From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search

A faction of anarchist libertarians who want entirely voluntary relations, but assume free markets and property (which are not voluntary.) An exercise in wishful thinking, that the world will voluntarily swirl around your indestructible rights.

There are lots of problems with voluntaryism that are not obvious from their propaganda.

First, they must assume property and markets are involuntary. Otherwise their utopia would not work at all.

Second, they assume bodies and labor are "fully owned" just like property: which means they also can be transferred, as that is part of ownership. Which means, of course, that crimes could be punished by transferring ownership to others: slavery. Or are they going to tell us punishment is voluntary too?

Third, their idea of freedom is horribly blinkered: they have no vision of publicly usable resources. If everything is privately owned, your only freedom is your own property. Every other freedom requires bribing other owners to use their resources.


Involuntary (1 link)
There are many things which are inescapably involuntary on an individual level in our lives. Start with social institutions such as property. And commons, many of which are biological, not social. Demands for voluntary or voluntarism conveniently ignore these issues in order to oppose social choices such as taxation.
Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No (book, online)
"[A] new theory of Freedom [...] freedom as the power to say no... It shows that most societies today put the poor in situations in which they lack this crucial freedom, making them vulnerable to poverty, exploitation, and injustice despite other policies in place to help them. People who have no other option but to work for someone else to meet their basic needs are effectively forced laborers and are fundamentally unfree."
Property Is Coercive (22 links)
Claims that government is coercive but capitalism and markets are not overlook the coercion involved in property.
The Lesson of Grab What You Can [More...]
"But the Grab World baseline allows us to see that all economic institutions are restrictions and infringements on liberty. Property is the most liberty-destroying and all-encompassing of the restrictive economic institutions, but contracts, patents, copyrights, securities, corporations, and so on do the same thing."
Violence Vouchers: A Descriptive Account of Property [More...]
When a state upholds a system of property, all it is doing is issuing to owners a set of vouchers for violence against those who ignore property. Trade is similarly based on property and violence. Rents also are based on violence, ruling out just deserts and just processes arguments.


Far from denouncing coercion, libertarians celebrate it -- provided that it is deployed for the benefit of the possessors of property.
Rob Hunter, "A Philosophy for the Propertied"
Essential though it may be, re-framing property as the threat of sanction and violence, and not some metaphysical linkage, brings it into a new perspective. From this standpoint there is nothing especially ‘non coercive’ about, say, anarcho-capitalism, unless you take it as given that the claims it makes about who is entitled to what are ethically just.
DePonySum (pseudonym), "Against Libertarian Criticisms of Redistribution"
How is property given? By restraining liberty; that is, by taking it away so far as is necessary for the purpose. How is your house made yours? By debarring every one else from the liberty of entering it without your leave.
Jeremy Bentham, "Anarchical Fallacies"
Contra Locke, property is not made by mixing labor: it is made by mixing coercion.
Mike Huben, "Interview With Mike Huben, Creator Of Critiques Of Libertarianism"
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism" May, 1945
What is wanting in many libertarian political theories is the recognition that property rights are coercive and so stand in need of justification to others.
Kevin Vallier, "On the Problematic Political Authority of Property Rights: How Huemer Proves Too Much"
A capitalist society can never be a free society — it takes the constant presence of violent force to sustain private rights of ownership over society’s productive forces and resources for billionaires and business interests. Property or liberty — we only get to pick one.
John Laurits, "Private Property Is a Police State: Real Libertarianism Is Anti-Capitalist"
Rousseau asks us to imagine someone who is not convinced of natural rights to property, at least as interpreted by the richer laborers in society. The responder has a rational complaint: who made you [the rich, the “haves"] judge of where your property rights begin and end? It’s a dangerous juridical power, one that can easily be used to keep people hungry and powerless. In light of the suffering of the property-less, why should they ever think that the claims of the rich and powerful are naturally legitimate?
Kevin Vallier, "Rousseau’s Challenge to Libertarianism"
That property violates the non-aggression principle is so obviously true that it is amusing anyone ever contends otherwise. The institution of property is the most statist, violent, aggressive, anti-libertarian, big government program in history. Through laws of one sort or another, people are violently restricted from nearly every single piece of the world around them. They do not consent to these restrictions, which are imposed from without, unilaterally and at the barrel of a gun. In the process, every shred of negative liberty and self-ownership is destroyed.
Matt Bruenig, "Salvaging Non-Aggression for Egalitarianism"
[M]ost libertarians would say that we have a non-voluntary responsibility to respect property, and would enforce that with violence. That’s the basic hypocrisy of voluntaristic ideas of libertarianism: everything is supposed to be voluntary and non-coercive BUT the basic principles of your ideology such as property are obviously not.
Mike Huben, in comments for "Taxation Is Not Theft"