Voluntaryism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism, State vs. Government

_
When perusing the internet one quickly finds a lot of labels and definition of terms in the realm of the subjects we discuss here.  Some are insistent on precise definitions, almost to a fault, and seem to take semantic discussions to an "us vs. them" level. 

One of these semantic controversies exists in and around the terms related to anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler"). There appear to be many flavors of anarchists, including social anarchists, who do not believe in private property.  It is this group that most people think about when they hear the word anarchy, along with visions of masked rioters breaking shop windows and lighting fires.

Many social anarchists believe the term anarcho-capitalism borders on blasphemy, and insist that ancaps aren't anarchists at all.  One finds many types of anarchists in cyberspace, but I would like to focus on just a few here.  Since the orginal Greek word simply means "without ruler," I take the position that social anarchists can't have the word to themselves, and must share it with some of us more "open-minded" folk.

I accept the label "Anarcho-capitalist" because of Murray Rothbard and his contemporary followers.  But most people don't fit neatly into categories, and that goes for me as well. There are a couple of other very close terms to which I identify as well.  Therefore I'd like to take a moment to define a them here.  I am reasonably happy being called any and all of them.  Since I don't know of any definitive documents on the subject, my selective definitions provided herein are from Wikipedia:


Voluntaryism: a philosophy that opposes anything that it sees as unjustifiably invasive and coercive. Voluntaryism regards government as coercive, and calls for its abolishment, but, unlike a number of other anarchist philosophies, it supports strong property rights which it regards as a natural law that is compatible with non-coercion. The goal of voluntaryism is the supplantation of the state by a voluntary order, in which political authority is reverted to the individual, and association among people occurs only by mutual consent.


Anarcho-capitalism:  an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market... Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.

Minarchism:  In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.  Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil, but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual. 


Of these, voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism appear to be nearly synonomous.  One argument for the preferred use of the term voluntaryism is that it carries with it entirely positive connotations, while the term anarcho-capitalist contains the base word anarchy, and therefore carries with it both positive and negative connotations.  This is a valid if not earth-shaking argument, and I'd be happy to be called either.

Minarchism is a little different, as it acknowledges the state as a necessary evil, vs. an unnecessary evil to ancaps and voluntaryists.  However, if we could have a true minarchist state, whose ONLY duty was protecting life, liberty and property, I could probably live with it.  (As I stated in an earlier entry, compared to today, I would even welcome true constitutionalism and an intermediate step.) 

Another semantic argument I have stumbled across is one that says that "state" and "government" are not the same thing.  They maintain that the state is nothing more than institutionalized coercion, theft, and force.  Surely I agree with this.  However, they also claim that government does not have to be coercive, and that an association of people can create a government that truly serves the needs of its citizens.  Here I'm not so sure--government implies being governed, and I believe government always tends over time to grow and become coercive, but I am willing to allow the word government to be used on the local level -- at the level of community where essentially everyone knows each other.  In larger arenas "confederacy" (an association of sovereign states or communities) is as far as I'm willing to go.

If you want to split hairs, I am a Christian Voluntaryist who advocates the abolition of the State.

What are you?