Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s Break 108 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: violent radicalism and the religion of Islam; why people become NPCs (non-player characters), and how to avoid becoming one; the ins and and outs of on-demand food delivery and why you should maximize your earnings; and more. (Apologies for the audio quality. Still working on it.)

Listen to Editor’s Break 108 (40m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

I learned early on in my journey toward voluntaryism that “constitutional limits” were a temporary hurdle at best and totally invisible at worst in “chaining” down the state authority-expanding actions of opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats. It was obvious to me during my Constitutionalist phase that how these people should go about expanding their [supposed] authority was not via interpretation or re-interpretation of the Constitution (or straight up ignoring), but by amending the Constitution to say exactly what they wanted it to say. If an article, clause, or section of the Constitution or it’s later Amendments were less than perfectly clear, then the default position should be to protect life, liberty, and property, not to embolden and license the agendas of expansionist politicians and bureaucrats. There’s an amendment process for a reason. But alas, what use are strictures and limits to those who seek authority over other people to begin with? Humanity was conquered along time ago, and though the forms and rituals change throughout time, the facts do not: the people who call themselves “government” have assumed jurisdiction over other people arbitrarily and coercively, constitutions notwithstanding. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It’s probably one of the most controversial feelings to hold, but I feel it must be said: there are few groups of people I hold as much pity for than pedophiles. Think about it. To be a pedophile, the kind of person who has a sexual preference for small children, is to grow up abused, and then to add insult to injury, to be prohibited by society from experiencing their sexual preference. Just imagine if society forbade you from your sexual preference. For me, that’s women. To be severely punished for acting on my sexual preference, or to engage in intense sexual repression, would be a prison of the worst kind. I don’t believe that my sexual preference is a choice. It came about in some way, and it’s here to stay. Pedophiles are victimized twice, and that really sucks for them. It’s one of the greatest tragedies of humanity, methinks. So what’s the solution? Beyond ending the abuse of children, I don’t know. Once that sexual preference exists, what can we as (I hope) compassionate people do about it? I truly don’t know. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It is my belief, based on historical review, that progress is primarily advanced by culture and technology, with government policy lagging behind. And how does culture and technology advance progress? By individuals pushing against the moral and political boundaries that have been erected before them. Progress doesn’t happens through political action before it’s happened in hearts and minds. And once something has taken ahold of hearts and minds, it’s inevitable that government policy gets changed. A more effective vote for progress than at the ballot box, is for each individual to identify the undesirable boundaries erected before them, and take direct action pushing against them. Courage may be required. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s Break 107 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the value in granting birthright citizenship in order to reduce the amount of coercion leveled at people by governments; the challenge in tailoring your rhetoric, written or spoken, for a broader audience; what libertarianism has to say about bigotry, such as racism and sexism; and more. (Apologies for the audio quality.)

Listen to Editor’s Break 107 (23m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

The first Tuesday after the first Monday every November is Election Day in the United States. Every election season, many organizations attempt to rally voters to the polls. The “Go vote!” message is everywhere these days. As a principled non-voter, I find it incredibly annoying, but such is life under statism.

People are aghast when they learn that I do not participate in electoral politics and voting. I have a lot to say about political philosophy, for sure, but it does not follow that I should be politically active. I have only ever voted twice since my 18th birthday, the first was during the Bush-Kerry election, in which I voted, quite ignorantly, for John Kerry. The second was during the Obama-McCain election, and I wrote myself in for President. It was a joke, because it is a joke.

How does one become a principled non-voter? It was an evolution that occurred alongside my journey toward voluntaryism. I know plenty of libertarians and voluntaryists that still vote, however, so I don’t believe it’s inevitable that this journey will result as it has for me. So here it is, the step-by-step guide to explain exactly why I didn’t vote this November.

Campaign Promises

My first realization was that campaign promises made by candidates are incredibly difficult to keep. What’s the point in allowing a promise to persuade you toward supporting a candidate if it’s obvious that they are either lying to get votes, or promising what is not theirs to promise. The most a candidate can effectively promise is to not do something, such as voting to raise the level of coercion leveled at society by government. And how many popular candidates are doing that?

Tax Burdens

My second realization was that I have no right as an individual to push for the implementation of a tax increase on my neighbors. Very few Propositions on the ballot are to decrease taxes, but what about voting against tax increases? A defensive measure, to be sure, but keep reading.

Increasing Coercion

My third realization was that I have no right as an individual to push for an increase in the amount of coercion leveled at society by governments. Most Propositions necessarily have this effect, not only those that are concerned with tax levels. Again, voting against? Defensive, but keep reading.

Statistical Value

My fourth realization was that my individual vote is statistically worthless. It is an incredibly rare event for a candidate or issue to be decided on the basis of 1 vote. Probabilities tell us that virtually all elections are decided by no fewer than a few hundred votes. Statistical value is lessened even more when you consider the margin of error and the possibility of voter fraud. Every morning after Election Day I wake up and perform a little thought experiment while viewing the election results: I ask myself, would my vote have changed the outcome in any of these elections? To date, the answer has been a decided NO.

Rational Irrationality

My fifth realization was that, after considering the statistical worthlessness of my vote, spending any amount of time on researching the candidates and issues was irrational. How many people spend more time researching elections than researching buying a house? Arguably, the election is far more important, and the knowledge required to make an informed decision is far more vast, than for buying a house. Yet, our vote does not get us what we want in the same way that buying a house does. The house is certain, the vote is not. As economist Bryan Caplan wrote, it is rational to be ignorant when voting, and irrational to be informed. Therefore, most voters are ignorant on the issues, and their vote is worth as much as mine.

Quiet Dissent

My sixth realization was that elections are a very effective way to give people the feeling that they’ve had their say. As long as people feel like they have some effect in the process, that their “voice” has been heard, they are more likely to shut up about their dissent toward government and its policies. I find the idea of voting as voice to be ridiculous on the bases described above, but also, there are far better alternatives to being heard than voting. I’ve been writing and discussing for ten years and podcasting for five, and in all that time I have affected more people to change their thinking, their lives, and their parenting for the better than I ever did in the election booth. Elections are meant to quiet dissent, and I will not allow my dissent to be silenced.

Criminal Gang

My seventh realization, one that was evolving along the way, was that governments are just better organized criminal gangs. Sure, some election issues to increase coercion can be stopped, and some candidates promise to protect your liberties, but every election to date has had the result of increasing the size and scope of government overall. Libertarian-minded candidates and liberty-protecting issues are simply not popular, and probably never will be. Criminal gangs attract the criminal minded. Elections are allowed by government, and are unlikely to affect their existence in any positive direction. Plus, as George Carlin put it, governments were bought and paid for a long time ago. My vote won’t change that.

Culture and Technology

My eighth realization came when considering the effects that culture and technology have toward the actions that people who call themselves “government” take. Governments don’t make progress in front of culture. Quite the opposite. Culture changes first, and forces government policy to follow. So what’s the point in participating in elections if the candidates and issues are several steps behind culture? Consider also the effect that technology has on forcing governments to change the way they do things, or become obsolete. The very real forces of culture and technology toward combating governments are effective and occur without any regard to elections.

So there you have it: why I didn’t vote on Election Day, and why I never will.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

I have never felt any particular pull toward giving money to charity. I used to pay tithes and give offerings to the Mormon Church, but that was out of a sense of religious obligation. I have given and will give money to nonprofit organizations like the Mises and Libertas institutes, but I don’t consider that charity. I don’t give money to beggars and panhandlers, and I don’t give money to relief funds. Why not? I’m not entirely sure. Partly, I don’t believe that money given to charity is always spent in the most helpful ways. But the bigger reason for my abstention from charitable giving is simply that I don’t believe other people deserve my hard-earned money more than me and my family do. I am incredibly wealthy by world standards, but upper-lower class by American standards. I don’t have expendable income. Perhaps if I were a millionaire, I’d feel differently. But I’m not, nor do I ever expect to be. I much prefer trade and exchange. If I think you could use some money, I’ll offer you a job to earn it, and respect you more when you accept. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Editor’s 106 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: swear words, their playful and hateful uses, and the importance of intent; the possibility of believing in God and a short introduction to ignosticism; several reasons for his abstention from participating in electoral politics; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 106 (27m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

A very simple thought experiment should demonstrate the absurdity in the belief that so-called “sweatshops” are evil. Imagine for a moment the likely outcome of any given sweatshop, anywhere in the world, being closed down. Every worker in that sweatshop would immediately be unemployed and looking for new work. At some point, no doubt, they will find another job, but will it be as good as the one they just had? Not likely. Had the sweatshop not been meeting their needs as well as alternatives, they would have sooner or later left the sweatshop for greener pastures. That greener pastures were not available is compelling evidence to conclude that sweatshops are not evil, but good. Without wealthier countries willing and able to “exploit” poorer workers by offering jobs in sweatshops, those workers would never have the opportunity to “trade up” their lot in life, and cumulatively grow their economies out of poverty over time and toward First World status. Decrying sweatshops is the true evil. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It may just be my perception, but it seems that social justice warrior and gender feminist types engage in, quite ironically, privilege binarism. According to them, there are two types of people, white heterosexual cisgender men (WHCM), and everyone else. The former is mostly privileged, the latter is mostly not. Nevermind that most WHCM have never held political or economic power, nor have they exercised aggression against non-WHCM to any degree that would constitute political or economic privilege. Most WHCM have been just as much victimized by institutional aggression a la schooling and the state as non-WHCM. Most WHCM are doing their best to be productive, hard-working, decent human beings, all the while being duped and coerced from a very young age into politico-religious fervor. When you fail to “problematize” the effects of institutional and parental aggression on not only WHCM, but on everyone, then you fail to see the fundamental problem of privilege: authority. If your first and loudest complaints are not made against unjust and illicit governance structure (the state) and violent parenting practices, then you are totally failing as a warrior for social justice and equality. And that’s today’s two cents.