I see one live human
Had no idea that this term even existed!!!
of course you haven't
It is not one that most people in the power structure want the common people to familiarize themselevs with
I prefer consensualism, voluntarism doesn't necessarily imply the agreement of two different parties, but I generally agree with the concept.
Another -ism?? You guys just keep expanding my political horizons...
Yes, yes it does. Voluntaryism is very much about that all agreements have to be based on consent.
I meant the term itself doesn't necessarily refer to an agreement, it's more of a word that goes against coercion. Consensualism may be more apt at describing the philosophy, but it's not the conventional term used.
LOL! love Julians hat, he had it on last time too
well he's talking about the mafia now so....
Great questions by @mrof4343, although the title of the debate seems to be confused according to the responses
yup. technicalities on definition, but Julian is failing to answer the questions so going with the other guy on this .one
But if every political ideology had to be universal then there are no real political ideologies!
so if a non-governmental, self-proclaimed leadership takes over an anarchist group with the group's consent, is that voluntaryism?
you guys can leave video comments as closing statements by the way
Julian deflects from answering any question because he doesn't fundamentally understand any of the arguments. @mrof4343 made very good cases regardless, solid performance.
Notice in each debate Julian runs to contrarianism under the "it's all subjective" argument. He has no arguments.
I'm not an anarchist, although the definitions get murky because AnCaps and Voluntaryists have a LOT of overlap.I'm also pro-life, I was sorry to see that your debate didn't have a better result.
Not all anarchists are voluntaryists, but all voluntaryists are anarchists. You can not be a voluntaryist and support rulers. All anarchy means is a disbelief in others having authority over you (which is always held by force and/or coercion by definition).
Well the thing is they defer authority to an individual by their own volition. So I can understand a government that exists in a voluntary society
This was a headache to watch. Julian has not at all understood what voluntaryism is, ans therefore has absolutely no clue what it is he is argumenting against. It was a horrible display of red-herrings, non-sequiturs and straw-man arguments. As a lecturer on rational thinking and logic discourse, I find it hard to even label this as a debate, it was a lecture for Julian on how to argue in the first place.
I was pulled down a rabbit hole. But I give credit to Tim for being a strong debater. I knew he would present a challenge and predict he will win the tournament,
Funny how socialism demolished Somalia, and ever since the statetheism failed there, the country has been under constant improvement, under what can only vaguely be described as anarchy. Somalia is a complete non-argument. It always has been.As for mrof4343 I have to say that he is actually blatantly wrong about one thing. Voluntaryism is absolutely NOT OK with rulers. Rulers and hierarchy is NOT the same thing. You can not be voluntaryist and not be an anarchist. Neither voluntaryism nor anarchism has any inherent rejection of hierarchies or leadership, even though it certainly is not seen as a necessary element for maintaining any function in a civilized society. A ruler-ship is fundamentally different by definition, as it requires a violation of consent. As for politics, neither are actually political ideologies, but rather anti-political ideologies, since politics is always based on collectivism, the notion that there has to be ruler-ship, and a non-scientific means to deciding how the force of rule should be used, how much should be stolen from everyone, and how the loot should get divided between the muggers and the victims.
My argument had less to do with the idea of anarchy in Somalia, it was more about the lack of resources and the conflict it presents.