VOLUNTARISM
© 2010 January 25 by G. Edward Griffin
There is a lot of discussion today about voluntarism as applied to social conduct. It is the concept of allowing people to follow their conscience regarding the rules of society instead of forcing them to obey under penalty of fine or imprisonment. This concept was included in The Creed of Freedom under the heading of Freedom-of-choice. It says:
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.
|
The advantages of this concept are obvious to individualists who value freedom more than conformity, but collectivists have trouble with it. They feel that, if a certain behavior is good, then “there ought to be a law” to require everyone to comply. If we look only at the behavior in question, it is easy to be enthusiastic about having everyone emulate it. However, if we also consider the consequences of forcing them to do so under penalty of fine or imprisonment, we realize that freedom is given up in the process. Rules for this and rules for that are added to the statute books by the thousands until we find ourselves ensnarled in a spider web of so many strands that it is impossible to perform even the most common tasks without violating some law, even if it’s unknown to us. One of the hallmarks of modern totalitarian systems is that all citizens eventually become lawbreakers, and this makes it possible to punish anyone who falls into disfavor with the ruling authorities. All they have to do is track your behavior for a while and discover which laws you are breaking. No one is exempt.
As stated elsewhere in The Creed of Freedom, the legitimate function of the state is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens and, in that defensive role, it is logical that force may have to be used. Individualists have no problem with that. However, in the collectivist world in which we live today, 99% of the laws have nothing to do with the protection of people. They are designed for the control and plunder of people, all done under the banner of supposedly accomplishing some “good.”
When I was asked to speak at a conference in Florida a few months ago, I noticed a parking sign in front of the hotel that displayed the familiar handicapped logo above the words: ‘Parking by disabled permit only.” There was nothing noteworthy about that, but what caught my eye was a second sign bolted below it with the words: “$100 FINE”. It gave me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Although seemingly a minor thing, it was the epitome of the collectivist ethic in which we live. Yes, there always will be a few people who will not voluntarily honor a request to leave space for the handicapped, but their number is exceedingly small. Even if it were the other way around, even if most people would not honor such a request, how destructive it is to our way-of-life to apply the coercive power of the state to such areas of human choice. But what really put the knot in my stomach was the realization that not one person in a thousand has ever thought of the implications of such laws. Collectivism is so entrenched in the world now, laws like this are accepted without the slightest hesitation.
In any event, I took a photograph of the sign with the thought that I might use it someday as an illustration of how far we have deviated from the purely defensive concept of the state. It remained on my computer for about six months but, as I was archiving photos for permanent storage, it popped on screen and demanded that I finally do something with it. So I made a copy and, using graphics software, changed the “$100 FINE” part of the sign to read “THANK YOU”. Side-by-side, this makes an excellent illustration of one of the fundamental differences between collectivism and individualism.
Which of these signs would you prefer in your community?
If you choose the one on the left, you are a collectivist.
If you choose the one on the right, you are an individualist.
Back
