People should have the right to live their lives as they wish and no one should be coerced by force into any kind of (social) contract. Still, I don’t identify as an anarchist, anarcho-capitalist or any variation thereof.
My problem is that most conceptions of society purposed by any of those, albeit interesting, are too radical and arguing about them always ends up in extremely hypothetical and unfruitful discussions. I think most people would agree with that, and if you want a society based on voluntary exchanges you should be concerned with how to make people agree with you. And what better way to make people agree with you than leading by example?
Thus I find myself liking the idea of something-like-voluntaryism more and more: Maybe we will always need the government for some things, or maybe we will periodically need it. In any case the government and legislative body should always make it possible for individuals to step up and provide any service through voluntary exchanges or charity, the government should then step back.
This approach also provides a gradual and easy to sell path to some libertarian utopia, just in case they were right all along.
I think it was Murray Rothbard who purposed the anarcho-capitalist test: If you could press a button and instantly extinguish the government, would you? I wouldn’t.
Maybe you think everything I said is bad and I’m dumb, in which case this post wasn’t written for you. Go on with your life and I will go on with mine. But if you did like the idea and has anything interesting to add please let me know.