The Missing Link In Voluntaryism -Awesome Vid-

Great video, Luis! The world needs more empathy, compassion, and non-violent communication. I love the idea of businesses eliminating nationalism, but I also want to take it further and get rid of tribalism itself. Talking about "what's next" and consciousness reminded me of a post I did a while ago on improving the world.

I hadn't heard that quote before and was going to tweet it. Turns out it's not a John Wayne quote though.

The free market is life.

Beautiful. :)

$0.00

[-]

emancipatedhuman (66) · 7 years ago

thank you Luke! Although I might push back and say that some parts of (chosen) tribalism are great. like a team you set up, or a company, or a family, no?
the free market is life for sure! i appreciate you.

$0.00

[-]

lukestokes (75) · 7 years ago

That's a great point, one that I've been working through a bit. As with many things about our base nature, benefits exist as well as primitive obstacles to overcome to raise our consciousness. It might be a bit pedantic to discuss the details of the language we use or it might be important because our language creates our thoughts which create our action.

I think we can have voluntary, fluid groups without tribalism. I may be wrong, but I want to think we can. When I think of tribalism, I think of a tribal leader like a ruler, someone on a pedestal which you rightly mentioned in your video is not a good thing. At the same time, I agree we need more and better leadership, but from everyone, not from the top down. Tribes, to me, are held together by charismatic leaders and hierarchies. Voluntary groups like teams and companies can (and should?) be held together by shared ideals and mutual benefit. When we bring identity into it ("I'm of tribe A or tribe B"), I think things often get messed up. That's when people can act against their own self interest and the interests of others because "it's what someone from my tribe would do or expect." I prefer more fluidity and fewer labels.

Family is an interesting one you included in your list. I love family, and I don't think we'll soon escape the evolutionary pressures to favor our own genes over others, but it's not a voluntary situation as much as the others are. I've seen harm come about in the name of family, so I'm cautious with that one. Again, I prefer fully voluntary interactions for mutual benefit.

So what words can we use for chosen, voluntary communities without hierarchy authority or tribal rulership/leadership?

I'm currently reading through the Dark Tower series and maybe Ka-tet is close to the word I'm looking for:

Ka-tet is a word from the High Speech meaning "one [made] from many" or "a group of people summoned by ka". The word usually refers to Roland's ka-tet in the Dark Tower series. Still, other examples can be found within the series.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

emancipatedhuman (66) · 7 years ago

ah, i think the distinction you made is important and i completely agree.
for a living i teach companies to create leaderful cultures instead of top down management. this shit is amazing.

my mentor doug casey names the idea of voluntary tribes "phyles" and it comes from a novel he read a while back. i kinda like it too and i think its exactly what ka-tet shows.

thank you so much for engaging with me. i learn and i expand.

$0.81

3 votes

[-]

marcos2802 (25) · 7 years ago

Thank you for sharing, I loved your post, I hope you follow me back, so new here.

$0.00

[-]

emancipatedhuman (66) · 7 years ago

thank you

$0.00

[-]

yvoregl (32) · 7 years ago

Love the video! But, I'll be "that guy" for a moment (just for fun.)
I'll give the most important points of the argument, on why killing communist doesn't break the NAP.

What's assault? Assault is the threat or attempt to inflict harm on another's person or property. That is, a threat or attempt to violate the NAP.

How ought assault to be handled (justice vice)? For the practicality of a situation of assault, let's say a man tries to rob your wallet by pointing a gun at you, what should you be allowed to do in self-defense? You must be able to do the same - that is, to threat or attempt to inflict harm on the man's person or property, in the means of protecting your own. But it doesn't end there. If you were not allowed to act on this threat, or succeed with your attempt, the man would knew you were bluffing, and not be persuaded. Only if you were allowed to act on this threat, or succeed with your attempt, could you properly defend yourself.

How does this relate to communists? Admitting oneself to be a communist, is ultimately admitting that you don't believe others have a right to their just property (or that such thing even exists.) They claim that they can take your property, for either their own or others benefit, without having your consent - this is exactly what the robber from the previous example did. Saying that no one has a right to property, nor should be allowed to be in the possession of their property - and meaning one's statements, - is equivalent to committing assault. You're saying, that you wish - or intend - to inflict harm on another person or property, that is, to say that you wish, or intend, to violate a person's NAP - which is direct assault. Thus the person, which the assault is aimed at (which is actually every person owning property, which is every person,) or a third party acting to protect him, would be fully justified in mirroring the assault, and thus, as well, executing it; just as they would the robber. The communist would have to be physically removed, so to speak.

$0.00

[-]

emancipatedhuman (66) · 7 years ago

i dont necessarily disagree but i think its more effective to meet people with a smile and help them see how we can create a better world by collaborating. most of the push back for a free market comes from the ideology that we would take over, since we tend to be more alpha males, and that the rest of the folks will just not have enough. that myth needs to be dispelled through education, connecting with others, and trust.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

yvoregl (32) · 7 years ago

I agree, I think that peaceful communication would ultimately be the best practice.

$0.00

[-]

randowhale (67) · 7 years ago

This post received a 2% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @emancipatedhuman! For more information, click here!

$0.00

[-]

booster (68) · 7 years ago

This post has received a 2.02 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @emancipatedhuman.

$0.00

[-]

libertasnow (28) · 7 years ago

Si señor! I think your message is wise Luis.

I think a lot of us ancap libertarians (especially myself in the recent past) can fall into that negative doom and gloom feedback loop from not seeing liberty moving forward at a pace we would like to see. Some people are so annoyingly irrational when it comes to economics that we can all be tempted to the helicopter sentiments. The thing is that many of these ignorant kids with leftist ideas are victims of 13 yrs of propaganda and indoctrination in these public schools that they don't know how to think. Many of them are emotionally broken from bad households and are in that "messianic period" as Jordan Peterson calls it that we all went through when they think they can change the world in a whim.

I personally have been able after much debate to reach at least 5 kids at my workplace and have gotten them to abandon communist ideas. I also convinced the white ones to rid themselves of white guilt which is as toxic as irrational hate. I have helped hispanic kids to rid themselves of victim mentallity and I am working on doing the same with a black friend (I happen to be of hispanic origin). I never let myself be triggered by external views or words. If a group of people decide to exercise their freedom of association and not include me that is freedom. We shouldn't make a big deal of it. The kids see this and it makes them curious. I think change starts within and is preached by example.

We will always have the right to defend our life and property and we will be in the right to do so but being conscience of the psychology of others can helps reach out and is rewarding.

On another front, I just want to mention that I don't think that transnational corporations in today's form would exist in a true freemarket. They are partners with the world's governments. I am all about freemarkets and business but I think that currently big business specifically those connected to the state are a foe. Their lawyers write all the laws and regulations that stamp out competition and small businesses!
Here in the states our kid's can't have lemonade stands or any microbussiness as they have in Latin America.
Business is best local (especially with food). I am not opposed to global trade or business as long as it is organic and not pushed by external bureaucratic forces such as the trading cartels, World Bank, Fed, IMF, UN etc. In a free market there should be room for participation in the market by anyone no matter the size as long as private property is respected. That's my two cents.

P.S. yo tambien soy introvertido

Saludos

$0.00

[-]

emancipatedhuman (66) · 7 years ago

thank you so much for this. i just saw it!!

$0.00