RE: My response to Larken Rose and Adam Kokesh after years of watching them and seeing their Anarchast Debate...
Great article! There is one portion of a purely voluntarism society that I'm not sure I comfortably understand though. I know you mentioned when people don't act in the benefit of the community they would harm their reputation which helps keep us cohesive or forces a person who doesn't work well with others into isolation, but what about those who are truly bad actors that would bring harm upon others. I assume your vision doesn't encompass a police force (please correct me if I'm wrong there) so how would you handle someone that was dangerous to the community? In this system, if someone commits a particularly heinous crime such as rape, murder, or something of that caliber and isn't stopped during the execution of the crime. Would they receive repercussions past nobody wanting to enter contracts with them after? You seem very knowledgeable so I'm hoping you can shed some light on this scenario.
Well first of all the people best able to decide that would be the people living there. I can't tell them what they should do for all scenarios, and furthermore you can literally WHAT IF just about any idea to a stand still. If it is something new that hasn't been done before sometimes you have to take a leap and learn, and only when you are in the situation will things you and I cannot imagine come to mind for them. If it fails then they will have tried and hopefully learned, and unlike the Marxist, Socialist, Communists at least then they will hopefully not keep trying to do the same thing over again without truly paying attention to the failures.
With that said. Voluntary does not mean people cannot defend themselves or each other. The Non-Aggression Principle simply means people will not initiate violence. They will defend themselves. If someone attacks then they can attack back. If someone kills there is no reason they couldn't form a posse or go after the person themselves, or contract someone. As long as it is within the constraints of the Non-Aggression Principle and is not initiating violence but is instead responding to aggression that has already been initiated then it should be fine.
A lot of the time people mistake NAP as being the same as passiveness. They are not remotely the same. I for example try to follow the NAP, but if anyone attacks me I'll do whatever I have to do to stop them and I'll likely be quite brutal.
Thanks for the response. I get that you can WHAT IF away a new idea pretty easily, that's probably a reason why many potential entrepreneurs never actually try their ideas in business, it's always easier to find reasons why something wont work than reasons that it could work.
Although I've always understood that the NAP does allow for defensive force, I was never sure what the rule was for reactionary force after the fact. I wasn't sure if the principle did leave room for retribution or justice. I'll be sure to take note of that for further consideration.
I almost responded with more concerns of mine regarding voluntarism (I'm in that area between conservative and libertarian at the moment) but it started to turn into a novel. I'm looking at what I'm outlining and I'm thinking instead of a response to you specifically it might make more sense for me to write an article. So for the time being I'll commend you for the insightful material and gather my thoughts a bit more.
Regarding self-defense and defense of others, I recommend watching these two videos:
I hope these give you some ideas about what the possibilities are in a voluntary society :)
Finally got around to watching both videos entirely. This is very informative and on point for helping me better understand some areas where I have concerns/doubts. Thanks for posting these!
My pleasure! Check out https://mises.org/ for lots of resources as well!