How an Airborne Ranger Became a Voluntaryist

The Definition of Voluntaryism, and How I Align With It

According to, “If you believe – that the initiation of force is wrong; that the institution of government relies on initiatory violence against peaceful people; and that taxation is stealing – then you meet the basic definition of being a voluntaryist.” That’s me: I concur on all three points. It continues, “Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. ” That’s also me; specifically, I favor agorism. Then it reads, “We reject electoral politics, in theory, and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy.”  I understand this to mean, ‘don’t vote or support bills that promote freedom.’ Here I diverge somewhat. Does it legitimize the criminal gang in my neighborhood to discourage its leaders from engaging in criminal activity, or if there are rival gangs to encourage one of them to make things difficult for the other? No. I will support any proposition that results in a net gain of freedom. I don’t believe it’s an all or nothing proposition. The definition continues, “Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education.” I’m all for that as well. Many people assume that the State is necessary for the provision of services that could be provided better, more cheaply, and more efficiently by the voluntary actions of the free market: education is the natural remedy for this ignorance. In conclusion, I generally identify with the definition of a voluntaryist, except that I stop short of total abstention, believing that as long as the state exists it’s better to make it smaller and make freedom bigger, than to pretend and wish it didn’t exist at all.

How does Voluntaryism differ from run-of-the-mill libertarianism? In brief, a voluntaryist is more ideologically consistent, taking the principles of libertarianism further than most libertarians do. Libertarians often aren’t even minarchists. Some advocate a universal basic income, just because it would make for a simpler bureaucracy, even though it would certainly expand the role of government in the lives of many people. I believe we shouldn’t have government at all. However, since it exists, I believe there are responsible actions to be taken in regards to government, beyond non-participation in electoral politics.

Family Background, and Their Opinion On My Views

My earliest exposure to libertarian thought was the op-eds in the Backwoods Home Magazine anthologies gracing our bookshelves. I don’t think my parents read those much, but I believe they shaped my views for years to come. Even though I was seven years old at the time, I knew common sense when I saw it.

I grew up in a conservative Christian household, with parents voting Republican, Dad serving in the Army for a few years, kids bouncing back and forth between home school, public school, and a local Christian academy. We held a firm belief that government was handed down by God, that it was an institution to be obeyed as from God except in those matters that clearly contradicted Scriptural duties. My parents taught us the Bible, first and foremost, as well as how to think and apply logical conclusions to our lives. Having learned how to think, our logical conclusions sometimes outpaced their comfort levels. For example, I concluded as a teenager that if the American Revolution were a just response to the tyranny of King George and Parliament, then another armed revolution would likewise be an appropriate response to the tyranny found in the modern United States. As you can imagine, this alarmed my parents greatly.

To me, the difference between agorism and voluntaryism is voluntaryism focuses on non-participation in government, while agorism focuses on free market replacement of government. As my political views have evolved toward agorism and voluntaryism, I haven’t always discussed the evolving nuances of my belief system with my family. I’m not sure what they think about it. They live 500 miles away, and we all have busy lives and other things to talk about when we talk. Generally, the important thing to my parents is that my belief be based on the Bible, and of course not be heresy (contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture). One of my brothers thinks an independent arbitration system with a separate militia system (one arrangement I favor in place of the state) would constitute a government, so his difference of opinion seems to be mainly semantic.

Educational and Vocational History

I took a class in American Government at Carroll County Christian Academy, learning enough about our civic institutions that in a similar class a few years later in college, I felt I could have taught the class as well as the professor. Having learned a normative version of the political spectrum when I read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy in elementary school, I remember declaring in my high school Am Gov class that I was so far to the right of the political spectrum I was practically an anarchist. I wasn’t. I was still a minarchist at best, and not a very educated one, either, believing government should provide roads, currency, and maybe even postal service, etc. College expanded my access to classics of libertarian thought, Austrian economics, and current work on libertarian principles. I still believed that our Constitutional Republic was the best form of human government ever devised. I still believe that, although my perspective on the belief has changed dramatically.

In both high school and college, I learned David Barton’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Constitution as a document clearly embodying the principles of Scripture. In college, I also encountered Ted R. Weiland’s eloquent rebuttal of the Constitution as a document departing in almost every important way from the guidance of the Bible. At the time, I found Barton’s arguments convincing. Much later, I realized the United States government is an excellent example of how even in the best possible circumstances – intelligent, educated, and experienced men with a respect for God and His Word, if not a personal relationship with Him, sitting down and rationally and peacefully creating a government from scratch, on a landmass possessing natural defenses from outside interference, abundant natural resources, and room to expand – human efforts at creating governments are bound to result in massive deprivations of liberty, in a fairly short period of time.

After graduating Cum Laude (B.A. in Political Science, Pensacola Christian College) in 2013, I enlisted in the United States Army, with aspirations of a career in Special Forces. I hoped to support the revitalization of the Constitutional Militia, as outlined by Dr. Edwin Vieira. The Special Forces career path failed to pan out due to medical reasons, although I did serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment for a time. I continued reading libertarian works and interacting with the libertarian community online. I started a Facebook page, which I had to take down for a while as my chain of command informed me it was not acceptable for a service member to label the Commander in Chief a “tyrant,” even through an anonymous internet soapbox.

About that time, I read Alongside Night by J. Neil Schulman, finding it interesting and enjoyable, but failing at first to internalize the concept of agorism. I eventually began to realize that government fails at almost everything it does, although I continued to believe that we needed a government to provide many basic services.

The Turning Point

Still relying on Scripture as the foundation for my belief system, even while my understanding of God’s Word and the ways it applies to the world continues to evolve, I eventually arrived at a pivotal question: “Where in the Bible does God instruct man to create a government?” My college Poli Sci classes had posited that civil government was first instituted when God ordained capital punishment in Genesis 9. I had always hesitated to endorse that view, as I could see no mention of civil government in the text. The position assumes without textual foundation that capital punishment is the exclusive province of civil government. As I presented my pivotal query to my educated Christian friends, some pointed me to Romans 13 (the classic text for Christians who believe government must be obeyed in all things). However, I noted that divine guidance on the proper relationship with government is far from an endorsement of the institution. Consider Mosaic divorce law: divorce was clearly outside of God’s perfect will, but He nonetheless allowed for it in His Law, and gave guidance on the proper way to handle it. I noted also the guidance of Deuteronomy 17 regarding the selection of a King, which was certainly against God’s perfect will.

Ultimately, I have been unable to find anything in the Bible instructing us to create a government, other than the Deuteronomy 16 directive to choose judges and (militia) officers. Arbitration does not require a government now, any more than it did then. Nor does collective organized defense with a chain of command constitute a government. Having failed to find a divine command to create a government, and being unable to conclude that such a major aspect of human experience would be omitted by neglect rather than by intent, I am forced to conclude that human civil government is outside of the perfect will of God. I further conclude that the best form of governance (not government) is that prescribed by God Himself in the Mosaic Law, and practiced by ancient Israel during the time of the Judges, generally speaking. This would be a form of anarchy – “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” – with no coercive government taxation, conscription, eminent domain, etc. There would be individual responsibility to abide by God’s Law (as there is now, recognized or not) and communal responsibility to enforce His Law, e.g. execute murderers. Which parts of the Mosaic Law ought to be enforced under God’s current relationship with mankind is open for discussion among responsible adults. If such an anarchistic community declines to enforce some important aspects of the Law, they can hardly do worse than every government in the history of the world.

But I digress from the account of my transition to voluntaryism, into an explanation of my understanding of it, and an ideal application of it. The fact remains that I have concluded it would be better if governments did not exist, leaving men to interact voluntarily with each other. Furthermore, I believe much of God’s Law can be summed up in the zero aggression principle (initiation of force is morally wrong), furthermore government institutions inevitably rely on violations of that principle and thus of God’s Law, and – although we are instructed to pay taxes when doing otherwise would cause too much trouble – taxation constitutes theft, taking property without consent. Government directives to do evil (whether by commission or omission) do not override our conscience and our understanding of right and wrong. I favor agoristic obviation of government institutions. I support voluntary alternatives to government services as much as I can and continue to encourage government institutions to reduce and eliminate their restrictions on our freedoms.

Open This Content

Who Will Build The Roads? Anarchists.

“Who will build the roads?” is a question government advocates ask in discussions with voluntaryists.

The economic answer is quite simple: customers will pay for roads themselves or pay for construction workers do it in lieu of having their money stolen to have it done.

Or they will build and repair the roads themselves. Like the anarchists in the bridge city of Portland, Oregon did in February and March 2017.

OregonLive reports “Pitting the city’s two mottos — the unofficial ‘Keep Portland Weird’ and the municipal ‘The City That Works’ — against one another, a group calling itself Portland Anarchist Road Care [a.k.a. PARC] says state neglect is to blame for the condition of the streets.”

“As anarchists, we seek to bring about a society in which coercive hierarchies, such as government and [state] capitalism … no longer exist,” one of the anarchists told OregonLive. “To be exceptionally clear, anarchists do not desire chaos, we desire freedom and equality.”

The group declares the government ignores the complaints from law-abiding locals about the broken-down roads. Their Facebook page claims these anarchists “will fix the streets.”

Up until PARC started being the government’s more successful shadow with the roads, fed-up locals (and in many other areas across the United States) have been planting flowers in potholes or chalking circles around them. The government ignores them.

PARC activists took action, by self-teaching themselves how to repair roads, pooled resources together to buy the raw materials, and utilized free-market economics to get the job done.

“If it’s a city maintained street, then folks should call us and have the professionals do it,” stated Dylan Rivera, a spokesman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation. “It’s generally not safe for folks to be out in the street doing an unauthorized repair like this.”

Rivera was unable to point to any city ordinance or state law that prohibited private-sector road repair. All the while, ignoring the fact locals have been trying to go through proper channels for a long time.

His excuse was “Mother Nature,” citing rain kept public-sector-contracted construction workers from being out on the roads. But anarchists were able to do it.

It should be noted Rivera suggested the anarchists help home-owners with gravel roads, as that is not the city’s job. Ironically, he said only with the consent of those people – all the while ignoring the consent of many by stealing or extorting money from people, via taxation.

While the city has gone on a road-repairing spree after the public-relations blunder, it speaks volumes anarchists did a service to no cost to the community on their own wits. Unlike the government that requires the initiation of force and awful customer service to function in society.

Eighteenth-century abolitionist, anarchist, and entrepreneur Lysander Spooner who wrote No Treason:the Constitution of No Authority, did something similar. He started his own mail-delivery service during a time the government held an unconstitutional monopoly over the service

His American Letter Mail Company quickly became more successful, more profitable, and more popular than the U.S. Postal Service; and to lower cost to customers. When government officials felt the revenue loss, they forcefully shut his company down.

A few decades later, the U.S. government passed partial privatization, which for a long time the market had better services. Today the USPS offers better customer service than before – and definitely better than other artificial monopolies of the government, such as the DMV.

Spooner’s example inspires many anarchists, especially since the 1960s (see: agorism).

According to Reason’s Hit & Run blog, “A 2016 report by TRIP, a national transportation research group, found that 20 percent of major roads in the United States are in poor condition, costing around $523 per motorist (or around $112 billion total) per year in vehicle wear and tear. The report also claims that investment in roads and bridges nationwide would need to increase from $88 billion to $120 billion a year to adequately cover operation and maintenance costs.” Commercial cleaning Hanover PA form professionals is what you need to keep your working environment clean.

The Portland anarchists at PARC are out to fix more roads and serve their community, by voluntary action. Without government permission and at government dismay. Only few anarchists are bandana-wearing, Molotov cocktail-wielding protestors, while many are peaceful, liberty-loving people who want to help their community via voluntary association.

Who will build the roads in the absence of the government? Anarchists.

Open This Content

Peaceful Anarchism 006 – Danilo Interviews Shane Buell of Pull Out Method (52m)

Peaceful Anarchism 006 is an interview of Shane Buell by Danilo Cuellar. The conversation covers all bases, from Shane’s journey to voluntaryism to agorism to psychology and spirituality. About the Pull Out Method: “Instead of smashing the state or changing it from the inside, we can just ‘pull out’ by removing our support for government and using the free market to go around it instead of through it.”

Listen to Peaceful Anarchism 006 (52m, mp3, 96kbps)


via YouTube here.
via RSS here.
via iTunes here.
via Stitcher here.
via blubrry here.
via Player.FM here.

Open This Content

Embody Peaceful Anarchism

“I am trying to figure out what Peaceful Anarchism would LOOK like here in the usa…. We have had a business since 1976…. But if we were young again… how would a family DO That?… Perhaps.. live off grid? Homebirth so no record of birth certificate?… if they get a birth certificate in a hospital birth … it would be hard to NOT get an S.S.# I would have to be an UNassisted homebirth because credentialed midwives report the birth. If you can avoid S.S.# barter and trade skills with others living off grid & under the radar? You would have to make money or bitcoin under the radar, right? So no taxable income? But what does Peaceful anarchy LIVING look like IN REAL LIFE? Maybe we can do it when my husband retires? Withdraw all savings, cash in all annuities take all retirement funds and just put that all under a mattress?”

I do not think it is necessary to live off grid and be entirely self-sufficient. Complete self-sufficiency, although it may be a worthy goal, is not entirely realistic. We all depend on each other for many things we cannot produce. That is not a bad thing. It just means that as civilization grows and becomes wealthier, more people can specialize and make money in their specialty. When that happens everyone benefits.

Agorism or counter economics is a worthy path as well. Raise your kids outside of the State. Conduct your business outside of the State. Transact outside of the State. Live your life outside of the State. Get your wealth out of fiat currency to the best of your ability. Invest in precious metals, such as physical gold and silver. Invest in crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin. Get to know and befriend your local farmers and small businesses. In this way we can starve the beast of our currency, attention, and participation. This is a thoroughly effective non-violent strategy to cripple and render impotent the power of the State. The stronger we can build and maintain community bonds, the weaker and more obsolete the State becomes. It only grows in size and power when there is division, infighting, bickering, and malcontent. In loving our neighbor to the fullest we can build a future based on purely voluntary interaction and respect for property.

It is never too late to attempt to live as an Anarchist or Voluntaryist. One need not wait until a truly voluntary society is realized. One can embody Peaceful Anarchism right now. Do not acknowledge the State, to the best of your ability. Live your life with gentleness, kindness, compassion, and love. Live your life according to your principles. Treat others with respect regardless of race, gender, creed, religious belief, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background. Perform random acts of kindness wherever you can, whenever you can. Be generous with loving and appreciative words. Do not self-censor or hesitate in expressing your compassion. The future is not guaranteed or secured to anyone. The present is a gift. Appreciate life while you have it. It is a privilege afforded to few.

Being a Voluntaryist is not about exiting society or withdrawing from friends and family. It is about being very much a part of it. One of the greatest non sequitur fallacies is that society or civilization will collapse if not for the omniscience of the State. A proper perspective must be cultivated between the parasitic class and the industrious. It is the parasites that fundamentally depend on the industrious for their very existence. Through siphoning off small portions of the productivity of the industrious, the parasites grow fat and decadent. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.

“You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Open This Content

Why Anarchy?

In part 1 of this series, exploring the question “Why…?” I will be explaining my own personal reason for the question “Why Anarchy?” The series is intended to illustrate my own personal and individual reasons why I subscribe to the various philosophical schools of thought regarding a particular belief, or position I hold. Later “Why…?” segments will look at Capitalism, Voluntarism, Agorism, Trans-Humanism, and other philosophies. As a mortal human being, I reserve the right to change my mind regarding various beliefs and philosophies, especially as I receive new insights, or become privy to new facts. The only principles I am ultimately wedded to are Truth and Liberty. Anything else is welcome to change. That said, these essays, as much for myself as for anybody else, are really just an exercise in determining my own philosophical underpinnings and foundations for my own beliefs. Think of it as my own version of Descartes’ famous epistemological reductionism where he coined the famous conclusion “ergo cogito sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” In a previous essay, I added one line to it, which was “I am, therefore I am free.” It is from this point that I begin this exploration. If you enjoy this, please leave a comment below. Also, please consider doing a similar exercise for yourself, if you haven’t done so already. I think it’s of the utmost importance that people who have subscribed to certain beliefs examine the philosophical foundations of those beliefs. As Socrates himself once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

So let us live.

In the few years since deciding the label “anarchist” most accurately represented my own political philosophy, I’ve learned of other, powerful, confirmatory and congruent philosophies as well, that have helped to grow my own anarchism further outside the political realm. In other words, I may have started as a political anarchist, but ultimately, my own brand of anarchy has stretched beyond solely politics. It has rooted itself into the very core of my being, and it has branched into other areas of my personal beliefs, such as religion and theology, metaphysics, and even science itself. And what I have found most profound is – and I freely admit this – while I was already an anarchist when I discovered these other things, I wasn’t trying to read anarchy into them. What I mean by that is, I am not working from a position of confirmation bias (at least not knowingly), but rather, I’m an anarchist, and I found some other things that sound awful anarchistic as well. And if they are more comparable, rather than contrasting, then I adopt those beliefs too. And in that fashion, I have built for myself a suitable and satisfying web of truths. I liken this journey to a spider’s web because a spider builds the web one strand at a time. That one strand is enough for the spider to traverse, but incapable of catching flies. It is only after more strands are added that the spider has a place to live, grow a spider family, and catch some dinner, too. When that one strand becomes a web, it can carry more weight, contain more flies or spiderlings. That web becomes a foundation with the strength to prosper.  This is how it was for me when I embraced anarchy. I realized that anarchy is that first string. And that with the addition of other strings, or philosophical schools of thought, I could create a web that could catch more truth and understanding, hold greater weight, and withstand greater winds of critique. I want to reiterate, this is how it has worked and continues to work for me. This may not be anyone else’s path, or method. Nor is my way the best or only way. It’s just simply my way.

Also, and for a better understanding, it’s not only that I adopted other beliefs that seemed to cohere with anarchy, but that I saw some of the very truths of anarchy itself being presented elsewhere too. Think of it as philosophical diffusionism, to borrow a term from Archaeology. And those other philosophies add strands to my web of truth, as well. And like a web, these strands flow in and out of another, connecting at various points to other strands. These connecting points represent some of the more interesting places that anarchy and these other philosophies intersect, complement one another, and give strength to the overall web. And I’ll explain what these other beliefs and philosophies are in other “Why…?” explorations.

So why anarchy?

The etymology of the word has changed over time, but I subscribe to the view of anarchy in its most basic, and original form. The word anarchy comes from the Greek word anarkhos, meaning “rulerless.” An, meaning “without,” and arkhos, meaning “leader.” So anarchy means “without a leader,” or “no ruler.” For me, the original and basic definition is critical. I am not born into this world with a leader, or ruler. There may be leaders or rulers. But they weren’t born leaders or born rulers. They were people who later became them, either through involuntary conquest, or voluntary support. But if there are no natural leaders, then it is our very nature, from the moment we take our first breath, to be leaderless. It is our state of nature, so to speak. So when I say I am an anarchist, one way I mean that is in a very naturalistic, and metaphysical kind of way. It is our state of nature. It is the nature of reality, for me. And I believe this to be so for others, but I’m not going to argue on behalf of anybody else.

Because of this, literally every form of governance (except one, which I’ll explain) we’ve seen in the history of mankind is the antithesis to this natural and metaphysical view that we get from anarchy. It doesn’t matter if it is monarchical rule with a king or queen, or democratic rule by “the people,” or communistic rule with a strong centralized government – these are, at the end of the day, rulers of me minus the natural right to be so. So as an anarchist, there is one – and only one – kind of rule that I accept – self-rule, or self-government. That is rule of me, by me, for me, and explicitly none else. Just as none are my natural ruler, so too am I no such thing for anybody else. So I can, in no uncertain terms, advocate for the rule for anybody else, be that through the involuntary conquest of violent communism, or the voluntary support of a constitutional republic. At the end of the day, no matter what political system or style of governance you are using, you are either being ruled, or acting as a ruler. This goes against our very nature, I believe. And against the nature of reality itself. To do this is to invite great unhappiness, suffering, and destruction. Granted, unhappiness and suffering are not reasons to be anarchists. It is simply the effect of going against this cosmic nature, and something to be aware of.

And I believe history to be on my side with this, too. Small government conservatives must concede that no government in the history of governments was ever small. Certainly, none have ever ended small. The nature of the leviathan is to grow, always, until its inevitable collapse. It doesn’t matter which empire you speak of, either. It has always happened. And it will always happen. Again, to go against nature is to invite destruction, unhappiness, and suffering. Sure, governments have paved the way for good things to come about – new technologies, medicines, scientific discoveries, etc…but that isn’t the nature of government. That is simply something it has allowed to happen because the discovery either fortified it, or helped it to grow. No, much like the terrible argument that says you can have a lot of regulation and still have functioning capitalism, like in many European countries, these discoveries didn’t necessarily happen because of government – but in spite of it. Remember, the function of government isn’t to reveal new truths, or discover, in and of itself. Only to grow itself, in power, size, and scope. So any good government may have done, or seems to have done, has occurred only as a means to an end. Which was not the discovery itself, but to create trust in government. Thus, allowing it to grow more.

The only true “small government” is self-government. And as Henry David Thorough so famously quoted, “the government which governs best, governs least.” And the least governing entity, that which is smallest, is the self, or the individual. We are our own “communist dictator,” “our own king or queen,” or “our own constitutional republic.” And none else. And we for none else. Our lack of justification doesn’t come from a lack of capabilities, or qualifications, or divine heritage. Our lack of justification is simply the result of nature. We are not born better or worse than anybody else. We are all the same in our rights. My anarchy is egalitarian in nature. And if none are better or worse, then none are fit to rule, or fit to be ruled. This is my anarchy. This is my answer to the question “why anarchy?” And it works for me. It is my path, my way…There is much more to this idea, but I think this will suffice for now.

What is your way? What does your Anarchy look like, and why? Please leave a comment down below, or on Twitter, and let’s discuss.

Open This Content

New Logo for EVC

The EVC – logo has been updated to reflect my growing desire to be more inclusive of all people who, while gathering under the umbrella of voluntaryism, bring with them ideologies outside of the classical liberal, austro-libertarian, and anarcho-capitalist traditions (the right). I am referring to ideologies such as historical anarchism, left or socialist anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-[you name it], mutualism, market anarchismet cetera (the left).

While I’ve done my share of criticizing of leftist ideology, and while that’s academic, how ideology is realized is very important to me. Voluntaryism may have historically come from the classical liberal, austro-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist tradition, which has as fundamental the absolute right to private property, it can be inclusive of any ideology that’s realized via the application of the voluntary principle, that all human relations should happen voluntarily, or not at all.

What does this mean? It means that when’s there’s a conflict over scarce resources, as scarcity is wont to create, peaceful negotiation and nonviolent resistance are the primary tools used in dispute resolution. For voluntaryists coming from the right, it means not shooting people on sight who are trespassing on your private property, or otherwise resorting to the deadliest forms of self-defense unless absolutely necessary for peaceful resolution. For voluntaryists coming from the left, it means not violently seizing what others consider their private property, eg. the “means of production” and what not.

Both sides have valid and invalid criticisms of the other on the academic level, but both can also agree to talk first, shoot later, as it were. I don’t really think it’d be much of an issue in a stateless society. As I wrote on the development of property norms under voluntaryism,

Because there is no state in a free society to enforce a particular theory of property over everyone, people who value peaceful coexistence will recognize the various property theories and over time the property norms that emerge will have been based on a mixture of that which is defended by force and that which is defended by reason. Gun ownership will be widespread and so people will think twice before simply taking what is already claimed by others, occupied or not. Instead, I expect that this show of force will lead most people to negotiate with one another on how the available resources should be allocated.

And concluded with,

I predict that in a free society most property will be that which is occupied and used by the owner, while only some will be that where the owner or owners are absent.

An adherence to the voluntary principle first and foremost, I believe, is the only way to a free society for all. Now let me explain the logo itself.

For five years now the logo incorporated the yellow/black “v for voluntary” insignia, first as the V in, and as of a couple of years ago, the V in EVC. That first logo can still be seen embedded in the first additions to the EVC in Color series. The yellow/black coloring comes from anarcho-capitalist symbology, the black representing anarchism or statelessness, and the yellow representing gold, or free market currency, or free market capitalism (as opposed to state capitalism or corporatism).

Within the new logo remains the shell of the “v for voluntary” insignia, the outer-V being all black in color, representing statelessness (anarchism). The inner-v is yellow on its right and red on its left (from the V’s perspective), representing the entire spectrum of anarchism, from left to right. Had the other anarchist ideology colors been added, the logo would have given off a strong “gay pride” feel, which is not the focus of EVC in particular. Between and above the yellow/red inner-v is a gray wedge, representing agorism.

Agorism “is a libertarian social philosophy that advocates creating a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics, thus engaging with aspects of peaceful revolution.” The reason for its inclusion and position is to serve as a reminder to all sides the primacy of the voluntary principle. If the prevailing property norms in a given stateless society are anarcho-capitalistic (private property), agorist-based agitation would take the form of building alternative institutions within the counter economy. And conversely, if the prevailing property norms in a given stateless society are anarcho-communistic or -socialistic (communal property), agorist-based agitation would likewise take the form of building alternative institutions within the counter economy. What should be obvious is the agorist adherence to the voluntary principle rather than on violent revolution.

And there it is, the background and explanation for the new EVC logo. I realize it will rub some people wrong, and hug others, but what forward-thinking, truly progressive movement didn’t?

Open This Content