I only ever started using the "voluntaryist" or "anarchist" label to describe myself when so many others started using it to describe me and it seemed a fitting short-cut I should stop correcting people about.
This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot. Many of us would be happy if both yourself and Kokesh would stop using it. It has a very well-defined meaning, and Nash Equilibriums on violence are not part of it, with all due respect.
I've had many people call me this, and you are the first to suggest the label doesn't apply. How does this work? How do we define consensus on the use of labels that you'd agree with? Is it even based on consensus, from your perspective? Are all the other people who consider me a voluntaryist misinformed? Is there some authority we need to ask? (that last one was a joke, not a passive aggressive attack). Can you give me more examples of "many of us" so I can extend this dialogue further to other voluntaryists to get more perspective? I'm not asking rhetorically. If people who know me and have observed my actions think I'm in violation of the NAP or some other core principle of voluntaryism that would invalidate that label, I really would like to learn from them.
IMO, a "voluntaryist" is someone who applies voluntaryists principles to reality to the best of their ability.
That's it. It's open to subjective interpretation even if the principles themselves are not. If someone applies the principles 80% and someone else applies them 50% (according to someone's subjective opinion and experience with them), we could say one is "more voluntaryist" than the other. This isn't complicated, but I feel like when I discuss things in this way you aren't open to that and respond with things like "Are you serious?" which, to me, is not very respectful.
I get how the single line in Adam's platform regarding national parks is not in alignment with pure voluntaryists principles because it doesn't go all the way to explicitly and immediately open them up for homesteading. At the same time, I don't agree it's a new violation of the NAP since it is already centrally owned and controlled so I see it as a step in the right direction which could be improved on in the future. As I said in a different comment, I also think we could potentially help by suggesting a better plan. Given everything else this plan does to increase voluntaryism in the world (from my perspective), I don't think that one line means the whole approach and those who support it should abandon the voluntaryist label which (again from my perspective) most clearly aligns with what they are trying to do to remove rulers from the world.
It works by defintions of terms. Just because I am the first person you have heard suggest it to you says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of my claim, in and of itself.
Supporters of plans that A. Require the acquisition of power via force-backed means (the statist electoral process)and B. require the further violation of individual self-ownership of other individuals (it doesn’t matter if it’s “already happening” in the same way that preexisting slavery wouldn’t justify a new, “nicer” movement with “just a little” slavery) even after said illegitimate “election,” are in contradiction of Voluntaryist principle insofar as said support extends.
Thus, someone claiming to support said violatory plans is, insofar as their support extends, not functioning in the capacity of a Voluntaryist.
Insofar as a biological male is a male, he cannot be said to be female. Insofar as an idea whose application depends on initiation of force is supported, the support cannot be said to be voluntaryist.