Clarifications: 1. The siege may be intentional in some communities and is simply inaction, not coercion. Roads to get to places are usually owned by local townships like the hypothetical Springfield. They would either stay on public property or become private once the covenant is formed, either way it is intentional to cut off the disagreers from society. It is their choice regardless of its implications, and they do not have a right to use the covenant’s protected properties. 2. Voluntaryism only goes far, and an exception of this is voluntary slavery which is the sole apparent exception. While it may seem logical to allow people to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery, they do not have a choice to voluntarily break the contract, which is contradictory. This makes future will inalienable, and a violation of one’s rights. 3. This ideology should probably not be tried on a national level, and probably would be complete chaos, it is local, created for a town or possibly even a city. There would be too many disputes at once, and also a threat of outside force or coercion. 4. While this ideology is heavily influenced by Hoppe, it does not agree with physical removal, and it is much more centered around the covenant, ultimately rejecting private defense or courts. If a person breaks the covenant’s laws, they will not be expelled from their private property within the covenant, as property rights apply even outside it, they should just be removed from access to any of the covenant’s property or public infrastructure. So in a way it is physical removal, just without force. 5. When individuals enter most covenants, it will be naturally a rule that those who actively are in opposition of it, would in most cases not be allowed to go on covenant territory. 6. Children when they turn to age eighteen (when they can consent), which is a generalized age limit set by the average development, will be asked to either join the covenant or be classified as a trespasser. This is of course assuming that this child holds the correct values or identity the covenant wants out of a member. If they reject, they will leave or be deported, and that is their decision whether they comply with the covenant’s rules they grew up in or not later in life. The deportation is not a forceful action, but a defensive one; if that new adult can reason and own property the rules of the covenant still apply to them regardless of heritage. This is of course saying that they will be treated like any other person who is in question. If they do not consent to the rules of the covenant, and their parents do, and one of their parents owns the property they live on, they are a trespasser. If a child or a person in general inherits a property, they will be faced with a similar dilemma. If the child is a minor they cannot own a home; their fate is up to the community (regency over property or overseen by the covenant depending on covenant consensus; a property under a regency cannot leave the covenant, as the child cannot yet consent. ), but if they are an adult they will be presented with the option of sticking with or leaving the covenant. If they leave, they will be denied covenant services, if they stay, they will keep them. Unequal outcomes are not the concern of legal morality, for that would mean the unequal application of the law, or the introduction of positive rights into libertarian thought. They are not forced to sign, so therefore in philosophical cooperation with the rest of covenant voluntaryist theory they are not being coerced. Liberty and freedom are defined by the absence of physical force i.e. non coercion, not what happens as a result of your voluntary decision, however unintelligent they may be.
7. Covenant property does not stay permanently within the covenant, it is based on whether the owner voluntarily wants it to be in the covenant or not. A covenant member can sell their property, that is within their property rights. The new owner will be presented with joining the covenant or not, if not they will be subject to the siege of inaction after they reject it (as they are most likely an enclave). 8. Theoretically an exclave could exist, as the covenant does not need to be contiguous, but it would make no practical sense and I discourage it. 9. Some readers might see a philosophical tension between the fact that voluntary slavery is not allowed as future rights are inalienable. It is not a contradiction with the covenant because covenant members can withdraw. 10. One of the most important parts of this pure libertarian or voluntaryist theory is that exclusion is never coercion. The dissidents clearly have the choice to join the society, and it offers them access to food, water, and public infrastructure, yet they reject it. That is not coercion ever, that is their fault for not taking the society and is why the siege of inaction exists. 11. The roads, as described in the Springfield example, go to the covenant, but it is entirely up to the covenant’s personal rules to give them to private covenant members, or make them public covenant member only property. I would suggest public ownership, because if an owner owns part of a road and sells it, if the road is not defined as covenant public property, the road will be disrupted by the new buyer. 12. Refusing to give access to a person is not taking away their right, as they had no right to use it in the first place if it was not their own. View on society: Most ideologies have something to take up with the status quo, which is not neoliberalism like many like to believe; it is actually interventionist, increasingly progressive and directly democratic. It seems that the status quo in my country, the United States, is shifting from Keynesianism to social democracy, and eventually will culminate in democratic socialism. If the United States ever were to become socialist, I would encourage communities to follow this ideology peacefully, similar to how our forefathers revolted against British extortion. This ideology is an American ideology, and is best fit for American culture and ideals, but it can also be tried in other places. The status quo is much too extortive for my liking, relying entirely on the statists forcing you to pay up to live, and if you do not agree, jailing you instead of removing you and your property from the nation. Photo: David Gauthier Music: The Cardigans Praxis is coming!
