What Voluntaryism Mean To Me – EL011
Author: Carl Watner
Original article location:

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Rodger is a long-time libertarian activist, the founder of PaxLibertas Productions, host of The LAVA Flow podcast, Vice Chairman of the NHLP, Regional Captain for the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence and former Chairman and Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Arkansas. Rodger has also served on the national Libertarian Party Judicial Committee.


  • I didn’t really pass through minarchism on my way to anarchism, so I’ve never fully understood your world view. Help me to understand it. Your belief that some services are best provided publicly is entirely compatible with a voluntaryist world view as long as participation in your “state” is voluntary. In principle, you could have a communist community existing within a voluntary society. My question is: Are you voluntaryists who advocate establishing such a community on justly acquired land and exclusively with people who want to participate? Or do you believe that it is justifiable to impose your minimal state on people like me who don’t want it? If it’s the former, then there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between your proposal and mine. I probably wouldn’t participate in your voluntary state, but I have no problem with it existing as long as you aren’t forcing it on others. If it’s the latter, then you and I have almost nothing in common philosophically, even if we occasionally come to the same conclusions.

    Jump to Discussion Post 113 replies
  • Should education be a mandatory thing, or does the coercion of how it is in the U.S a violation of our rights? Even in the case of a voluntary city, should mandatory education be seen as such, or would it make sense for people to demand it for their city. The bigger picture I’d also like to discuss is: What is the best form of education, structured, unstructured, or encouraging? These are the terms I think of, and I’ll define them.   Structured: we have curriculum which dictates what is generally taught or only taught. Could be the system we have now(nationalized), or private schools/charter schools, or even homeschooled. Just specify which you prefer.   Unstructured: Kids are taught by parents or teachers, but they have no set curriculum and are guided by what they or the teacher decide to be interested in. Or there could be no formal education in this category, and kids learn only through happenstance or someone making the decision to educate them.   Encouraging: Kids have a curriculum they learn by when they start school, but then branch to specific categories to learn in these fields of their choosing. This system would avoid unnecessary education to the kit/teen, but you run the risk of them choosing something prematurely.   Or you could come up with a different system. I’m really curious what the Libertarian perspectives are in regards to this. Thanks

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • Greetings, I can post Pages and reply to other people with no issue. When I publish an “Article” it cannot be visited. Searches on WordPress seem to suggest it is a problem withPermalinks and an htaccess file, but following suggestions to reassert Permalink settings has no effect. Changing the page address is no avail. Perhaps someone else has encountered this problem and solved it? example: Thanks for any observations

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • I would argue decentralized direct democracy with administrators of public will (as opposed to politicians) who would outsource the various public projects to the best providers from the free market.

    Jump to Discussion Post 10 replies
  • Sometimes when I’m discussing big-picture ideas (e.g. why taxation is theft, or why aggression is wrong even if done by government, or why democracy is mob rule)… a statist will see my point, but then come back with an objection: “How will x,y,z function without government?” In the past I’ve made the mistake of trying to explain too much, then the statist will tend to nitpick on the little details, and the discussion gets derailed (we end up debating about branches and leaves, instead of the roots). So here’s a different approach that I’m seeing some initial success with: Instead of making them envision a world without government (which sounds like a big change with too many unknowns, so it’s scary to most people)… just introduce the idea of letting people opt-out of government. The idea is that those who want government to handle certain things, can still do so voluntarily. E.g. want government to handle your healthcare? Just pay a compartmentalized & voluntary “healthcare tax”. Those who don’t pay the voluntary “healthcare tax” will have to find (and pay for) private alternatives for their healthcare. Likewise for government education, police, even roads 🙂 This only gives people more options, while taking away none. So it’s harder for statists to object to, and we don’t get sidetracked on the nitty gritty details of possible alternatives. Then I can focus the conversation back on “striking the roots” (the problems with coercive taxation, government aggression, democracy, etc). Try it out… might work for you too!

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies