₦airaland Forum

Let me start by saying that I’ve not done an in-depth research on voluntarism theory but stumbled upon the concept while searching for an alternative to democracy that doesn't marginalize the losing voters. I will do my best to explain but this is not a highly researched opinion, so bear with me.

I believe that voluntarism is the only moral way to govern a people, and that the tyranny of the democratic majority victimizes the minority leading to a vicious cycle of oppression every 4 years (In the case of Nigeria’s elections) as they have no option to opt out of being governed.

A democracy or republic, or any form of government that relies on elected officials to represent a populous, marginalizes the losers. When you vote to elect your representative, you run the risk of being in the losing portion of the vote. When this happens your interests are not fairly represented as they should have been and you are effectively being taxed without representation. As an extension of this, even a perfect democracy fails the minority vote. It is nothing short of violence to impose the will of a larger body of individuals onto a smaller body.

A majority's ability to impose its will on a minority is virtually limitless. If all of "The 99%" wanted to impose a 99% tax rate on "The 1%" because they believe such a tax is justified, there would be no way of stopping them.

In reality, government representatives are incapable of representing others, and cannot be trusted to make decisions on their behalf. Nobody represents a person's beliefs better than the individual himself. As an example, in America the Patriot Act is widely regarded as a failure to represent what is best for the people. This happens to be a failure that the vast majority of Americans agree on. How many would have voted in their senators knowing that this was the decision they would make? Democratic representation fails not only the losers, but the winners who were lied to on an official's campaign platform.

An individual can only be fairly represented by himself/herself. Because the smallest minority voter is the individual, decisions should be made on an individual, voluntary basis. Government has as much a responsibility to protect the minority as to do anything else we've come to rely on government for. Those who do not want to support any government policy for example, APC government draconian tax policies should have the ability to represent themselves on that stance and not be violently coerced into it.

Voluntarism is a peaceful solution to a violent practice. Someone who doesn't support involvement with Israel-Gaza war should not be forced to fund it. A government or people that uses force to exact their will on an individual is an immoral totalitarian government.

Democracy in its current form no matter what gains as a people we may derive from its practice remains a tyranny of the majority on the minority. Voluntarism is the only moral way to govern a people.

See https://www.nairaland.com/7968871/all-governments-immoral-criminal-institutions

Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner and a rich man

The illusion of Democracy for the masses needs to stop

You need huge funding for election



.

Bebigiby1:
Let me start by saying that I’ve not done an in-depth research on voluntarism theory but stumbled upon the concept while searching for an alternative to democracy that doesn't marginalize the losing voters. I will do my best to explain but this is not a highly researched opinion, so bear with me.

I believe that voluntarism is the only moral way to govern a people, and that the tyranny of the democratic majority victimizes the minority leading to a vicious cycle of oppression every 4 years (In the case of Nigeria’s elections) as they have no option to opt out of being governed.

A democracy or republic, or any form of government that relies on elected officials to represent a populous, marginalizes the losers. When you vote to elect your representative, you run the risk of being in the losing portion of the vote. When this happens your interests are not fairly represented as they should have been and you are effectively being taxed without representation. As an extension of this, even a perfect democracy fails the minority vote. It is nothing short of violence to impose the will of a larger body of individuals onto a smaller body.

A majority's ability to impose its will on a minority is virtually limitless. If all of "The 99%" wanted to impose a 99% tax rate on "The 1%" because they believe such a tax is justified, there would be no way of stopping them.

In reality, government representatives are incapable of representing others, and cannot be trusted to make decisions on their behalf. Nobody represents a person's beliefs better than the individual himself. As an example, in America the Patriot Act is widely regarded as a failure to represent what is best for the people. This happens to be a failure that the vast majority of Americans agree on. How many would have voted in their senators knowing that this was the decision they would make? Democratic representation fails not only the losers, but the winners who were lied to on an official's campaign platform.

An individual can only be fairly represented by himself/herself. Because the smallest minority voter is the individual, decisions should be made on an individual, voluntary basis. Government has as much a responsibility to protect the minority as to do anything else we've come to rely on government for. Those who do not want to support any government policy for example, APC government draconian tax policies should have the ability to represent themselves on that stance and not be violently coerced into it.

Voluntarism is a peaceful solution to a violent practice. Someone who doesn't support involvement with Israel-Gaza war should not be forced to fund it. A government or people that uses force to exact their will on an individual is an immoral totalitarian government.

Democracy in its current form no matter what gains as a people we may derive from its practice remains a tyranny of the majority on the minority. Voluntarism is the only moral way to govern a people.

See https://www.nairaland.com/7968871/all-governments-immoral-criminal-institutions

This is a very interesting and well written piece But I disagree with your black and white outlook of democracy vs voluntarism. You overly simplified one to embellish the other .

Typical of hard stance conservationists

Democracy is an unjust system of government like any other government system, it violates the non-aggression principle by exercising force and implementing mandatory taxation. There is no democratic government that gives an individual the option to opt out of been governed. We are basically slaves to our government….. This is wrong and immoral…. You said I “simplified one to embellish the other….” Can you explain?

PrinceofSarcasm:
This is a very interesting and well written piece But I disagree with your black and white outlook of democracy vs voluntarism. You overly simplified one to embellish the other .

Typical of hard stance conservationists

Bebigiby1:
Democracy is an unjust system of government like any other government system, it violates the non-aggression principle by exercising force and implementing mandatory taxation. There is no democratic government that gives an individual the option to opt out of been governed. We are basically slaves to our government….. This is wrong and immoral…. You said I “simplified one to embellish the other….” Can you explain?

For example your take on Democracy I fell is rather elementary. You can't demonize democracy without looking at all facts. Okay what is the alternative? Non governance? A society without laws and control is chaos.
Laws keep not just the people in check but also the government. When you say to opt out of being governed that is no government at all. You can't just simply say I don't want to be governed. Laws exist to ensure we don't desend into anarchy and absence of a government to enforce these laws is the same as the laws being non-existent!
You can't have laws for the sake of them without enforcement, only a government can enforce laws via empowerment of institutions.
What you are advocating for is a free society without any government which is a hippie chaotic society.
This is why I said you embellished your angle , you can't be demonizing democracy without offering a realistic alternative a d not some idealistic theorem founded in imagination of hippies

Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos or disorder, it means freedom from oppressive centralized authority with a monopoly of force. Voluntarism or Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation without centralized hierarchical government. Anarchy basically means freedom while government mean control (Mind Control). I am not advocating for a lawless society but a society bound by voluntary cooperation and not force. The truth is that government can never be made moral in its current form. You said “Laws keep not just the people in check but also the government.…”, in reality, good people don’t need laws and bad people don’t heed laws. Why pay and empower unaffected parties to deliver standardized punishment for standardized offenses? Why not take back justice so that it’s just the individual that decides what’s just in each situation? Anarchy is humanity’s natural state. Just as Government and Control are synonymous, so too are Anarchy and Freedom. Anarchy is the freedom to exist without being ruled by a violent, coercive minority that steals taxes and controls the money, media, military, police, laws, courts, and education. This is root cause of corruption and crime in our society.

What we need are common law courts which settle lawful disputes between two affected parties regarding matters of injury (harm to one's person or property), theft or breach of contract. These are the holy trinity of common law..... Any issue outside this 3 are victimless crimes and have no business been called laws...... so state agents, district attorneys, police are not needed.... By limiting existing unnecessary laws to only 3, it will also drastically reduce the amount of court cases and cost of administering justice in a voluntarist society. As I said earlier anarchy is humanity natural state…. We can exist without government, when you say “A society without laws and control is chaos.” That’s a fallacy, common laws are good for a voluntarist society but centralized control systems like government which is synonymous to force is bad. There is no way you can truly advance just society without anarchy or voluntarism….. Statist democratic governments are immoral and basically criminal institutions that violate rights of the minority….

PrinceofSarcasm:
For example your take on Democracy I fell is rather elementary. You can't demonize democracy without looking at all facts. Okay what is the alternative? Non governance? A society without laws and control is chaos.
Laws keep not just the people in check but also the government. When you say to opt out of being governed that is no government at all. You can't just simply say I don't want to be governed. Laws exist to ensure we don't desend into anarchy and absence of a government to enforce these laws is the same as the laws being non-existent!
You can't have laws for the sake of them without enforcement, only a government can enforce laws via empowerment of institutions.
What you are advocating for is a free society without any government which is a hippie chaotic society.
This is why I said you embellished your angle , you can't be demonizing democracy without offering a realistic alternative a d not some idealistic theorem founded in imagination of hippies

Bebigiby1:
Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos or disorder, it means freedom from oppressive centralized authority with a monopoly of force. Voluntarism or Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation without centralized hierarchical government. Anarchy basically means freedom while government mean control (Mind Control). I am not advocating for a lawless society but a society bound by voluntary cooperation and not force. The truth is that government can never be made moral in its current form. You said “Laws keep not just the people in check but also the government.…”, in reality, good people don’t need laws and bad people don’t heed laws. Why pay and empower unaffected parties to deliver standardized punishment for standardized offenses? Why not take back justice so that it’s just the individual that decides what’s just in each situation? Anarchy is humanity’s natural state. Just as Government and Control are synonymous, so too are Anarchy and Freedom. Anarchy is the freedom to exist without being ruled by a violent, coercive minority that steals taxes and controls the money, media, military, police, laws, courts, and education. This is root cause of corruption and crime in our society.

What we need are common law courts which settle lawful disputes between two affected parties regarding matters of injury (harm to one's person or property), theft or breach of contract. These are the holy trinity of common law..... Any issue outside this 3 are victimless crimes and have no business been called laws...... so state agents, district attorneys, police are not needed.... By limiting existing unnecessary laws to only 3, it will also drastically reduce the amount of court cases and cost of administering justice in a voluntarist society. As I said earlier anarchy is humanity natural state…. We can exist without government, when you say “A society without laws and control is chaos.” That’s a fallacy, common laws are good for a voluntarist society but centralized control systems like government which is synonymous to force is bad. There is no way you can truly advance just society without anarchy or voluntarism….. Statist democratic governments are immoral and basically criminal institutions….

99% of your theories are just that simply theories. You have no working examples to cite.

But I on the other hand can show you lots of nations with thriving democracies.
Nigeria isn't a democracy it's a civilian form of military government. There are no working laws or empowered institutions to defend the law in Nigeria. Every single institution capable of being compromised has been already.
Your theories are bar room prattle at best with no realistic workable examples to show..

You said “99% of your theories are just that simply theories. You have no working examples to cite.” Yes there is no working example because the world is ruled by government…. The root problem of government is that its mandates are mandatory and its compulsions are compulsory…. In the case of Nigeria, whether military or civilian government the result will be the same this is because government is not a moral institution that exists for the benefit of the people… Every four years we are presented with puppets as candidates and given the illusion that voting can bring about positive change but in reality it can’t. Yes good people elected may champion progressive reforms but this does not make the concept of government good for the people. Any system of control that doesn’t allow an individual to opt-out is slavery…. We are slaves to our government…. Government (Mind Control) exist to exploit the people for the benefit of the few….

PrinceofSarcasm:
99% of your theories are just that simply theories. You have no working examples to cite.

But I on the other hand can show you lots of nations with thriving democracies.
Nigeria isn't a democracy it's a civilian form of military government. There are no working laws or empowered institutions to defend the law in Nigeria. Every single institution capable of being compromised has been already.
Your theories are bar room prattle at best with no realistic workable examples to show..