Voluntaryism is easy to grasp. It says that all interactions among people must be voluntary, i.e., without aggression. This is Ayn Rand without the psychological repression, the judgmentalism and the fake statism weakly glued on. This is anarcho-capitalism, without any hint of state capitalism. This is free market anarchism. This is left libertarianism. This is complete liberty … plus love, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and so much more. Voluntaryism is the essence of liberty with the widest possible range of ideas and influences.
Consistent with My Beliefs
Voluntaryism is the political philosophy I specifically most identify with because it holds the conceptual essence of my beliefs:
- an emphasis on self-improvement first and foremost, i.e., inside-the-self activism.
- that the state’s lifeblood is its veneer of legitimacy, which we can end through civil disobedience and withdrawal of consent.
- an emphasis on education, direct action and other non-violent tactics in outside-the-self activism.
- the recognition that the state is aggression and to be consistent with one’s principles one must never participate in the state, including its elections.
- it is not pacifism. In other words, I reserve my right to self-defense.
Voluntaryism is NOT Pacifism
So when I see good, principled people like Mike Gogulski specifically disassociating themselves from voluntaryism (Why I am not specifically a voluntaryist, Sep 17, nostate.com), I know something is wrong. Mike argues that the voluntaryist emphasis on non-violent tactics contradicts his personal readiness to use violence in self-defense. But this is no contradiction. Voluntaryism is not pacifism. Voluntaryists favor only voluntary interactions with our fellow man. However, if our fellow man attempts to initiate force against us, we (many of us, at least) do not rule out the use of force in self-defense.
The Responsibility to Defend One’s Own Life
I, for one, identify very closely with voluntaryism yet I have a firearms hobby and open carry everywhere I go. I am certain that one day someone will, by their aggressive act, force me to choose between my life, or the life of a loved one, and the aggressor’s life. I will, in a second, choose the former. It is self-defense. The corollary to the right to life is the responsibility to defend it. Just as I do not wait for my neighbor to feed, clothe, shelter, heal or entertain me at his expense, neither do I expect him to take responsibility for the defense of my life.
What Separates a Voluntaryist from a Non-Voluntaryist?
The decision not to seek opportunities for violence, in self-defense or otherwise, is one critical factor that distinguishes voluntaryists from non-voluntaryists. If/when the day comes that non-violent tactics (or my capacity to use them) have been exhausted, I will be right there next to Mike exercising my right to self-defense. And I’ll end that exercise just as soon as I can as well. What separates Mike and I is merely a nuance.
Let’s Get to Work – And Find the Real Disagreements
Instead of debating nuances, let’s get to work on finding opportunities to work together to expand the space for liberty worldwide, peacefully – but always with a firearm on our hips, proverbial or not. 
Photo credit: katutaide. Photo license.
George Donnelly is a voluntaryist in search of Truth, freedom from his fellow man and a better life for the next generation. Read his blog at 
No political philosophy is perfect. I say that because while I applaud voluntaryism’s emphasis on education and self-improvement, I have a big problem with the belief that one must never participate in the state or its elections, since this can actually run counter to the liberty that voluntaryists wish to spread worldwide. As an example: the election of Adolf Hitler may not have happened had the German elites voted in that election, instead of believing politics was beneath them, allowing a poor and jobless underclass to vote with their wallets.
Also, democracies and republics need an educated electorate to participate in its elections in order to work. Protesting on the sidelines can have an impact, of course, and is also part of the political process, but nothing gets rid of a bad politician quicker than voting them out of office. As to what can happen when protest is one’s only form of interacting with the state, please see the example above.
To put it another way: if no one votes in elections, why have them? And if you don’t have elections, then you have either anarchy, or a dictatorship. In short, you can either vote for whomever you think will carry out the will of the people best in this republic, or you can suffer the consequences of having someone in power who will abuse it in the worst possible ways–which, of course, would prevent the liberty that you wish to spread. Dictators either conduct sham elections that force everyone to vote for them, or rule by mandate. But even in those countries where it is voluntary, remember that your voice is loudest when it is at the ballot box, not when you are in the streets.
Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler
Excellent presentation, George! As a lifelong libertarian (in the sense the word is supposed to have, not the LP’s apparent re-version), I have always seen “choice” as the issue in life: If I live non-aggressively, and use no coercive means to affect the actions of others, what I do ain’t nobody’s business but my own! (I also consider every effort to allow folks to choose to help their neighbors, then take a tax-cut for doing so (as being part of the solution, etc.), to be part of the de-statification process, and fully consistent with these principles … but I digress!). My only real regret is the need for a new term, since “liberal” (which once meant this) and now “libertarian” (RIP, ca. 2008 or earlier?) no longer define this condition or position.
Hehe, true those terms are corrupted. Glad you liked it, thanks.
A voluntaryist society demands anarchy. The state does not permit private contracts to exist. One must first be rid of government, for freedom to exist.
The state aggresses against every person, from the time of his birth.
The non-aggression principle makes an exception for defense.
There are two options: education and retaliation. Education has been controlled by the state since Horace Mann decided to copy the Prussian Military System in about 1840, and Rockefeller gave him the muscle.
It is an uphill struggle to convert young adults where the government has outposts in their brains.
This leaves withdrawal or violence.
Withdrawal can work, if one accepts privation and poverty with grace.
The remaining option was outlined by Jim Bell:
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm
on voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM&feature=PlayList&p=DE965B0716BFA571&index=2&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL
Nice article. You can read an article and discussion of a similar concept, The Consent Axiom, at
http://groups.google.com/group/libsa/msg/3e8a9e2cd2323e12?
regards
Long time “l”ibertarian here. I’m highly familiar with voluntaryism, Lysander Spooner, Harry Browne (1970s version), Wendy McElroy, Carl Watner, and so forth. I’m in agreement with your views. The most recent demonstration of why voluntaryism and “ignoring government” is the proper way is this: The Democrats have ignored that government involvement in Health Care is unconstitutional. So why should we residents in the geographical area known as the U.S.A. think the constitution has any authority? The U.S. respresentatives and senators obviously do not think the constitution has any authority.
I don’t object to anyone doing non-violent underground civil disobedience of laws against all voluntary transaction. If those people want to publicize their actions, however, the thugs in the gang called “government” will make an example out of them.