This is the problem. Voluntaryism doesn’t “handle” things. It is a very simple legal code/philosophy which says “don’t violate property.” Where is the authoritarianism in being part of something voluntarily and consensually?
Even for someone who disagrees with downvoting, this is not for voluntaryism to decide. Do you see? The moment force is involved, then the philosophy has something to say.
The moment aggression is used by the professed non aggressor the validity of honesty has passed.
On this platform as on any other, definitions should be defended. When someone is trying to change the definition of a key term people use to describe themselves, they shouldn't be surprised by resistance to their effort. There are people on here calling themselves voluntaryists, and they don't even believe in private property.
How can you believe in taking my private property and still believe in voluntary interaction? It just isn't possible. Some things must be defended too. If we do not defend them, who will? Are we going to simply let the enemies of individual liberty change the definitions of terms and the symbols without any consequences?
I agree, and to that point I have not seen any inconsistencies in the way you approach individual liberty or the application of non-aggression.
Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of your writing, but the little I have is clear, well defined in concept and context.
The longer I am here the more I appreciate the term 'individual liberty'. Do you see individual sovereignty as inherent in the term or is it in a narrow sense?
Yes, absolutely. I have no problem in coalition building either and focusing on the "an" of anarchy meaning without a ruler. The other belief systems of anarchism still need to be voluntary though, or they go against the entire principle of no rulers. A tyrannical majority is no better ruler than an individual tyrant. I have no need or desire for a ruler and reject them all no matter what reason is given.
I in general oppose creating social constructs, and more so lending/giving authority to social constructs.
In a sense I can see a loose coalition of individualist that have aligned interests, and could see how a formation could occur without lending any individual sovereignty to a formal group or faction.
I call that formation a 'individual republic' as all individual sovereignty remains with each individual.
Anarchy itself has been pulled so far left, that unless there is a distinction, it is assumed that a anarchist desires immersion into a social construct and defaults all authority to the will of the social.
Aggression in view of Voluntaryism is an attack on property which has already been clearly defined, and covered. If you disagree with the Voluntaryist philosophy, that is fine. I cannot keep explaining this to you. Sorry.