First, I would ask you to compare Voluntaryism, and the social compact between the people of the US–our Constitution as it was originally conceived, written, and explained.

Voluntaryism universally rejects the use or threat of aggression, while the concept of government, in the US’s case a constitutional republic, explicitly reserves the permission to use or threaten aggression, namely taxation, to a certain group of people, namely government officials. So in the latter case the rejection of aggression is not universal.

Not the welfare state part of it, but the original design and intent. It begins with “We the people”…and was ratified by the whole people as the way society would be structured.

So, is THAT voluntarism taking the form of a Representative Republic, or are the two entirely different?

Well, but as an objective observer you need to separate words from actions. Just because some words on some piece of paper state “We the people” that doesn’t mean that every individual in the country consented. In fact, I would argue that there probably were a myriad groups of people who did not at all consent (slaves, women, southerners, only to name a few). But solid arguments work even when you put them through the toughest grinder: Even if every one had consented, from the viewpoint of consistent philosophy it doesn’t matter at all: The question remains: Does a certain group of people have the permission to use or threaten aggression against others? Under the US Constitution Congress is clearly given that permission in Article 1 Section 8. So in short: I don’t think that voluntaryism finds any expression in the concept of the representative republic. However, one could argue that the US republic was a product of enlightenment ideas, and was the best that the framers were able to come up with at the time. Voluntaryism is nothing but the consistent extension of the concept of equal human rights to everyone. So maybe in that sense you can compare voluntaryism and the concept of a representative republic as far as historical philosophical context goes.

Second, does voluntaryism untimely take the form of democracy as the numbers and size grows?

Well, that would require for a voluntaryist society to somehow accept the concept of organized aggression again. But I outlined in this article how that is highly unlikely, if not impossible. It would be like imagining any government within the US to start offering the service of catching black runaway slaves again, thus re-instituting slavery. Imagine the universal outcry from all ends if such a thing were to happen! Once the moral fabric of a society changes fundamentally, there is no going back ever again, at least its likelihood is a statistical rounding error.

What about things like “disturbing the peace?” Who decides what that means?

Everyone can decide that for himself. But humans are intrinsically wired to move towards consistency in the long run. Any moral concept that proposes inconsistent or unempirical doctrines will fail in the long run, because error leads to destruction. If you’d ask me: Disturbing the peace simply means the use or threat of aggression. (I don’t think many people would disagree with that.) How do I arrive at this conclusion? Based upon logic and evidence in the science of ethics, in particular morality.

You mentioned “self defense.” What about threats? The state statue for using force against another in self defense reads “force is justified when you reasonably believe, force is immediately necessary to AVOID immanent harm.” That is acting BEFORE the fact. Would voluntaryism agree with that justification, or must aggressive contact be necessary before self defense is possible?

If a threat is credible and sufficient and convincing evidence can be supplied, then I doubt that any human being would deny one’s right to use force in order to repel the aggressor, if necessary, if that makes sense? Note that I always point out that the use and threat of aggression should be universally proscribed. In fact, the threat part is actually a lot more practically relevant. For example, government officials don’t invade every home to collect taxes. The threat of kidnapping and getting locked up in a rape cage seems to suffice for the most part to keep people in line. :)

Thanks much and all the best to you and yours this Christmas season! :)

Cheers,
EJ

First, I would ask you to compare Voluntaryism, and the social compact between the people of the US–our Constitution as it was originally conceived, written, and explained.

Not the welfare state part of it, but the original design and intent. It begins with “We the people”…and was ratified by the whole people as the way society would be structured.

So, is THAT voluntarism taking the form of a Representative Republic, or are the two entirely different?

Second, does voluntaryism untimely take the form of democracy as the numbers and size grows?

What about things like “disturbing the peace?” Who decides what that means?

You mentioned “self defense.” What about threats? The state statue for using force against another in self defense reads “force is justified when you reasonably believe, force is immediately necessary to AVOID immanent harm.”

That is acting BEFORE the fact. Would voluntaryism agree with that justification, or must aggressive contact be necessary before self defense is possible?

This just a few. Thank you for your time and effort.
Merry Christmas