In the past, appeals to freedom and opposition to government oppression have been more associated with left wing ideologies than with right wing ideologies, who have been more devoted to protecting institutions of authority. 

Anarchism itself was often viewed as left wing in the past, though this does partly come from an association between anarchism and socialism which may seem counter intuitive as socialism usually implies government control whereas anarchism obviously is supposed to mean no government at all.
For various reasons, though always contradicted by their connection to authoritarianism in the form of socialism and communism, the left wing has been more associated in the past with opposition to government oppression and with demands for rights and freedom. Whereas the right wing has often been more associated with authoritarianism and support for oppressive law enforcement, as well as aggressive military actions.

However, in recent times, the concept of freedom (in particular, freedom of speech) has become more associated with the right wing than with the left.
This is partly due to authoritarian elements of the left amplifying in recent times and partly because conservatives do often invoke freedom, all be it selectively, in their rhetoric against the left. But it is also because Libertarianism itself (an ideology that self identifies as being built on the concept of individual freedom) is either considered by many to be an actual right wing ideology itself, or is at least considered to be allied with right wing ideologies like conservatism, largely due to their support for the free market.
Of course, this perception is disputed by many libertarians themselves who reject the idea that they have any more, or less, in common with conservatives of the right than they do with the liberals of the left, and would insist that Libertarianism is neither a left or right wing ideology, but instead shares commonalities with both the left and the right. The general idea being that Libertarians are left wing on social issues and right wing on economic issues because that is where their support for freedom in general lines up.

Though it is not always the case, as a generalization, you will find more support for violations of social freedoms, like drug laws, from the right and more support for economic interference of individual freedom, like expanded government programs and taxation, from the left.
Both sides are guilty of the hypocrisy of invoking the concept of freedom while they simultaneously endorse violating that freedom on some level. But this hypocrisy also reveals that both sides do in fact invoke the concept of freedom and individual rights, they just both fail to apply the principle consistently. 
However, if you can show that principle to them then you give them a simple choice. They either abandon the principle entirely, in which case they abandon their sense of morality, or they embrace the principle consistently, in which case they apply it to the areas they previously didn't. Or they remain hypocrites with the only difference from before being that they are now making the conscious choice to be willing hypocrites. 
Faced with that choice, it is reasonable to think that many honest people will choose to be consistent with the morality that they previously embraced inconsistently. Doing so will illuminate a common ground for the left and the right wing that excludes only the fascistic tendencies within their respective sides. Then we can collectively embrace the realization that the only divide worth fighting for is the divide between those who wish to violate our rights and those that wish to respect them. 

If you identify as a Libertarian, then you should have some level of understanding and recognition of the Non-Aggression Principle and the concept of self-ownership that this moral principle emanates from. You should also have a reasonable understanding of property rights that exist as an extension of self-ownership.
If you apply these basic principles of freedom consistently then you will soon realize that a consistent libertarian is in fact an anarchist. Or to be more precise, a voluntarist.
If you identify as a libertarian but support ruling government of any size, or any violations of individual rights, then you are just guilty of the same inconsistencies and hypocrisies as the liberals and conservatives
Anarchism has one rule that defines it, no rulers. Voluntarism has that same rule but specifies that the "no rulers" demand is because only voluntary interactions are valid, because everyone has self-ownership (and ruling people violates their self-ownership).

While there are people who identify as left-wing libertarians, as well as left wing anarchists, actual voluntarists tend to be right wing anarchists who identify primarily as anarcho-capitalists. In fact, voluntarism and anarcho-capitalism are so closely associated that they are often viewed as synonyms, though this is not actually an accurate characterization.
Anarcho-Capitalism is not always consistently represented, like all ideologies, but in its most coherent form it is usually true to say that Anarcho-Capitalists (Ancaps) are voluntarists. But it is also true to say that Voluntarists do NOT have to be Anarcho-Capitalists.
Voluntarism is a more general term for people who understand and respect the concept of self-ownership and the moral principle that comes from it, namely the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). There is no economic preference demanded by voluntarism, the only demand is that there is no coercion or violation of anyone's basic freedom as a self-owning individual.
Many people who embrace voluntarism recognize the inherent compatibility of voluntary trade in a free society and therefore view free market capitalism as the ideal economic system for a truly free society to flourish without the interference of ruling governments.
It is important to understand the logic that leads a Voluntarist to embrace Anarcho-Capitalism as an ideal incarnation of voluntarism and the free market as the most fitting economic system for a free society where all interactions must be voluntary. However, it is also important to understand that the only demand that comes from voluntarism is that all interactions must be voluntary and that there is no aggression against peaceful people. In other words, a free market of voluntary trade or a communal society of collective ownership are equally valid as incarnations of voluntarism, so long as they do not violate the NAP.
Voluntary Socialism (for those that don't find that to be an oxy-moronic term) and Voluntary Collectives are not just valid incarnations of voluntarism, but may actually provide a framework for societal cohesion that allows free societies to flourish without the corruption and bureaucracy that is inevitable under the coercion of government rule. 

The Nations Of Sanity project is about establishing the Non-Aggression Principle as the law through a peace agreement so that we have a foundation of voluntarism upon which we can build anything imaginable. Having that one rule, that demands only that we do not violate others, allows us the freedom to explore all manner of ideas.
In particular, the collective efforts that look to provide public services and infrastructure can be transformed from corrupt and bloated bureaucracies into systems that serve their purpose and stand on their own merit.
This is not mere lip service to the left wing. This is a sincere and sophisticated approach to demonstrating how voluntary collectives can function in a free society. 
The Nations Of Sanity details voluntary alternatives to taxation as well as more effective ways we can provide the food, homes, and healthcare that we don't want to see people go without. We demonstrate how we can create an environment of equal opportunities that benefits society by maximizing human potential. Not only can we achieve these things without the coercion of ruling governments, and the inevitable corruption and bureaucracy that comes with it, but such systems will function far better simply from the fact that they will have to. They will have to stand on their own merit because no one will be forced to use or support them. 

The idea of voluntarism is about people being free, finally free, to take on the right and responsibility of a self-owning individual. The idea of establishing the Non-Aggression Principle as the universal terms of peace is to make that idea a tangible reality.
Upon the foundations of freedom, we can live any way of life that we can peacefully create. Anything other than that will just be compromised by its inherent corruption and criminality.

Add comment

Security code

Become A Volunteer

Join the Nations Of Sanity and help us create a real revolution of simple sanity

Join Now


Connect with Us