JE: Thanks for the add! I was wondering if you’d be willing to like my page Self-determination Advocates. We’re eager to help everyone achieve self-ownership, Does that sound like something you would be interested in? https://www.facebook.com/SelfDeterminationAdvocates/
SL: “Achieve” self-ownership? That makes no sense to me because I believe self-ownership is an innate human quality. My whole philosophy can be found in my book Consent Is Morality.
JE: What is your book about, Sean?
SL: Using fundamental logic, it proposes that consent is a universal human concept, and that respect for consent choices is the basis for all moral actions.
JE: Have you read, “Your Next Government: From Nation-States to Stateless Nations” by Tom W Bell? He goes into detail about the different levels of consent.
SL: No, I haven’t. But I would disagree that there even are “levels” of consent, and I argue as such in my book. Consent is purely individual (cannot be granted by others without previous agreement) and binary — it has either been given or it has not.
JE: His argument is similar… This chart is based on common law tradition.
Are you a libertarian or classical liberal? I think I saw you identified as a voluntaryist?
SL: Interesting chart. I argue that implied consent is not possible, as it either makes assertions or assumptions, neither of which speak to an individual’s consent choice.
Yes, I’m a voluntaryist. I believe in the primacy of property rights.
JE: The charter city movement is working to make consent more explicit. How did you become a voluntaryist? and what does that mean to you?
SL: It was a slow process. I was a Reagan Republican in the 80s, but after Bush Jr’s lies, I started reading a wider variety of material, including Radley Balko and the Cato Institute.
It occurred to me that there were still inconsistencies in their philosophy. Roger Pilon put it best — you can’t give away [rights or powers] which you first don’t possess. But I wondered how someone who believed that could also believe in the validity of the Constitution.
Voluntaryism — the simple view that only mutually voluntary acts are moral — is the most consistent viewpoint.
JE: So why did you write this book, Sean?
SL: It’s all in the preface. 😉 Ultimately I got sick of the “subjective morality” arguments. They didn’t sit well with me. So I sat down to think about WHY one act was “good” and another act was “bad.”
I came up with a way to equate consent with morality which I don’t think anyone else has used.
JE: Where can people buy your book?
SL: People can get it at ConsentIsMorality.com. And for your readers, the first 10 people to use the code SDA30 will get 30% off an autographed copy.