Inflation

One of the biggest concerns that I have personally for the economy isn't really talked about in the media or newspapers. Most people, especially the politicians, are worried about jobs. More need to be pt back to work; if more people are working then their will be more tax revenue; if their is more tax revenue then we can spend more. A lot of people are worried about the debt and the consequences of that debt - most notably, how is it going to get repaid?My concern with the debt is something more close to home.

The fact that the state has ran up a debt, and will continue to run up a huge debt as long as politicians are in charge, is serious because of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve's answer to everything is to manipulate the market mostly by increasing the money supply, decrease it's borrowing rates, or, now, by directly injecting money into a certain sector of the economy through QE3 (mortgage backed securities/mortgage sector) for an indefinite amount of time. Because of these actions, we the individuals that happen to be forced to use this phony money by force, are subject to the great consequences that come with the imminent inflation due to intervention by the state apparatuses into the economy. I have noticed, personally, that cola is sold in smaller containers for the same price. Toilet paper on the roll is thinner and there is less of it on a roll. When I do splurge to get the name brand food item in the same old container, it is somehow more expensive.

These are not figments of our imagination. Inflation is a very real threat to all of our Liberty. Inflation has the biggest effect on the most responsible of individuals in society - the savers. The savers had a plan to be self-sufficient based on models that could illustrate or predict an average rate of return of a modest 5%. Nowhere will you find a return of 5% without a substantial risk associated with that investment. Working in insurance, inflation is very evident by policies that parents purchased on their children decades ago. The amounts of coverage on these policies were enough to cover final expenses at the time the policy was purchased (and priced for that matter). Even now and more recently, people purchased policies that would allow their loved ones to live comfortably in the event that they suffered a financial loss in the 80s and 90s that would barely cover many people's expenses and debts that the products were designed and intended to cover.

Inflation a state sponsored attack on all of us. The state and the Federal Reserve will only continue to maintain policies that destroy our savings, livelihoods, and legacies until the masses decide that trusting the government to take care of you is less rewarding than doing it yourself.

Positive Obligations

One of the bigger concerns most have expressed to me about a voluntaryist society has to deal with positive obligations. Ultimately the whole issue boils down to there would be no positive obligations without cause in a voluntaryist society.

If you we're walking down the street and got mugged (not unlike living in the statist police state of today), there is no requirement for anyone to intervene on your behalf - not even for employees of protective service organizations. There is certainly an incentive to the protective service to intervene - even if pro bono - to build a relationship for future service.

Only some occasions prevent you from exercising your property rights absolutely (a positive obligation to respect their rights). For example, no one could invite someone up on a private plane take them to 10,000 ft and ten say their guest is not welcome. Pushing someone out of a plane - regardless of if your property rights - is a violation of someone's personal property rights. Furthermore, because of these positive obligations' nonexistence does not preclude someone acting voluntary to stop the mugger. Just like you would do now in a situation where you saw someone being aggressed upon, you have the choice to intervene or not.
The difference would be, in a voluntaryist society... Everyone's packing heat and muggings would be few and far between because of it.

anarcho-capitalism

One of the main rebuttals that I hear from individuals about an "anarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist" society is that eventually there will either be mob-rule or that the market will become a government to itself. My initial response is: "Anything is better than what we have now..."

In all reality, the market does allow for voluntary exchange in everything - including ideas. For example, if a community/subdivision/city block decides that they are all going to help each other out in a way that some would consider mutualist or socialist this is fine. The difference between this "socialism" and the socialism of today's existence is that there is no coercive state that says you have to be a socialist or, at least, if you're not a socialist then your going to jail. This "voluntaryism" allows for individual communites to come up with and put in place their own guidelines to how people can contribute... but they dont have to. Not every subdivision is going to have a codified set of customs/traditions/rules/"laws" that everyone has to abide by.

Also, the market will pick out what the accepting norms are as far as interpersonal exchanges are concerned. Some may consider a type of rule by the mob to be better than what we currently have because of the market theme behind it. When the market is behind a system of governance, there is an option for real change. Competition is key. Under the state, the key difference is there is a monopoly on force.

So, in a sense, there is no opposition to government as long as government is voluntary and there is no force coercing you to follow discriminatory laws both economically and socially.