Voluntaryism Defined Video

Here's a short video introduction to voluntaryism that I thought was interesting. I like to see people working on producing and creating short videos like this because it's an easy way to spread around basic information that people may not have been exposed to before.

Yes, I Advocate A Form Of Anarchism

COLUMN NOTES: For those interested in more detail about this headline, I advocate for the type of anarchism generally known as "free-market anarchism." If you interested, I trust you have the ability to do a google search and begin your own journey into the ideas. Of course if you do want to discuss it with me, I'm happy to do so, just contact me.

HARBESON: It’s a voluntary reaction

I see that Floyd County Republican Party chairman Dave Matthews is upset with me again. Poor Dave, he struggles to understand my viewpoint. He’s not the only one.

Others have struggled to understand why they can agree wholeheartedly with me one week and perhaps the very next week find themselves thinking I must be a wacko (insert label here).

Dave did not like what I had to say in a recent column about State Rep. Steve Stemler, who is rumored to be a Democrat. Or is it Republican? I forget. Oh well, it doesn’t really matter.

Anyway, I’m not sure how often Mr. Matthews disagrees with me but I remember the last time he decided to go public about a disagreement. It was after a 2009 column questioning our country’s worship of Abraham Lincoln, after I learned more about his actions while president.

COLUMN NOTE: I wrote a response to him at that time and am linking to it here because I think this entire series of columns and resulting interactions provides a great demonstration of how many of us get stuck in certain thought processes and entrenched in certain positions without really considering whether it's consistent and makes sense.

And yet in between these two instances, I enjoyed a series of cordial e-mail exchanges with Mr. Matthews, beginning when he e-mailed to congratulate me on another column I wrote about a politician. That one was about Lee Hamilton. He enthusiastically commended me for taking an “honest look” at the guy and for being “brave enough to take on an icon.”

He seemed to understand why I was questioning the actions of Hamilton. He seemed to understand when I pointed out that Hamilton played a part in instituting programs that increased federal government involvement into more areas of our lives. (All that money spent to fix problems and what’s in the headlines today? The same issues: health care and education.)

But what Dave seems to miss is that the underlying theme of all three columns is the same: society’s automatic reverence for politicians who claim to be above the fray and constantly spread the myth of government as a virtuous institution.

I realized during our e-mail conversation that he is also confused because he thinks my ultimate goal is smaller government (whatever that means). It’s not.

My goal is a society completely absent of the aggressive institution we call government. My goal is a society of voluntary interactions. Yes, that means I advocate a form of anarchism.

I didn’t always think this way of course. It’s a result of taking a serious look at what I claimed to value. I accept the nonaggression principle and once I decided to apply it consistently, I realized that if it’s not proper for me, as an individual, to initiate force on other individuals then it’s not proper to do it using an institution called government.

So, I must reject government because I reject the initiation of force on peaceful people. I have concluded that voluntary interaction is the only social order matching my values. This means I can’t hold reverence for government, an institution whose very foundation rests on aggression.

I hope Dave understands that this goal cannot be accomplished through politics. Politics is counter to the goal. I know he’s put a lot of time and energy into government as the answer, so I understand he may not be willing or able to accept what I accept.

But still, I have good news for Dave. Even if he doesn’t accept the principle and reach the conclusions I have, I’m not going to try and force him to do so.

Dave has chosen who he will voluntarily associate with by deciding not to read any more of my columns. I fully support him in his decision because freedom of association is one of the very tenets of voluntaryism.

For everyone else, you can follow Dave’s lead and stop reading, or you can continue to read, ponder and critically examine the points I make.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is starting to enjoy being referred to as that wacko “insert label here.”

A Voluntary Situation or Not?

COLUMN NOTES: I was spanked for this one by a voluntaryist friend of mine. He made some great points and I want to share them here. First, in general he's not too fond of the United Way. He had an amazingly bad experience when a previous employer treated him badly, even threatened him with a bad job review if he did not donate. He's not the only one and I heard stories even before I wrote this piece and so kind of wondered if I'd hear from anyone about it. He gave me a link he found that shows there are others who have less than favorable views on how companies raise funds for the United Way.

He also pointed out to me that many organizations that get United Way funding are government organizations and/or already funded by the taxpayer.

He also really didn't like the idea of giving a "voluntary salute to the mayor." (For the record I didn't write that headline.) My friend's view on this revolves around the idea that all of these people are parasites living off of coerced funds. But let's hear from him in his own words:

"It bothers me on another level because I can't see someone who lives at the expense of others, who literally lives off of the looted earnings of working people, as having done something praiseworthy because they drop a few of their stolen coins in a box marked 'charity'. Big f'n deal if a mugger drops a few dollars into the Salvation Army kettle at Christmas time, it wasn't his money to take or give. Same way with your mayor and all his tax-parasite employees. Every dime they donate to United Way was stolen from someone else."

And he also said this:
"Giving a 'voluntary salute to the mayor', TO ME, would be like giving a salute to Hitler because he started a voluntary charitable organization
-The Winterhilfswerk (WHW) was an annual drive by the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (the National Socialist People’s Welfare Organization) to help finance charitable work. Its slogan was "None shall starve nor freeze". It ran from 1933-1945 during the months of October through March, and was designed to provide food, clothing, coal, and other items to less fortunate Germans during the inclement months.-

Hell, southern plantation owners used to voluntarily give presents and clothes to their slaves, particularly at Christmas- Praiseworthy?

Ted Bundy took time off from his serial rape/murder spree to voluntarily donate his time to work the phones at the local rape crisis hotline - true story- praiseworthy?"

I will certainly not argue with that logic and I think he makes good points but I still hold on to hope that writing this column may have caused someone, who's not quite where my friend is philosophically, to perhaps think more about voluntary actions versus using the government gun.

What do you think?

HARBESON: I voluntarily salute the mayor


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This week, I would like to focus my energy on commending and praising Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan. For the third year in a row, he’s helping promote the United Way by entering into a friendly competition with New Albany Mayor Doug England.

The cities compete in a contest to see who can get the most city employee participation. The winner gets possession of a traveling trophy and the loser has to sweep the street around the winner’s city hall.

I find it very refreshing to see local politicians putting their energy into promoting something that is voluntary. It’s also kind of jarring because it’s so odd to see this happen with no ordinances written, no property being forcibly taken from other people, no one controlling anyone else — just respect and voluntary action. And yet it still works somehow.

The United Way is a well-respected organization but it’s not the only one out there. There are hundreds of ways people help each other. Some people also choose to help others by giving time and talent, rather than money. And yet, thousands of dollars are raised despite the fact that the employees are free to decide how much, and if, they want to participate.

Of course, adding the competition factor is a nice way to inject some spark into this charitable effort. The mayors and city employees may give a bit more to the United Way as a result because competition can help motivate people.

Isn’t it interesting to see government officials so deep into freedom-oriented ideas of competition and voluntary cooperation?

To watch how this plays out compared to other work mayors do using government control is instructive. There is no controversial edge to this; it’s just one of those fluffy feel-good stories. There are no critics, no one is forced into it kicking and screaming, everyone involved is respected enough to make his or her own decision.

This kind of action brings forth a completely different energy doesn’t it? It’s by far the best thing Galligan has done since taking office.

This really shouldn’t be so surprising and normally it’s not. Businesses do similar contests and competitions for charitable giving. Charitable giving goes on constantly, some of it through institutions and organizations and there’s also plenty done without any institutional involvement whatsoever: family helping family; friend helping friend. Hardly any of this makes the news because it’s just the normal way we live our daily lives.

But when government officials do it, it’s kind of like a man bites dog story.

If only we’d see more of this type of action from our local politicians. Playing cheerleader for local charities and businesses would be a great way for the mayor to spend his energy. There’d be less time to think about ways to spend other people’s money, which means there’d be more out there for charitable giving and investing in local business. More cheerleading and less controlling would make us all better off, don’t you think?

What would life be like if politicians just got out of the way and let businesses and charities do what they do? I would love to see much more action promoting voluntary methods of interacting with our neighbors and giving individuals the respect to make choices that work for them, their families and their individual situations.

So, Mayor Galligan, let me say well done, sir. Please, do more work cheerleading for voluntary and business causes and put less energy toward using government to control. You could create a more peaceful community everyone would enjoy.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson doesn’t mind mayors playing cheerleader, and even using pom poms, but she draws the line at those skimpy uniforms.

A Voluntaryist Project: Debbie and Carl

I have a new project. You can learn all about it here.

Oh, and let me know what you think of my voluntaryist chicken.

My Version of Project Management

Anyone remember me talking about the time I met the Motorhome Diaries Guys? It happened about a year ago and I included them in a column I wrote after their visit here.

Well now, two of these fellows, Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller, are taking to the road in an RV again, with a Project called Liberty On Tour.

Since I discovered a whole new part of the liberty movement that I hadn't really connected with before until The Motorhome Diaries rolled around the country, I was glad to hear a similar project was being done and I wanted to show my support somehow.

But I wasn't sure how I wanted to do that.

Also during the last year, I've been thoroughly enjoying another project, School Sucks, which I have mentioned at least once on this blog.

The School Sucks Project is loaded with interesting, thoughtful information about schools, learning and education. One thing I really like about it is that besides the podcasts themselves, host Brett Veinotte takes the time and trouble to list resources directly related to that particular show's topic and content (books, articles, other podcasts etc).

I like that because he's not only telling the truth about our education system, he's also helping people with their own journey into self-education and critical thinking.

As a result of listening to this project and watching it grow, I've been looking for an interesting way to help support this project too.

So, when I saw that Liberty On Tour was offering various types of sponsorships to fund their project, I thought this would be a good way to support both projects in one fell swoop.

One fell swoop is good for me. Too many swoops and I get dizzy.

So all I have to say now is go, my sons, and promote liberty throughout the land. :)

Scandal Is When You Can't Opt Out

HARBESON: Rise up against the force

BY DEBBIE HARBESON

CLARK COUNTY — An uneasy feeling of anticipation filled the air this past weekend as the Crusade for Children finished up its annual fundraising marathon. A Kentucky fire department chief is accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars intended for the Crusade, so organizers were unsure how this news would affect this year’s donations.

Everyone wondered if this scandal would burn a hole of mistrust inside this organization so large that donations would be severely affected. Crusade officials knew they needed to demonstrate their effectiveness in helping special needs children in the community. They understood they needed to calm any fears that the money would not get to the children who needed the help.

The fire department that was involved in the scandal did collect less money this year, but in total, the Crusade’s collection was the largest since 2005. Of course, it’s entirely possible they had to spend more than usual on promotional efforts in order to overcome the scandal, which means the actual take could indeed be less, but even so it was a success.

The Crusade already had a lot going for it to avert disaster because it is a voluntary organization. This enabled members to build the knowledge, strength and initiative they needed to accomplish goals.

With or without a scandal, they’ve always had to work hard to persuade others that what they do is worthy of support. That’s what happens when you interact with others on a voluntary basis.

In addition, prospective donors had many choices in how to react to the situation. They could refuse to donate at all or they could give less than before. They could decide, after looking at the specifics of the scandal, that they don’t want a fire department to play middleman and just give the money straight to the Crusade. Forget the boots and sirens.

Isn’t it refreshing to see what people can accomplish voluntarily when they believe in something? Obviously people care. Obviously people will support causes without being forced.

It’s difficult to stop good people from doing good work when it’s based on voluntary interactions. Just imagine if all of our interactions were done in such a voluntary manner.

Just imagine if any government system, a school for example, had to actually work to get funds based on voluntary interactions rather than using force. What do you think they would do differently? What would you do differently when scandals occur?

It’s not the same with government entities though. Scandals inside government institutions are so much different. They are merely tiny scandals wrapped inside a much bigger scandal.

We think we’re making progress or have some real power when we vote in someone new after a government scandal breaks out, but meanwhile the money to fund their misguided actions keeps on pouring in from our pockets, whether we want it to or not. That’s scandalous.

With governments, the initial setup itself is the scandal. The system we condone is as immoral as that fire chief, taking other people’s money and spending it without their explicit consent.

It’s time to start rethinking what we’re doing. That’s why I’m on a crusade of my own, a crusade that calls for increased voluntary interactions and less force. I want to persuade you to see that government-approved force is the problem.

We need the freedom to think for ourselves and make our own individual noncoerced decisions on what deserves our support. We need the ability to opt out of promoting and funding scandalous behavior and nothing is more scandalous than pointing guns at people to get money. No matter what the cause.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson experienced an uneasy feeling of anticipation once when she found out she ate some laxative-laced brownies.

What If Government Ended Tomorrow?

There is a podcast I listen to called School Sucks which I have mentioned before on my Homeschooling Is Freedom blog. It is hosted by Brett Veinotte and through this podcast series he is methodically and expertly making the case of how damaging government education is to a free society.

His target audience is meant to be teens and young adults, I suspect because he knows they can more easily go out and really make some changes, for themselves first and then in the world. However, these podcasts are great for anyone interested in the problems of education and I highly recommend them.

But today, I wanted to share an interesting exercise Brett did in one of his most recent podcasts titled, The Natural State?, the last in a series on American History.

In this podcast, he asks the question: what if government ended tomorrow? What possible chains of events could occur if suddenly we all woke up and there was no government? What would be the worst case scenario and how would you feel about the worst case scenario?

In the introduction to this particular podcast, he says this:

"Imagine if we all woke up tomorrow, and government was gone. All government, all over the world, all individuals calling themselves government all over the world had vanished.

Now at that point, imagine this: Murphy's Law. Anything that can go wrong, does go wrong and one of the worst possible chains of events, that I can imagine anyway, goes into motion. What would the eventual outcome look like? What would the world look like if the worst fears of a respectful and peaceful person all came true?

And, most importantly, how would most people, supporting the state today, for its apparent ability to protect and provide and maintain order, how would those people feel about perhaps the most tragic and chaotic outcome of this stateless world?

Well, that would seem like a pretty easy question for them to answer, but it's not. And I sincerely hope that realization helps ease some fears about the eventual demise of the state.

Now at this point, if you go to the podcast, at 1:01:55, you can listen to Brett lay out his idea of the worst possible scenario that could happen. (It runs about 16 minutes.) I think it makes a lot of sense. What do you think?

It's Always Nice To Read The Thoughts of Other Voluntaryists

Saw this post, Why Voluntaryism Is the Best and Only Legitimate Moral Philosophy, on Wendy McElroy's blog. It's from a guy named Ross Kenyon, a senior in American History at Arizona State.

Excerpt: I am a voluntaryist because I respect the wishes of individuals to live their lives as they see fit so long as they are non-aggressive, and I hope that the same courtesy will eventually be shown to me. I oppose coercion no matter what costume or badge is worn and I do not acknowledge the validity of involuntary relationships.

Read more here.

Is Limited Government An Oxymoron

Wow, one of the best videos I've seen lately. They made such great points in such a short time.