Tom van Lamoen on Nostr: Voluntary Trust Increasingly, I find myself encountering the word "voluntary" and its ...

Voluntary Trust

Increasingly, I find myself encountering the word "voluntary" and its significance is growing for me. It forms the foundation of voluntarism, the philosophical movement in which the puzzle pieces are currently falling into place for me. Voluntarism, to me, is the nexus where spirituality, philosophy, and politics converge, aligning everything harmoniously.
Voluntarism stands as the antithesis of coercion. Unfortunately, our politics are leaning more towards compulsion. Even democracy harbors this inherent problem. Imagine being in a group of 17 people unable to reach a consensus. Eventually, a vote must be cast, potentially coercing 8 individuals into a decision they don't endorse. The more centralized this decision-making becomes, the larger the group subject to coercion becomes. This makes achieving an empathetic consensus increasingly challenging.
Examining our present political system, we're required to elect representatives. Yet, representatives can never wholly represent our viewpoints because every individual on Earth is unique. Furthermore, they often fail to advocate for all of an individual's stances, bound as they are to party affiliations. Not to mention the probability of these stances being actually executed. With coalitions, inter-party agreements, and a seat distribution that significantly favors major parties, I can confidently state, based on personal experience, that the policies in Amersfoort represent only a small minority. This is further exacerbated by the fact that voter turnout in local elections was merely 50%. Is this situation desirable? I leave that to the reader's judgment.
In essence, a considerable portion of society is, at the very least, partially suppressed by the dominant group. Meanwhile, at the highest academic levels, there's a growing reliance on consent-based decision-making within organizations. Smaller, decentralized groups where decisions are shaped through empathy. Deep democracy, dialogue, co-creation, and participation with well-defined authority are increasingly becoming the norm. This shift arises from the recognition that the pitfalls of mob rule are profoundly disruptive to organizational structure. Interestingly, this mirrors the present society where fear, anger, and polarization have escalated over the last decades.

Coercion

The foundation of our current system rests upon coercion. But how does the government acquire the means to govern? Primarily through tax revenues, and partly through loans and the printing of money, although I won't delve into those aspects this time. All these income sources are obtained through coercion. If I disagree with expenditures or policies, I still have to pay for them. If not, eventually a bailiff could stand at my door, and in the worst case, even armed police. However, many citizens don't perceive taxes as coercion because "the government is us!"
We pay taxes for the greater good of society, right? This can undoubtedly be subject to debate, but one thing is certain: no individual gets value for their money. Even the least fortunate in society could experience more solidarity if not for the bureaucratic hassle that precedes it.
In our present society, it seems that most money flows into central planning of our economy and way of life. Terms like behavioral influence have become commonplace in administrative documents today. But how does this growing centralization of decision-making impact individual interests? This appears to be a core issue we grapple with today. Politics dominate conversations, and polarization is on the rise. Residents simply don't agree with the allocation of "their" money. Even if it were ethically and well spent, criticism would still abound. Furthermore, more revelations of mismanagement and corruption are coming to light. Trust in politics has never been lower.

Trust

Trust is a crucial element in our belief in the government, the current coalition, Members of Parliament, and authority in general. However, there exists a significant distinction among these forms of trust. Polarization is prevalent, with "right and left" taking increasingly extreme stances to attribute blame for all problems to the other side. Yet, most politicians agree that their own party is, of course, trustworthy.
Let's delve into the definition and meaning of trust. According to Wikipedia, trust is "the firm belief in the occurrence of a desired outcome that lies outside of one's control." A beautiful description. Trust revolves around having faith in a situation beyond our personal power. It's a facet of our life choices that we entrust to others.
Trust is a powerful concept deeply ingrained in our human nature. It transcends the rational and encompasses a spiritual and philosophical dimension. As social beings, we inherently have the need to place trust in others, particularly those close to us. When this trust is undermined, an inhumane situation arises that leads to stress and health issues, such as depression. Trust forms the bedrock of every relationship, whether it's friendship, love, or business interactions. Each individual has the right to choose whom to forge this bond of trust with and who to allow into their personal sphere, because trust is a precious asset.

Dependency

Trust and dependency go hand in hand. Trust implies being willing to make oneself vulnerable and partly dependent on another. Marriage serves as a clear example, as does a business contract, or even a friendship with unspoken rules that set expectations within the relationship.
For me, trust is something special. It can't serve as a universal foundation upon which everything is built. Trust, in my opinion, can only be granted to people you know personally, individuals you can get along with well, and most importantly, those for whom breaking this trust carries consequences. These consequences encompass the positive outcomes stemming from the relationship, as well as the negative repercussions arising from breaking the mutual "virtual contract."
But do politicians really face negative consequences when they breach our trust? Is there genuine accountability in politics? While they might lose votes, the question remains: who should we vote for next time then? In politics, representatives and administrators seem virtually immune to accountability.
The well-known quote by Thomas Sowell goes: "There is no more foolish or dangerous way to make decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Dependency on others and the trust that accompanies it should at the very least always be a voluntary choice. If one is coerced into trusting someone, it can no longer be called trust. But how can we truly trust our government when we have no choice, for instance, to opt out of contributing to this system?

Consciousness

Consciousness and taking responsibility for our personal choices and actions are essential aspects of personal growth and development. It's widely understood that this is the path to a stronger self. Responsibility fosters growth on various levels: psychological, philosophical, spiritual, rational, and even in terms of personal health. Assuming responsibility from our awareness might just be the most pivotal pillar in our lives. Maturing is synonymous with responsible behavior. As we take on responsibility, our sense of accountability flourishes. This becomes especially evident, for instance, when we have children. The personal connection and realization that people depend on us amplify our sense of responsibility.
In every society, there will always be natural leaders and followers. As long as the choice to follow remains voluntary, this system functions as a self-regulating mechanism where corruption directly impacts acquired authority. Hence, voluntarism within a political system isn't a foreign concept at all. Throughout history, all societies have emerged from natural leaders who garnered followers by genuinely earning their trust. Civilizations have always crumbled when authority centralized and became corrupt. In my view, human society will cyclically revert to the human nature of personal liberty.
The more personal freedom we enjoy, the more responsibility we can shoulder for our own lives and those of our peers. In this manner, we can construct a voluntary and cohesive society from the grassroots. Freedom implies voluntarism, where people have the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and whom they wish to associate with. Trust is the positive dependency stemming from mutual respect and voluntary interactions. Negative dependency, on the other hand, embodies coercion that contradicts the foundations of a free society.

Bitcoin

As we strive for a sustainable and enduring societal system based on voluntarism, one innovation stands out prominently, and I naturally can't resist mentioning it: Bitcoin.
Bitcoin offers a form of complete voluntarism in economic interactions. It provides individuals the opportunity to voluntarily engage in a decentralized and transparent financial system, detached from the control and coercion of third parties. Bitcoin embodies the principles of voluntarism, trust, and responsibility in a manner that could potentially transform traditional systems.