Funny word isn't it? Sure, we have all seen VOLUNTARY, and most certainly we have seen an ISM if religion or politics have also been heard of, but how do they fit together?
One of the earliest usages was by American Protestant Organizations seeking voluntary funding from communities as there would never be any government funding for charitable projects. Separation of church and state meant individuals in local communities would have to pool their resources for compassionate community projects organized by the Protestant churches.
Today, Voluntaryism has no connection to churches or even Christianity for that matter. In fact, a large number of atheist are drawn to the principle for the ethics. At its very core Voluntaryism is a bench mark for measuring ethics. Did the individual voluntarily accept the terms and conditions, or is the individual being coerced or defrauded?
There is a huge difference between something being voluntary, and an authority figure telling an individual what they can or will do or suffer imprisonment and have their property and assets taken from them. There is an even bigger difference when we consider the authority never even tells them because they were just born into it and that is common knowledge now. It's just the way things are, can't avoid it, kind of like death.
So, how do we figure out which laws and regulations fit the ethics of Voluntaryism?
Obviously, for an organized community to exist there must be certain laws and rules each individual must follow. It is very important to understand at this point there are three basic laws which humans must abide by, or the organized part of organized community will be lost.
First law, no murdering. Does it need further explanation? Don't go around killing people. Other humans get a pass on the dinner menu, prion disease is no joke. This is not in anyway discounting death as a consequence to “criminal” acts, a homeowner might feel it is necessary to shoot an intruder in defense of their life.
Second law, no theft. This includes defrauding, the acquisition of property, assets, and an individual's labor through threat of force or coercion. Simply put, if an individual is tricked into an agreement, it is not voluntary and the injured individual is owed compensation for their lost investment. Be it time, labor, resource, product, or other property. This does include barter and trade agreements, if the promised product is either undelivered, in part or in full, or lacking the quality agreed upon in the trade agreement there is ground for compensation. If individuals go around taking whatever they want by force or trickery, murder is close at hand.
Third law, no assaulting. Now, many may think this is simple, but it is a broader category than punching someone else in the nose. Assault has many facets, but the easiest way to explain it is any bodily harm to another human. This is not to say you cannot defend yourself and your property, as you are stopping an assault or theft. However, assault also encompasses violent acts, violent acts upon animals unrelated to the process of making food, pretty much anything you can think of where one person does physical harm to another person unprovoked including rape and the rape/molestation of prepubescent children. (Age of consent is a highly debated topic across cultures and regions, for which my answer when asked is twenty-five. Clearly leaving lots of room for organized communities to form their own rules for those under that age and their actions with others under twenty-five or those older than twenty-five.)
Now that we have a basic idea of what is not voluntary, ever, we can unravel this mysterious “means versus ends” ethics dilemma. The Greater Good is often contemplated in such situations, if we figure out how to make the means of individuals end in a Better Good a new human revolution will be born. Mob rule takes many forms in human society. We are complex individuals who form complex social structures to maintain trust in those who are in our community. We know inherently one untrustworthy individual in our community could mean death and great loss. So, to maintain this appearance of understanding we have learned to fabricate etiquette and protocols to identify the unwanted and untrustworthy. But, is this always wise? Depends on the reason for exclusion many might say. Yet, others will cry out, that shouldn't matter! So, when it boils down to it, we have to consider every organized community should have it's own say on what etiquette and protocol will warrant punishment by... well, let's talk about that.
We are thinking about individuals, who have not acted in violence, murder, or theft. What sort of punishment is warranted? There is no victim, how can you measure that? Assume this person has been given every chance to stop breaking etiquette and either is incapable or unwilling to follow certain local rules. What if that person were given compensation for their immovable assets and given the means and resources to relocate to their destination of choice.
I'm serious. Voluntary, doesn't mean we all volunteered to lynch these folk for not obeying our etiquette and protocol. Maybe they like to drive too fast, though why anyone worries about that being a future problem in an age of self driving automobiles is beyond me. Perhaps the community just doesn't want your color of hair to be in the gene pool, whatever their fabricated complex social structure, let them have it. Didn't much care for their looks and attitude either, give me fair value for my local assets and a rental truck with the current market value in fuel compensation for destination B and I will be on my way.
Prior to what amounts to ostracism, reasonable methods of consequence for infractions of etiquette or protocol could include just about anything which does not cause physical harm or forfeiture of assets or property. That means an individual might have to donate their time to a community works project, or purchase that time with equal valued resources or voluntary asset trade. i.e. A person could do the work, pay the community works project equivalent resources they can use, or hire someone to do the work for them. Consequences are met and the community profits, without the individual feeling persecuted for a lapse in manners. (Advocacy and litigation of such civil matters will be addressed in a future pamphlet entitled Common Sense Too: Justice For All; An Introduction)
Wait a minute, what if a community that produces toxic chemical XYZ dumps it in river PDQ poisoning neighboring community SOL? That would be an offense according to our basic three laws. Specifically, theft, assault, and possibly murder too. Theft of the water resource which can not be used and any deaths to animals both owned as pet or livestock and the local wildlife. Assault on the individuals who drank the water without being told of the dangers introduced to it. Murder from any human death resulting in the negligent act.
Most people understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Having the right choice be the most rewarding is always going to be the most flawless motivation to make that choice. Solve the problem by solving the cause. (How to enforce such infractions will be covered in a future pamphlet, Common Sense Too: Free Market; An Introduction.)