Thank you for the thoughtful reply. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Count me as a fan of the blog!

I wholly concur with Watner’s piece and the Voluntaryist philosophy. At this point in history it makes no sense to exercise our indubitable right to use violence in defending ourselves from criminals by consciously organizing with others to defend ourselves by violent means from criminals who act under color of law. The idea of the State is at present far too powerful. This is more a matter of prudence than morality, although prudence is in fact a cardinal virtue and therefore a moral matter.

On the other hand, if part of the voluntaryist program is to build the new society within the shell of the old, and if the organization of the right to self-defense will continue to be part of the new society and is something we should build now on voluntaryist principles, it’s entirely conceivable that at some point in the future the old shell will be sufficiently weakened and the new society sufficiently strong that it would be cowardly not to defend ourselves from the tottering remnants of the old (courage being one of the other cardinal virtues), although I share Watner’s hope for an entirely bloodless revolution.

The organization of the right to self-defense entails the risk that the organization will become corrupted in its purpose, so that it perpetrates rather than prevents crime. This risk can be mitigated by the permeation throughout society of voluntaryist principles and by an appreciation for the need for the decentralization, distribution and balancing of power throughout society.

I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the voluntaryist contention (which I share) that nonviolent resistance is more consonant with anarchist ends than violent resistance. Check out this piece by Carl Watner:
http://voluntaryist.com/action/vol_resistance.html

Again, enjoying your site so far and hope to read more from you!
– Gene