must reject the organicists view that I should seek the good of society regardless of my own interests, because “I” am not “society.”

It follows that the State cannot be justified, because it can have no claim to authority over me, since there is no reason I should obey it unless I consent.

“Force! Coercion! Violence! Forever, it seems, people proposing force as a means to eliminate force!  You do not seem to realize that the essential characteristic of communism is coercion. Communism in essence is the communalization of the product of all by force.  Americans now practice communism in so many ways that the doctrine not in name, but in substance – is rapidly becoming not only acceptable but “respectable.”  There are People, many of them, who sincerely believe in this idea.  Those who believe in it, and openly proclaim their belief in it, you call “Communists.”   But you who practice it, and deny your belief in it, call yourselves “Liberals” and your countries “Democracies.”   And you propose to rid the world of force by using force against those who admit they believe in force.  In reality, you endorse their position.  You make the belief in force unanimous.   What, Pray tell, can you do with guns to make them question the rightness of their beliefs?  Can you do more than to confirm their belief in guns and to incite the wider use of guns?

The belief in coercion is an idea just as much as the belief in freedom is an idea.  It is for this reason that I think you have mistaken the nature of the conflict.  It is ideological, not personal; it is of the intellect, not of the flesh.  A ferment now goes on in the minds of men, ideas demanding violence as the means to a communal way of life.  As in every ferment a scum rises to the top, as fungus on a muck heap.  These bad ideas which rise out of the ferment are not to be destroyed by killing the persons who destroy them.  The swirls in the ferment will throw up replacements endlessly.  Killing merely agitates the process, as a poke on the jaw usually evokes a retaliatory poke on the jaw.  It’s the ideas which have to be considered.  The route to better ideas is evolutionary and peaceful, a matter you should have pondered long ago.  Better ideas are not shot into persons with guns.  Can you not see that gunners, except when acting in self-defense, have contracted the very disease they are bent on destroying?

What you are saying is that the people of the United States do not know their own interests; that coercion, the essence of the dictator idea, produces better results than man in free action.  You are saying that your countrymen are ignorant if free, but that one or more of their number, politically selected, will force them to act wisely if given enough power.  You are saying that wisdom is generated by the mere act of giving some person or persons a monopoly of coercion. If this be true, why do you not accept the Russian arrangement and be done with it? Does it really matter whether an American or a Russian has a gun in your back?  I thought you were fighting for freedom.  Isn’t it possible that the way to advance freedom is to behave like free men rather than like regimented men?  You, I fear, have been spreading the very disease you claimed to be trying to destroy.”

A free society is one in which no one is forced to do anything against his or her will and no one is allowed to use coercive force against his or her neighbor:  All interactions between individuals, economic and social, are free and voluntary.  

In this environment, man thrives.  He freely exchanges goods and services with others, freely associates, freely loves, freely gives, and flourishes.  Order arises from these free, undirected, individual choices.  Markets, laws, customs—society and civilization, grow as if guided by an invisible hand. 

The human race through history, as Henry Grady Weaver said, appears as a man struggling to rise, to break free of constraints, with varying degrees of success.  And during those times when freedom has been greatest, civilization has grown by leaps and bounds. 

And yet something always pulls people back.  Individuals lose sight of what Weaver calls the Mainspring of Human Progress—freedom.  They begin to choose force over freedom, control over individual responsibility, and violence over persuasion.  They rob each other through taxes, control each other through legislation and regulation, and destroy each other through war.  They control and are controlled, and they think that this will bring security, comfort, and fulfillment.  All they get is emptiness and failure. 

And yet they think the answer is more control, more government, when the answer is less control, more freedom.

Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, as George Bernard Shaw said, “Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it.”  They don’t like to work.  They fear the risks.  But in trading liberty and virtue for promises of comfort, they sell their birthrights for a single meal.  They get nothing but empty bellies and violence. 

How can a free being like man live under the yoke and wield the whip and expect to thrive?

He cannot.

And so we seek a more voluntary society.

“During the discussion following one of my recent lectures, it occurred to me that the questions fell into a pattern, and that this pattern was the same — whether in Manila, or Boise, or wherever. Each question was based on something the inquirer had heard or read; no questions appeared to stem from a genuine impasse in the person’s own effort to solve a problem. These people were merely repeating questions someone else had raised for them; they weren’t seeking directions by reason of having lost their way for, in fact, they had done no exploration on their own!…

The essential critical faculty cannot be developed when we copycat the questions and conclusions of others. Each to his own thinking! The rule, therefore, is not to take somebody else’s word for it. And to be consistent, what must my counsel be? Don’t take my word for it! Scarcely any self-anointed seer or prophet wants to go that far, but unless he will, write him off as an intellectual authoritarian, a be-like-me god.”

“The creation of the world — said Plato — is the victory of persuasion over force… Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals…

“Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.”

Professor Whitehead’s vision of civilized society as the triumph of persuasion over force should become paramount in the mind of all civic-minded individuals and government leaders. It should serve as the guideline for the political ideal. Let me suggest, therefore, a new political creed: The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society.

I think of William Wilberforce vs. Abraham Lincoln. 

By this standard, we are become less civilized*, not more.  Again, Skousen:

Too often politicians think that new programs requiring new taxes are the only way to pay for citizens’ retirement, health care, education or other social needs. “People just aren’t willing to pay for these services themselves,” they say, so they force others to pay for them instead.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.” But isn’t the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.

 *civilize:   To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a philosophy that opposes aggressive force or coersion. Most voluntaryists regard much of what government does as aggressively coercive, and call for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of anarchist philosophies, voluntaryists support strong property rights which they regard as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion.

The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action.

The term voluntaryism is often used today as a synonym for free-market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist philosophies. The voluntaryist movement, however, is distinct in its rejection of electoral politics. Because they consider electoral politics to be counterproductive or immoral, voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education, rather than voting.

Voluntaryists of Connecticut exists to provide opportunities for voluntarists living in the area to learn, network, organize, and build new relationships.

We hope to host seminars, movie showings, lectures, discussions, meetings, and gatherings for voluntaryists and those interested in learning more.