Marketing Voluntaryism

November 28th, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

I recently had some custom Voluntaryist lapel pins made. I designed a 1″ black and gold AnCap flag pin, and a 1.5″ Voluntaryist “V” pin, with the Daily Anarchist motto around the rim, “Building a Voluntary Society… Without Permission.” You can get the pins at

Last week I had my first opportunity to wear one to a formal dinner, pinned to the lapel of my coat, similar yet entirely different from the flag pins that the sociocrats wear. The pin generated a lot of questions and a lot of conversations at the dinner and I want to share my experience.

The dinner was the annual fundraising banquet for a muslim civil rights organization where my wife is the executive director. There were about 700 in attendance, mostly muslim and mostly from the political left. Estimates are that 85% of voting eligible muslims voted for Obama, just to give you some sense of the audience.

I chose the black and gold AnCap flag, mainly because it was the more inconspicuous of the two.

As the husband, I often run various last minute errands before these dinners, even though I don’t work for the organization. I was asked to go and pick up 300 ballpoint pens. During checkout the cashier joked “You must be writing the great American novel.” I replied that they were for a fundraising dinner and quipped that people need pens to write donation checks. Then he asked me about my pin.

Now, imagine this. I’m of Germanic descent. I’ve got a full beard, and a shaved head. I’m wearing a nice black suit. A collared shirt, no tie, and a pin of an unfamiliar flag, at least to him. So, I went all in.

“It’s an anarchist flag.”

He looked shocked. That was the last thing he was expecting. You could see the gears turning in his head. Fundraising dinner… 300 pens… donation checks… anarchist pin. He gave an awkward laugh and said, “Well, you’ve got the beard for it.” I wished him a good day and went on my way.

Now, to be fair, I allowed him to believe something that was not entirely true, that I was organizing an anarchist fund raiser large enough to justify putting on a suit and buying 300 pens. It’s an unlikely occurrence today, but I’m fully confident that such events will be common in the future. It’s also apparent to me that he probably assumed I was talking about some branch of left anarchism, based on the beard comment. But that’s ok. The important thing was that it prepared me for something I hadn’t anticipated. People were incredibly eager to ask me about an embossed lapel pin in a way that I’ve never been asked about any run of the mill political button.

I expected the pin would be a visible insignia to other Voluntarists, but I didn’t expect it to be conversation piece.  I was asked about the pin by literally a dozen people at least.

What this forced me to do was put together a very concise elevator speech and the one I came up with was really successful in my opinion, and far more successful than other things I’ve tried.

What I said was, “It’s the flag of the Voluntaryist philosophy. The black field symbolized the zero aggression principle, and the gold field symbolizes the Golden Rule.”

Now, I realize that this is a densely packed sentence, and that I’m committing a number of innovations which I believe and I can justify. And if you don’t think these innovations are justified… that’s freedom baby.

Firstly, I call it the Voluntaryist flag instead of the Anarcho-Capitalist or Market Anarchist flag. I’m not the first person to do this, and I won’t be the last. There’s lots to be said for either label, but I gravitate toward Voluntaryist for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it more accurately describes me. I’m not against the State. I’m against aggressive violence. It just happens that the State is a monopoly on aggressive violence. Voluntaryism strikes me as an ethical methodology whereas anarchism strikes me specifically as a political conclusion. So, some self-identified anarchists may be in favor of a Stateless society, but don’t accept the zero aggression principle. I don’t want to be associated with or mistaken for those people. Also, I don’t want to alienate those Volunatyists who identify as Left Libertarian, who accept the zero aggression principle but describe their economic ideal as “markets not Capitalism.”

Secondly, I redefined the fields of the flag. According to the common symbolism the black field represents the absence of a flag, in juxtaposition to the bright colors of most national flags, and stands for opposition to the concept of nation states. I’d rather be defined by what I’m in favor of rather than what I’m against. For me Voluntaryism is more than a political ideology. It means applying the zero aggression principle in the social sphere as well. So, redefining the black field as symbolizing the zero aggression principle not only encompasses the original meaning of opposition to the State, it also show cases the core reason for that opposition.

There is also intention behind choosing “zero aggression principle” over the more popular “non-aggression principle.” I was persuaded to adopt the former by Ben Stone the Bad Quaker. “Non-aggression” is more easily confused for pacifism” while “zero aggression” echoes “zero tolerance” and denotes open opposition to aggression in all times and places.

According to the common symbolism the gold field represents the commodity of exchange, but this is deficient for many reasons. Firstly, there is nothing integral to the philosophy of Voluntaryism or market anarchism indicated by the 79th element of the periodic table. Secondly, many adherents of the philosophy actually prefer to conduct commerce in silver or Bitcoin. The ruling principle is that the transaction is voluntary, not that the transaction is made in gold.

I chose to go with the golden rule because it gives the laymen something that is both familiar and difficult to reject. I realize this may be somewhat controversial to those Voluntaryists with Objectivist leanings who rightfully point out that the Golden Rule is an imperfect formulation of the ideal. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is terrible advice to give to a masochist, and it would better be expressed as “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” None the less, its widespread familiarity as an ethical maxim outweighs its minor technical imperfections in my mind. And the Golden Rule is in fact listed among the historical formulations of the zero aggression principle on Wikipedia. So it’s not a complete innovation.

The result was that not one of the people who asked about the pin had a negative reaction. Instead they were curious and eager with follow up questions. There’s plenty embedded in the original statement to spark questions. For example most people understand “zero aggression,” but “zero aggression principle” is an unfamiliar concept to most people, and that’s right were most people went with their questions. This is really excellent because it means you cut right through all the apologetics and preconceived notions and drive right to the root of the philosophy. Start by talking about aggression, not poorly misunderstood terminology.

Second, a number of people asked about prominent personalities who espoused the philosophy. I went straight to Murray Rothbard, who was unfamiliar to most people. For a familiar personality I went to Mahatma Gandhi with the sole caveat being that he rejected self-defense.

Finally, a select few, two to be exact, recognized the anarchist implications of what I was saying, and once they dropped the “A word” I was free to discuss the relative merits of using the label on my own terms. They both enthusiastically promised to Google the term and look into it more closely.

Over all I’d say it was a tremendous success for Voluntaryist/market anarchist outreach. Admittedly, this is a soft sell, but it was the most positive response I’ve ever gotten to talking about it with strangers. My one regret is that my elevator speech tragically lacked any statement of economic theory, and although I believe that free market principles can be derived completely from the zero aggression principle itself, I think it’s too important an element of the philosophy not to showcase. In the future I think I may call it the Agorist flag instead of the Voluntaryist flag, that way defining “agora” opens the door to discussing economics.

Tags: , , ,

43 Responses to “Marketing Voluntaryism”

  1. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    Great story!

    I’ve always told people that the black represents anarchism and the yellow represents capitalism, hence anarcho-capitalism. I would think though, that people who prefer to use the term voluntaryism would gravitate towards the V lapel instead of the flag lapel.

    I’m going to have to get me one of each! They look great!

  2. Dave ScoteseNo Gravatar says:

    “It’s the flag of the Voluntaryist philosophy. The black field symbolized the zero aggression principle, and the gold field symbolizes the Golden Rule.”

    I recommend changing a single word to reflect all that you have said about “committing a number of innovations which I believe and I can justify. And if you don’t think these innovations are justified…”:

    “It’s **my** flag of the Voluntaryist philosophy. The black field symbolized the zero aggression principle, and the gold field symbolizes the Golden Rule.”

    …and the fact that you have constructed these meanings not-necessarily-in-line-with-others reflects that “… that’s freedom, baby!”

  3. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    Congrats There are several things that you said that I would quibble about, but as an introduction to concept I think you did well considering!

    I hope that we get some converts!!

  4. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    Would you wear that pin in one of the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East? Would you talk about Voluntaryism in one of the Islamic theocracies? Would you wear it in Israel and discuss Voluntaryism in Israel?


    • MAMNo Gravatar says:

      Granted I don’t know this guy but I don’t think he’s suicidal. My paps told me the story of being stationed in Saudi and one of his squad mates got arrested for “dancing in public” he stumbled on an uneven sidewalk on the way out of a store.

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      Actually I just got back from Saudi Arabia. The pins weren’t delivered yet, but yeah I talked about Voluntaryism in the Arabian Peninsula and the sky didn’t fall.

      Personally, I have no interest in Israel.

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        Do you hate Israelis?


        • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

          No… do you hate Samoans?

          • Paul TNo Gravatar says:

            Nice non sequitur. Very contrary to the common behavior of Islamists, esp. one with a demonstrated desire to help people into a self-deception.

            Grow up Davi, grow up.

            It’s by the way that I think your childishness is more significant than your Islam. Disabuse you of Islam and you are likely to remain a child, nonetheless, just as you were before you became a moosleem.

      • Paul TNo Gravatar says:

        Is HRearden’s remark silly and illogical? If you hated Israel then you’d have an interest in it, no?

        Maybe he was trying to insinuate that you lied.

        Now, it’s a shame that you have “no interest in Israel”. Every antistatist should have such an interest given that Israel’s statist superstition has spread throughout the world like a strangling vine that puts out adventitious roots.

        Probably the reactionary Islamists of your wife’s group or some other Islamist group will figure out only too soon what your marketing of “Voluntaryism” implies for Islam. For example, your voluntaryism implies that Muslims have no right to vote. Never did. Never will.

        You are playing a dangerous game.

        By the by, both Israel and the kingdom of Arabia need thorough instruction in atheism, too. See “Atheism Explained” by David Steele, a guy in Chicago who holds what he calls the Libertarian Seminar once every month or two. As I recall, Steele suggests in his helpful book that Islam acquired state power before the great Koran took its present form, so the reader should expect it to be ruthlessly shaped to serve the interests of a statist political class. He mentions also the work of a scholar who believes that it was not Islam that gave the world an Arabist military expansion but an Arabist military expansion that gave the world Islam. “Atheism Explained” is chock full of good stuff about theistic superstition in general, too.

        Let us dream of an athestic Kingdom of Arabia. Imagine atheists, esp. antistatist ones, congregating every so often to revolve about the Cube as if Cube and atheists comprised a great wheel. I offer no no prize for being the first atheistic antistatist to touch the black stone.

        • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

          Yes it’s silly. He’s a frequent reader of this blog, and frequently comments on my pieces. His user name is clearly reference to the Randian character. So I’m assuming he has some grasp of the collectivist/individualist dichotomy. Yet he went straight from me saying I have no interest in a collective label to asking if I hate the individuals that comprise it.

          I’ll admit “have no interest” was unclear. Based on his original question I was talking about traveling there. I have no interest in traveling to Israel. I do have a greater socio-political interest in Israel as a State and as a destructive force in the world. I also have interest in, and wide variety of feelings about, various individuals who carry the label “Israeli” including affection.

          Lol… “the reactionary Islamists of your wife’s group.” You’re going to have to be more specific. It’s true they frequently host Get-out-the-vote campaigns, and I express my disagreement, but they’re hardly Islamists. They’re mostly Democrats. Even if they figured out what I was saying (It won’t take long… quite a few them read what I write) dangerous? Hardly.

          What ever threats are coming my way for what I say are coming from the State, not from a bunch of lawyers working for a civil rights organization.

          • Paul TNo Gravatar says:

            Tell the activists of your wife’s organization that ‘voluntaryism implies that Muslims have no right to vote, not even if other people are voting’. Explain why. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Don’t frame this aspect of voluntaryism as ‘no one has a right to vote’, although this assertion, too, is true.

            Now, how about you write another article? Explain what did to your own credibility by telling the parable of the 300 pens. Explain why HRearden should believe that “Based on his original question I was talking about traveling there.” Tell us also what you think a reasonable man like Hank should believe about your “interest in, and wide variety of feelings about, various individuals who carry the label ‘Israeli’ including affection”.

            Bear in mind that Hank is a businessman with lots of experience dealing with b.s. artists, some of whom might even be his own sales reps who are well compensated and who, as I discovered while working in finance (not for Hank), might be willing to lie, to mislead, and to deceive the rep’s own management to close a deal that has rotten terms for Hank but fat commissions for the sales rep. Bear in mind that Hank deals with many of his reps by phone most of the time and, furthermore, that he’s skilled enough to smell a b.s. artist through a telephone line. So make it clever. Soften him up with humor, too, if you think it will accomplish your mission, but please do spare him the needless tedium of reading “Lol…” again.

            • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

              I’m starting to think we’re having completely different conversations.

              Explain to me how one explains that voluntaryism implies that muslims do not have a right to vote without saying that no one has a right to vote. Or why someone would bother… or more specifically, what you’re implying by that suggestion. It sounds like you think you’ve trapped me in some kind of gotcha question… but I’m not seeing it.

              Now, Explain to me what I’ve done to my credibility by relating my experience buying 300 pens. Or better yet, you write an article lambasting me for my… whatever it is you think has harmed my credibility… and I’ll trumpet it for you.

              Third, HRearden should believe I was talking about traveling because his question was, “Would you wear it in Israel and discuss Voluntaryism in Israel” and because I clarified what I meant. But hey… if he wants to accuse me of something why don’t you let him do the accusing. And if you want to accuse me of something, why don’t you go ahead and do your own accusing.

              • Paul TNo Gravatar says:

                You wrote “Personally, I have no interest in Israel.” No qualification. No limitation. No exceptions. So why “no interest in Israel”? Aren’t the Jews good enough for Voluntaryism unless they are named Murray Rothbard? How far is Israel from Mecca and Riyadh? Good grief, you could hop in a dune buggy and drive it’s so close.

                A little later it was suggested that you hate Israel, and you replied, churlishly, “No… do you hate Samoans?”. But why Samoans? Did Hank mention Samoans? Your remark was silly.

                So now you want us to believe that you have also a deep and abiding interest in Israel. So which way is it? Either you have a deep and abiding interest in Israel or you “have no interest in Israel”. Please do explain which of these contradictory positions you’d like us to believe AFTER explaining how you think best a Jew in Israel should interpret your profession of “interest in, and wide variety of feelings about, various individuals who carry the label ‘Israeli’ including affection.”

                Wow, I’m still trying to recover from your radical departure from “having no interest” in a place that is crying out for Voluntaryism. Sometimes I suspect that Israel needs Voluntaryism now more than at any time since the days when Joshua of Nun sacked Jericho on the pretext of doing right by his god.

                Let me remind you, friend, of the fact that “various individuals” carry the label Israeli even though they are Muslims. Did you kinda sorta leave that fact unstated in the expectation that readers would make the illogical leap to the conclusion that you have affection for the Jews? Careful reading of your statement leads to the knowledge that it leaves so much wiggle room that it could exclude Jews entirely, at least when indicating affection for Israelis. Yet it leaves room for you to believe that you told the truth. After all, you have a “wide variety of feelings” about people who carry the label Israeli, and given that you’re a Muslim its not unreasonable to suspect that you’d chop off the heads of as many Israeli Jews as you could if you knew that no person would live to point the finger at you afterwards.

                This is a good time to recall that numerous Jews are atheists. Granted, many of these atheists are fascistic (not a synonym for rightwing) or far to the left. Yet could it be that the enmity of so many Muslims towards Jewish Israelis has less to do with the behavior of the IDF and its civilian counterparts and more to do with the suspicion among Muslims that numerous Israelites are unapologetic atheists who want all Muslims to become atheists?

                Let’s discuss Mohammed now. Why wasn’t Halabi, as Guillaume claimed in “Islam” that Mohammed was named, cited as the best examplar of a nonagression principle and the ideal of voluntary association? Would Mohammed have been unfamiliar “to most people” at an event sponsored by Muslims? Why didn’t you think that Mohammed was the right choice?

                Could it be that you simply lied about not citing Muhammad first?

                You know, it would be interesting to learn that a wily, old, conservative cleric happened to overhear your sales and marketing pitch. Maybe there was such a person at your wife’s event, and he smiled pityingly at your earnest promotion. If so, I’d have to pay him grudging respect for being smart enough to know the score about Islam. You see, your sales and marketing pitch seems awfully difficult to reconcile with Koran 9:29. And what about the torrents of malice with which your holy book is saturated? What about Al-Anfal? That must be a chapter which discusses the spoils of legitimate self defense. I’ll assume that you can find a Koran and figure out on your own that Al-Anfal is number ٨.

                Go read ٨ again. As you do think about why so many Muslims have a fetish for a powerful, theocratic government. Powerful theocratic governments are always nasty. Maybe the wily conservative clerics of Islam misunderstand Islamic politics as taught by the words and example of Mohammad. Good thing for them you’re working so hard to knock the statism out of Muslims.

                This is my last reply to your article. Reaching you is beyond difficult, as is always true of a person lazy enough to accept thesim. Your sympathizers, too, resist seeing you as yet another Islamic b.s. artist. So here’s a shahada personalized for you: There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God and God’s favorite marketing expert for Voluntaryism. Teach your shahada to all the Islamic clerics of the ummah. No exceptions. Every cleric in. No cleric left unturned. All sects. Don’t rest until they affirm the one true shahada publicly.

                You have your mision. Go. Let’s discuss about a year from now how much progress you’ve made toward accomplishing it.

                • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

                  He didn’t say “do you hate Israel” he said “Do you hate Israelis.” Places don’t cry out for things. People cry out for things. I kinda sorta didn’t say anything about my affection for specific Jews because well… I kinda sorta didn’t bring up Jews. You did. But since you ask. My brother is Jewish and I hold him in the highest affection. Although, he’s not Israeli, because those are different things.

                  This is not am article about islam. The mentioning of the muslim civil rights group was as incidental to the anecdote as the number of pens. If you want a full treatise one where I think islam and voluntaryism fit together, google my name. I’ve written a dozen or so articles about it. Go comment there. I’m tired of repeating myself.

            • Dave ScoteseNo Gravatar says:

              Wow, Paul!

              It seems like you’re very angry.

              Is it because he wrote that he told someone “It’s an anarchist flag” and admitted that his statement probably misled the cashier?

              Or am I getting the wrong vibe from your post?

          • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

            The reason I asked you that question is because (1) you stated that you have no interest in Israel and (2) you are muslim. Many muslims have a hatred for Israelis. Thus my question was not silly or unreasonable. I favor clarity. I think clarity is important in a discussion to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding. Your quiry was silly. Why would you ask me if I hate Somoans? Cleary a non-sequitur.


            • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

              Since you’re both keen on identifying non-sequitors and you at least seem fond of clarity, I’ll explicate. Non-sequitor, or “doesn’t follow” or “out of sequence” means that the later thing doesn’t logically follow the previous thing. Obviously asking if you hate Somoans doesn’t follow. The point is, asking if I hate Israelis doesn’t follow, and I’ll tell you why. First, going from “no interest” to “hate” doesn’t follow. Second, going from “Muslim” to “Anti-Jew” doesn’t follow. And finally… and this is subtle… going from “Israel” to “Israelis” doesn’t follow.

              • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

                So it doesn’t follow for you. You could have simply answered, “no”. My question was a reasonable one. Why did you bother to state that you have no interest in Israel? You could hae simply answered, “no”. Why the no interst in Israel? Just curious. I am not intersted in traveling to the Middle East but if I were to go there I would probably prefer to be in Israel because it seems more like the Western world than other places in the region. Israel seems to have advanced faster than other places in the region have. Just an observation. Have a nice day.


                • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

                  With all respect. I did say “no.” If you believe that the correct course or action to a question that doesn’t seem to follow for you is simply “no” and nothing else, you could have simply answered “no” to my question about Samoans.

  5. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    I’m not even sure what the hell is going on here. It seems like Paul is beating around a flaming bush (points for Moses reference?:}) over something that he thinks that Davi said… And instead of accusing himself is accusing by proxy over an imagined slight…

    Seriously let’s be adults here people and say what you got to say or if you’re to “scared” to out right say it keep your mouth shut. Because frankly Paul T you’re only succeeding in making yourself look like an ass hole. Which I will assume is not your intention.

    Shit it seems to me that Paul is in his own world here. Are you trying to say that religion is bullshit and because Davi is a Muslim he has no credibility??? I’ll agree that religion is bullshit, but I’m not going to say that Davi has no credibility because as far as I can tell based on his articles and his responses he seems fairly reasonable.

    • Paul TNo Gravatar says:

      “I’ll agree that religion is bullshit”


      “as far as I can tell based on his articles and his responses he [Davi] seems fairly reasonable”

      Well, maybe you should consider converting to Davi’s variant of Islam. It seems to fit your requirements (1) that you have no religion and (2) of being something that a “fairly reasonable” person would affirm. Still, it remains true that Islam “is bullshit”, so anyone who would affirm it must be a knave or a dupe. (I’m suggesting that he could be both.)

      Pls go back and read again what I wrote. Dont’ get so emotional (???) before you think carefully about it. And don’t call the wrong person an asshole. If there’s one here, it’s the disingenuous Muslim who seems not too interested in explaining why Mohammed, a hero of Islam, wasn’t cited as THE leading exemplar of the nonagression principle…at a large event organized and sponsored by a group of Muslims where an alert person would expect to find many people sympathetic to Davi’s argument–still not fully formed–that Mohammed’s politics were consistent with a nonagression principle and the ideal of voluntary association. Well, maybe Davi did claim that Mohammed was the best example. But if so, why did he write “straight to Murray Rothbard”? Was it because most of the people there would not know who Muhammad was?

      There’s something rotten in Denmark, no?

      I hasten to add that Davi should do his homework before he cites Ghandi as as A leading example of the nonagression principle, for it’s possible both to advocate it and to speak against it from the other side of your mouth, too. See “The Penguin Ghandhi Reader”, edited by R. Mukherjee, for the dirt about a confused barrister.

      • Dave ScoteseNo Gravatar says:

        He didn’t actually call you an ass hole. He said you’re making yourself look like one. I suppose it’s the same vibe I got that made me think you’re angry.

        I think your input would be worth more if you figured out why both MAM and I got that from you and toned it down a bit, whatever it is.

        Anyway, thanks for the reference to the book on Gandhi. While he is famous for using non-violence against Great Britain, he makes a decent reference. The “homework” of which you speak only means the references to him should be qualified: “For a familiar personality I went to Mahatma Gandhi with the [remove ‘sole’] caveat [and ‘being’] that he rejected self-defense.”

        In fact I would recommend that change anyway because the original makes Davi sound like he’s an expert on Gandhi, which he apparently isn’t.

        There are many voluntaryists who are religious. If they don’t advocate the parts of their religions that support aggression, then they’re fine by me. I think you seek purity, which is great, but you could be much nicer about it, which I’m guessing would be more effective. I could be wrong. I’m kind of a softy myself :-).

  6. nickNo Gravatar says:

    great article and even if we disagree on some things, the important part is getting people interested. we just need to encourage people to enter the rabbit hole, they’ll do the rest of the digging themselves.

  7. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    My conclusion based on what I’ve read tells me that Paul T is a troll. No more feeding the troll.

    • iamNo Gravatar says:

      🙂 ….quite. I was reading in the beginning, but tuned out somewhere near the ….umm,,, beginning, this has all the promise of an flame war, never ending, p.c and very minutely agenda specific.

      2 cents about the article: Generally well thought out (the lapel pins look very smart), however I’m not sure how kosher i am with Gandhi’s and Davi’s no self defense ideals. Having been physically attacked several times in my life, i dare say self defense is pretty damn important. The same principle can be applied to a wider society …. you’ve got to have some backbone, non aggression every time is just not going to do it. Your going to get beat for your money or your life or the life of someone you love. Generally i favour the principle of everything in its right time and place. With a general evolution towards peace.

      This day and age (for me) is no time to practice ‘no self defense’.

      • AndrewNo Gravatar says:

        Did we read the same article? Davi says in the article that he disagrees with Ghandi on violence in self-defense. Therefore Davi does believe violence is acceptable in self-defense. What is the point of your post iam?

        • iamNo Gravatar says:

          Davi writes “Second, a number of people asked about prominent personalities who espoused the philosophy. I went straight to Murray Rothbard, who was unfamiliar to most people. For a familiar personality I went to Mahatma Gandhi with the sole caveat being that he rejected self-defense.” – The last line. I dont agree, thats all…. if you read more on Mahatma’s philosophy on self defense you get a better idea.

          • r3VOLutionRefugeeNo Gravatar says:

            Caveat means an exception. Davi made it clear that he is pro-self defense.

            • Dave ScoteseNo Gravatar says:

              y’know I was also thinking that maybe iam didn’t realize what caveat means, but then I thought maybe iam knows more about Gandhi’s position on self-defense than Davi. I am curious which it is. The book referred to us by that guy who kind of seemed like a troll apparently has some info on Gandhi that shows he was a real human being with real flaws, rather than the perfect voluntaryist to which we all aspire, and I’m wondering if there is a subtlety in the violence-in-self-defense position that iam sees and the rest of us miss.

              As a softy, I don’t like to assume that people are at all lacking, so I leave it to iam to explain if s/he wishes. But yeah, caveat comes from a latin verb meaning to be wary or cautious, as in “caveat emptor” = “buyer beware” (not all sellers are honest!)

            • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

              That’s exactly right. I could very well be mistaken about Gandhi’s position, but that’s my understanding based on a reading of his biography, not his own writing. But yeah, I’m totally pro self defense. But I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong about Gandhi.

  8. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    “The coward will not fight. The fool refuses to see necessity.”

    Xavier Harkonnen

  9. KenNo Gravatar says:

    I’d buy some of these in cufflinks/tie pin.

  10. ShepardNo Gravatar says:

    Thanks for all you do!

  11. AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

    Very nice read. I’m not an anarchist, rather a minarchist. But i hate the fact that so many Muslims are Democrat, when its totally against their interest and that of anyone who wants the US regime to disengage from global wars and imperial foreign-policy that only favors corporations, military-industrial complex, and zionism.

    • Dave ScoteseNo Gravatar says:

      Hi Anon, I’m curious what distinction you draw between anarchism and minarchism and why you choose the latter. For me, it comes down to whether or not YOUR security provider – whoever you employ (including yourself) to defend you in case of attack – is willing to go bankrupt or cease operating when the income from *willing* customers doesn’t provide enough revenue to cover the costs. Minarchism says they don’t go bankrupt, but rather force their would-be customers to pay them. But that distinction makes it obvious that a voluntaryist would reject minarchism, so I’m guessing the distinction you see if a bit different and I’m curious.


  12. CitizenPeteNo Gravatar says:

    Ordered 2 sets. One set for gifts and the other set to wear loud and proud. Consider the Black/Yello flag with the Liberty Cuniform (Amagi Symbol from the Liberty Fund’s Logo) in negative (black on yellow, yellow on black)

  13. JA PEENo Gravatar says:


  14. ElijahNo Gravatar says:

    Just to clarify one thing. Gandhi advocated Ahimsa which is more or less the Indian equivalent of the Zero Aggression Principle since it recognizes self defense as justified when necessary. While Gandhi himself was a strict pacifist it was a personal choice he made. Gandhi was also celibate. That doesn’t mean he advocated that everyone else give up sex because obviously the human race would go extinct.