Karel on Nostr: Voluntarism, anarchy and pacifism are difficult to contradict. If one argues for a ...

Voluntarism, anarchy and pacifism are difficult to contradict. If one argues for a centralized solution, for the state, or even for democracy, one automatically puts oneself in the position of a violent person forcing his monopoly on meaning of life (and the right way of living) on others. One has to admit and openly acknowledge one's ego, which is convinced that it knows better than others what is good for them. So yes - one can argue against voluntarism, but if one wants to stand the test of consistency it is only through a clear statement "yes, I am a violent person, I know this about myself and I think violence upon others not so clever as I am is right", which is very hard to acknowledge. But without this statement, in my observation, the argument with the voluntarist cannot be won, as the statist will always be caught out for wanting to force his beliefs violently on others, even though he hides it behind peace, love and freedom.

It is the same as advocating violence in child-rearing. Yes, you can take the position that slaps and broken kettles are good for the child (because you think you know better than the child what is good for him), but you have to admit that you are violent person and you think violence is ok. There is no other way to defend it, otherwise you will always fail the test of consistency.