Voluntaryism can mean a libertarian idea that human relationships should be voluntary. I don't very much like the word voluntaryism because I think that it promises
too much: coercive measures are sometimes necessary for the
maintenance of human rights. So
far, there is crime, including organized crime, such as States,
against which coercive measures are necessary if we are to maintain
freedom.
Non-aggression principle is an important principle of voluntaryism. It has the same problem as voluntaryism, that aggression is virtually
impossible to always avoid if you want to maintain human rights. I mean I think that aggression is sometimes necessary to fight crime. So I am not an extreme pacifist.
I prefer the term anarcho-capitalism, which has been considered a synonym of voluntaryism. The term capitalism brings to most people's mind sometime coercive measures to maintain private property. So I am a Hobbesian in the sense that I believe that capitalism needs sovereigns and sometime coercive measures. The problem with "capitalism", however, is that it has traditionally been
connected to the state and the mixed economy, which is not
the private ownership I want.
Anarcho-capitalism
is, by name too, a branch of anarchism, and has anarchism also a lot
of problems in terms of communication. Anarchists
themselves can resist capitalism, so anarcho-capitalism
is a controversial term among anarcho-socialists, too. Anarchism is generally perceived a utopian ideology that advocates extreme pacifism and opposes an organized society. On
the other hand anarcho-socialists oppose anarcho-capitalism's
spontaneous order and that opposition is quite well known and
associated with the term anarchism.
The word voluntarism has still the problem that it may refer to politics of will and
in my understanding the Finnish language has done so. Extreme leftists have typically been voluntarists, which is a bad association in communication if you do not mean it.
