I can't think of any serious voluntaryists who claim it's possible to escape the threat of violence. The idea is to be allowed to pick the way you deal with that. Either by yourself or by hiring out that service. It's not as if that's a service that isn't needed when you have a state. That is one of the services the state claims to provide.
This metaphor is going really far but sure. The bears don't need to allow me to pick anything. I'm going to pick. Either guns, or traps, or poison, or fortification, or cooperation with other people. It doesn't bother me if the bear doesn't like that. It bothers me if the state doesn't like that and says "no you have to use our services to deal with the bears or im going to use violence against you." The state is the bigger threat here.
The non aggression principle only applies to humans, it's ridiculous to think of it in terms of animals. Humans eat animals it's only fair to expect some of them would try to eat us back.
I think that’s a stretch of the NAP too, but some people will use the NAP to justify criminalizing abortion, so I could see someone going in another direction with it here. I don’t think either really fully apply, unless you’re going to start sliding into minarchism, but it would be valid to create a community within an ancap society where vegetarianism or pro lifers lived and shared that way of life. I’ve talked to a lot of ancaps on reddit about that, actually. It seems divided half and half, depending on if you are religious. And so far, no vegetarians on that sub.
I can't think of any serious voluntaryists who claim it's possible to escape the threat of violence. The idea is to be allowed to pick the way you deal with that. Either by yourself or by hiring out that service. It's not as if that's a service that isn't needed when you have a state. That is one of the services the state claims to provide.
This metaphor is going really far but sure. The bears don't need to allow me to pick anything. I'm going to pick. Either guns, or traps, or poison, or fortification, or cooperation with other people. It doesn't bother me if the bear doesn't like that. It bothers me if the state doesn't like that and says "no you have to use our services to deal with the bears or im going to use violence against you." The state is the bigger threat here.
The non aggression principle only applies to humans, it's ridiculous to think of it in terms of animals. Humans eat animals it's only fair to expect some of them would try to eat us back.
I think that’s a stretch of the NAP too, but some people will use the NAP to justify criminalizing abortion, so I could see someone going in another direction with it here. I don’t think either really fully apply, unless you’re going to start sliding into minarchism, but it would be valid to create a community within an ancap society where vegetarianism or pro lifers lived and shared that way of life. I’ve talked to a lot of ancaps on reddit about that, actually. It seems divided half and half, depending on if you are religious. And so far, no vegetarians on that sub.