Towards A Left-Voluntaryism
A Model of Stateless Social Democracy
Voluntaryism is the radical idea that human beings can and should organize society without coercion — that government itself could be voluntary, both in participation and in funding. It begins from a simple principle: every person has the right to direct their own life and resources so long as they respect the equal rights of others. In this view, the moment politics turns to compulsion — whether through majority rule, taxation, or enforced obedience — liberty is lost, and society begins to corrupt itself at its foundation by turning towards statism (coercive government).
The philosophy was most powerfully articulated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by three thinkers (Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, and Ayn Rand) who shared a commitment to liberty but expressed it in distinct ways. Herbert Spencer, in Social Statics, laid down his “first principle” of justice: that every man “may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other man”. From this axiom, Spencer argued for natural rights, including even the controversial “right to ignore the state.” Auberon Herbert, writing later in The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, carried Spencer’s principle to its logical conclusion. He insisted that no majority, however large, could claim moral authority over the individual. For him, all state power beyond defense against aggression was simply another form of enslavement.
In the twentieth century, Ayn Rand took up the voluntaryist banner in a new philosophical system. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she defended laissez-faire capitalism as “the only system based on the recognition of individual rights,” a system where government exists solely “to protect man’s rights, i.e., to protect him from physical violence” through police, courts, and the military. To Rand, any extension of state power beyond that limited role — even for supposedly noble ends — was a violation of the voluntary principle.
Furthermore, Rand writes:
“In a fully free society, taxation — or, to be exact, payment for governmental services — would be voluntary. Since the proper services of the government — the police, the armed forces, the law courts — are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.” — Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness)
This philosophy of voluntaryism has significant similarities to anarchism (and one could argue that, from a certain perspective, anarchism and voluntaryism are the same thing). However, Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand contended that they were not anarchists. Voluntaryism does not call for the abolition of government as much as for the voluntarization of it. (The debate between anarchism and voluntaryism is largely semantics, a disagreement about how one ought to use the word “government.”)
Now this is the part of the essay where I diverge from the mainstream of voluntaryist thought. I want to make the argument for a voluntaryist socialism, an argument that will, no doubt, be controversial. Here I propose we start with the “democratic confederalism” or “libertarian municipalism” of Murray Bookchin — or, more broadly, the idea of independent democratic associations at the local level confederating into a sort of national federation for common purposes. This democratic confederalism is in line with the left wing of the classical anarchist tradition. I agree with Rand’s critique of democracy as majority rule being the tyranny of the majority over the minority, so I hold that government ought to be strictly limited in scope. We need a limited, constitutional government, as Rand argued. Nevertheless, the existence of a “government,” even in the limited sense of a mere voluntary association for defense of rights, necessitates some sort of organizational structure. It makes sense, then, to opt for direct democracy at the local level, using delegates (not representatives) whenever necessary, and confederating democratic associations into a national federation for mutual defense and security.
Spencer, Herbert, and Rand all held that government ought to be strictly limited to the defense of persons and property against aggression. Nevertheless, Spencer does suggest (inconsistently on his part) that perhaps there is room for government-owned enterprises.
“It is clear that the restriction put upon the liberty of trade, by forbidding private letter-carrying establishments, is a breach of state-duty. It is also clear that were that restriction abolished, a natural postal system would eventually grow up, could it surpass in efficiency our existing one. And it is further clear that if it could not surpass it, the existing system might rightly continue; for, as at first said, the fulfillment of postal functions by the state is not intrinsically at variance with the fulfillment of its essential function.” — Herbert Spencer (Social Statics)
It seems obvious to me that “government” (in this case, a voluntary democratic association for defense and security) could theoretically acquire money through voluntary donations and use that money to buy land or undertake various sorts of enterprises. So long as the funding was voluntary and the enterprise allowed free competition, there is no reason why “the government” ought to be prohibited from being able to do what any other individual or voluntary organization on the free market would be permitted to do. In a voluntaryist society, the government would be a free association like any other. Any corporation in a free society is allowed to undertake various enterprises. There is no reason why a grocery store can’t also offer streaming services or why a security firm can’t offer transportation services. If any other free association can do this, then why not allow it also for that particular free association that focuses on defense and security?
This opens up space for a sort of voluntaryist liberal-socialism, with many government enterprises, albeit on a totally voluntary basis. The democratic associations or the federation could opt to provide postal services, transportation, education, and medical services. There could be a public option for basically any good or service imaginable. The problem with government-run enterprises is their coercive nature. If we were to eliminate the coercive nature of the state, there would be no reason to reject government-run enterprises. When government becomes a voluntary association, voluntarily funded, where private individuals and corporations are allowed to freely compete against it in the provision of goods and services, it is no longer a problem to have government-owned enterprises. And since there would always be free competition against government services in a voluntaryist society, the “socialist calculation problem” would not arise. The calculation problem only arises when there is a coercive monopoly.
Furthermore, there is no reason that a government in a voluntaryist society ought to be prohibited from using voluntary contributions (either from donations or from payments for goods and services offered) in order to buy land. The local municipality or the democratic confederation could voluntarily acquire ownership of land. Given this arrangement, there is no reason why this voluntaryist government ought to be prohibited from collecting rent from its properties. And, if the citizens so desired, it could be the policy of the government to always buy more land and never sell, instead collecting rent and using said rent to fund its own operations.
And this gets us to the most radical idea of all — that a voluntaryist government which owns various enterprises as well as land and property could be treated as a corporation and be expected to provide its citizens a dividend with the excess revenue from the profits of government enterprises and the rent of government land. The left-voluntaryist government would own land and enterprises and these would be revenue-generating. The revenue from rent and profits would be used first and foremost to cover the cost of operations. The left-voluntaryist government would need no coercive taxation, as it would provide its own revenue through market mechanisms. Since this voluntaryist government would be a democratic association, it seems likely that the people would choose to share any excess revenue as a citizen’s dividend.
The reader may now ask the question: “Why? Why have the democratic association for defense and security also own various enterprises and properties?” Well, the answer is quite simple: because these public enterprises would generate revenue, ensuring that the “government” never has to tax its citizens. Furthermore, excess revenue could go to various welfare schemes, like the citizen’s dividend or universal health insurance. Thus, the voluntary public enterprises could help create a sort of stateless welfare state. And, finally, these enterprises would be subject to more democratic control than competing private businesses, and there may be cases in which that may be desirable.
