Voluntaryism is 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 world-wide replacement of government with the voluntaryist system, where according to voluntaryists, peoples' actions, whether they affect themselves, others, or future generations, should be dictated purely by their own free will, and association among people should only be by mutual consent. Voluntaryists believe voluntaryism itself should be the means to achieve this goal, rather than forceful action.
The moral justification for voluntaryism is based both on consequentialism and a priori reasoning. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take, only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. Since voluntaryists hold that the means must be consistent with the end, the goal of a purely voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. Voluntaryists believe that people cannot be coerced into freedom. Voluntaryists advocate the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the state and their behavior toward it. Voluntaryists insist that since all tyranny and governments are grounded upon popular acceptance, wholly voluntary means are sufficient and, in fact, the only way to attain a voluntaryist society.
A typical argument for voluntaryism is grounded on two axioms. First, the self-ownership axiom holds that each person is and ought to be in control of his or her own mind, body, and soul. Second, the homesteading axiom holds that each person by the application of his or her own labor to un-owned resources thereby becomes its rightful and legitimate owner.
Voluntaryists begin with the assumption that human action represents behavior aiming at an improvement over the current state of affairs (from the individual actor's point of view). Therefore, voluntaryists reason, every market transaction is intended to be (and normally achieves) an improvement in satisfaction and benefits both parties to the exchange. Thus, both parties to a trade improve their state of affairs. Voluntaryists argue that on the free and unhampered market this occurs millions of times each day, the cumulative effect being the prosperity and high standard of living that people experience in a free market economy. From a voluntaryist perspective, government intervention and central planning (based on compulsion) can only force some people to do what they would otherwise not choose to do, and thereby lessens their satisfaction and impedes economic progress.
Voluntaryists also argue that although certain goods and services are necessary to human survival, it is not necessary that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the state because, in their view, it uses coercive means in the collection of revenues and in outlawing would-be service providers, and they deny that any form of coercion is compatible with voluntaryism. According to voluntaryists, the coercionist always proposes to compel people to do something they ordinarily wouldn't do, usually by passing laws or electing people to office. These laws and officials ultimately depend upon physical violence for enforcement. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow the government or use the electoral process to change it; it merely requires that they cease to support their government and obey its orders, whereupon voluntaryists expect that it will collapse by itself.
Libertarian theory, relying upon the self-ownership and homesteading axioms, condemns all invasive acts and rejects the initiation of violence. Anarchists, in particular, assert that the state acts aggressively when it engages in taxation and coercively monopolizes the provision of certain public services such as the roads, courts, police, and armed forces. It is this anarchist outlook that the state is inherently and necessarily an invasive institution - which distinguishes the anarchist from other libertarians.
By this definition, voluntaryists are peaceful anarchists. Many late 20th and early 21st Century voluntaryists based their thinking upon the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre, who rejected the concept of "limited" government. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation." "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property." 
What especially distinguishes voluntaryists from other free-market anarchists is their stance on strategy, especially their reliance on nonviolence and non-electoral means to achieve an anarchist society. Like many European and American anarchists during the 19th and 20th Centuries, voluntaryists shun involvement with electoral politics. Rejection of the political means is based on the premise that governments depend on the cooperation of those they rule. Etienne de la Boetie, a mid-16th Century Frenchman, who was the first to make this voluntaryist point, called for peaceful non-cooperation and non-violent resistance to the state. Despite the advocacy of violence by a number of anarchists throughout history, most anarchists have sought to persuade people, rather than coerce them. Le Boetie's call for peaceful resistance has been echoed by contemporary anarchists, as well as by a significant number of those who have been described as near-anarchist in their thinking, such as Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Gandhi.
Voluntaryism has a long and rich historical tradition in the English-speaking world. Its heritage can be traced at least as far back as the Leveller movement of mid-17th Century England. The Levellers can be best identified by their spokesmen John Lilburne (?1614-1657) and Richard Overton (?1600-?1660s) who "clashed with the Presbyterian puritans, who wanted to preserve a state-church with coercive powers and to deny liberty of worship to the puritan sects." 
The Levellers were nonconformist religious types who agitated for the separation of church and state. During the late 16th and 17th Centuries, the church covenant was a common means of organizing the radical religious sects. The church to their way of thinking was a voluntary association of equals. To both the Levellers and later thinkers this furnished a powerful theoretical and practical model for the civil state. If it was proper for their church congregations to be based on consent, then it was proper to apply the same principle of consent to its secular counterpart. For example, the Leveller 'large' Petition of 1647 contained a proposal "that tythes and all other inforced maintenances, may be for ever abolished, and nothing in place thereof imposed, but that all Ministers may be payd only by those who voluntarily choose them, and contract with them for their labours."  One only need substitute "taxes" for "tythes" and "government officials" for "Ministers" to see how close the Levellers were to the idea of a voluntary state.
The Levellers also held tenaciously to the idea of self-proprietorship. As Richard Overton wrote: "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."  They realized that it was impossible to assert one's private right of judgment in religious matters (what we would call today, liberty of conscience) without upholding the same right for everyone else, even the unregenerate. The existence of a State church in England has caused continuous friction since the time of the Levellers because there were always those conscientious objectors who either opposed its religious doctrine and/or their forced contributions towards its support.
Voluntaryists also became involved in another controversy in England, from about the mid-1840s to the mid-1860s. In 1843, Parliament considered legislation which would require part-time compulsory attendance at school of those children working in factories. The effective control over these schools was to be placed in the hands of the established Church of England, and the schools were to be supported largely from funds raised out of local taxation. Nonconformists, mostly Baptists and Congregationalists, became alarmed. They had been under the ban of the law for more than a century. At one time or another they could not be married in their own churches, were compelled to pay church rates against their will, and had to teach their children underground for fear of arrest. They became known as voluntaryists because they consistently rejected all state aid and interference in education, just as they rejected the state in the religious sphere of their lives. Three of the most notable voluntaryists included the young Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who published his first series of articles "The Proper Sphere of Government," beginning in 1842; Edward Baines, Jr., (1800-1890) editor and proprietor of the LEEDS MERCURY; and Edward Miall (1809-1881), Congregationalist minister, and founder-editor of THE NONCONFORMIST (1841), who wrote VIEWS OF THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE (1845).
The educational voluntaryists wanted free trade in education, just as they supported free trade in corn or cotton. Their concern "for liberty can scarcely be exaggerated." They believed that "government would employ education for its own ends" (teaching habits of obedience and indoctrination), and that government-controlled schools would ultimately teach children to rely on the State for all things. Baines, for example, noted that "[w]e cannot violate the principles of liberty in regard to education without furnishing at once a precedent and inducement to violate them in regard to other matters." Baines conceded that the then current system of education (both private and charitable) had deficiencies, but he argued that freedom should not be abridged on that account. Should freedom of the press be compromised because we have bad newspapers? "I maintain that Liberty is the chief cause of excellence; but it would cease to be Liberty if you proscribed everything inferior." 
Although educational voluntaryism failed to stop the movement for compulsory schools in England, voluntaryism as a political creed was revived during the 1880s by another Englishman, Auberon Herbert (1838-1906). Herbert served a two-year term in the House of Commons, but after meeting Herbert Spencer in 1874, decided not to run for re-election. He wrote "State Education: A Help or Hindrance?" in 1880, and began using the word "voluntaryist" to label his advocacy of "voluntary" taxation. He began publishing his journal, THE FREE LIFE (Organ of Voluntary Taxation and the Voluntary State) in 1890. Herbert was not a pure voluntaryist because, although he held that it was possible for state revenues to be generated by offering competitive services on the free market, he continued to advocate a single monopolistic state for every given geographic territory, Some of his essays are titled "The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life" (1897), and "A Plea for Voluntaryism," (posthumously, 1908).
Although there was never an explicit "voluntaryist" movement in America till the late 20th Century, earlier Americans did agitate for the disestablishment of government-supported churches in several of the original thirteen states. These conscientious objectors believed mere birth in a given geographic area did not mean that one consented to membership or automatically wished to support a state church. Their objection to taxation in support of the church was two-fold: taxation not only gave the state some right of control over the church; it also represented a way of coercing the non-member or the unbeliever into supporting the church. In New England, where both Massachusetts and Connecticut started out with state churches, many people believed that they needed to pay a tax for the general support of religion - for the same reasons they paid taxes to maintain the roads and the courts. It was simply inconceivable to many of them that society could long exist without state support of religion. Practically no one considered the idea that although governmentally-supplied goods and services (such as roads, or schools, or churches) might be essential to human welfare, it was not necessary that they be provided by the government.
There were at least two well-known Americans who espoused voluntaryist causes during the mid-19th Century. Henry David Thoreau's (1817-1862) first brush with the law in his home state of Massachusetts came in 1838, when he turned twenty-one. The State demanded that he pay the one dollar ministerial tax, in support of a clergyman, "whose preaching my father attended but never I myself."  When Thoreau refused to pay the tax, it was probably paid by one of his aunts. In order to avoid the ministerial tax in the future, Thoreau had to sign an affidavit attesting he was not a member of the church.
Thoreau's overnight imprisonment for his failure to pay another municipal tax, the poll tax, to the town of Concord was recorded in his essay, "Resistance to Civil Government," first published in 1849. It is often referred to as "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," because in it he concluded that government was dependent on the cooperation of its citizens. While he was not a thoroughly consistent voluntaryist, he did write that he wished never to "rely on the protection of the state," and that he refused to tender it his allegiance so long as it supported slavery. He distinguished himself from "those who call[ed] themselves no-government men": "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government," conveniently overlooking the fact that improving an institution does not change its essential (allegedly coercive) nature. Despite this, Thoreau opened his essay by stating his belief that "That government is best which governs not at all," a point which all voluntaryists heartily embrace. 
One of those "no-government men" was William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), famous abolitionist and publisher of THE LIBERATOR. Nearly all abolitionists identified with the self-ownership principle, that each person - as an individual - owned and should control his or her own mind and body free of outside coercive interference. The abolitionist called for the immediate and unconditional cessation of slavery because they saw slavery as man-stealing in its most direct and worst form. Slavery reflected the theft of a person's self-ownership rights. The slave was a chattel with no rights of its own. The abolitionists realized that each human being, without exception, was naturally invested with sovereignty over him or her self and that no one could exercise forcible control over another without breaching the self-ownership principle. Garrison, too, was not a pure voluntaryist for he supported the federal government's war against the States from 1861 to 1865.
Probably the most consistent voluntaryist of that era was Charles Lane (1800-1870). He was friendly with Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thoreau. Between January and June 1843 a series of nine letters he penned were published in such abolitionist’s papers as THE LIBERATOR and THE HERALD OF FREEDOM. The title under which they were published was "A Voluntary Political Government," and in them Lane described the state in terms of institutionalized violence and referred to its "club law, its mere brigand right of a strong arm, [supported] by guns and bayonets." He saw the coercive state on par with "forced" Christianity. "Everyone can see that the church is wrong when it comes to men with the [B]ible in one hand, and the sword in the other." "Is it not equally diabolical for the state to do so?" Lane believed that governmental rule was only tolerated by public opinion because the fact was not yet recognized that all the true purposes of the state could be carried out on the voluntary principle, just as churches could be sustained voluntarily. Reliance on the voluntary principle could only come about through "kind, orderly, and moral means" that were consistent with the totally voluntary society he was advocating. "Let us have a voluntary State as well as a voluntary Church, and we may possibly then have some claim to the appeallation of free men." 
Late 20th and early 21st Century libertarians readily draw a parallel between the disestablishment of state churches and the abandonment of the state itself. Although the label "voluntaryist" practically died out after the death of Auberon Herbert, its use was renewed in late 1982, when George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began publishing The Voluntaryist. George Smith suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties (especially the Libertarian Party) were antithetical to their ideas. In their "Statement of Purpose" in NEITHER BULLETS NOR BALLOTS: Essays on Voluntaryism (1983), Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics "in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals," and argued that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their "Statement of Purpose" they wrote: "Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends."
THE VOLUNTARYIST newsletter, which began publication in late 1982, is one of the longest-lived libertarian publications in the world. Edited and published by Carl Watner since 1986, the most significant articles from the first 100 issues were anthologized in book-length form and published as I MUST SPEAK OUT: The Best of THE VOLUNTARYIST 1982-1999 (Carl Watner, ed., San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1999). Another voluntaryist anthology made a case for non-voting: Carl Watner with Wendy McElroy (eds.), DISSENTING ELECTORATE: Those Who Refuse to Vote and the Legitimacy of Their Opposition (Jefferson: McFarland and Company, 2001). The masthead of THE VOLUNTARYIST, perhaps, best epitomizes the voluntaryist outlook: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." This statement penned by Gandhi urges that the world can only be changed one person at a time, and then, only if that person wills it, making it appealing to many voluntaryists. The only thing that the individual can do, voluntaryists hold, "is present society with 'one improved unit'." Albert Jay Nock expressed this point as follows: "[A]ges of experience testify that the only way society can be improved is by the individualist method ..., that is, the method of each 'one' doing his very best to improve 'one.'" Voluntaryists believe that this is the quiet, peaceful, patient way of changing society because it concentrates on bettering the character of men and women as individuals. The voluntaryist hope is that as the individual units change, the improvement of society will take care of itself. In other words, "if one take care of the means, the end will take care of itself." 
See also: Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
Voluntaryists address objections to their doctrine by examining them from both the moral and practical viewpoint. From the moral side, they ask whose property is involved, whether anyone's consent has been obtained and whether any property being used against the owner's will. From the practical side, they ask how would the situation is handled in a statist society, how is it being handled in present, and how it might be addressed in the absence of government intervention. Voluntaryists also think that some social ills cannot be eradicated from society. Nonetheless they hold that organizing society along voluntaryist principles is likely to lead to a higher aggregate utility, and be more consistent with commonly accepted ethical norms than other, government-based paradigms.
Voluntaryists claim that normally the most moral behavior achieves the most practical results. In certain emergency or "life boat" situations, they acknowledge that there may be a tension between what appears to be the moral and the practical. In such cases, some voluntaryists may choose to act contrary to their principles, while others may remain true to them and suffer the consequences. However, in both cases voluntaryists continue to uphold self-ownership, homesteading, and non-aggression as the basis of their doctrine, and "that human freedom is a higher moral objective than the arbitrary fulfillment of certain people's needs and desires." 
The plight of the poor in a voluntaryist society is one of the major objections to voluntaryism. The voluntaryist standpoint is that the poor do not have the automatic right to receive help and financial support from society, because that would would violate the homesteading axiom. Voluntaryists argue that people do not have the moral obligation to help others, and that strict justice consists in not acting invasively. Instead, they believe that the poor should be cared for only by those who voluntarily choose to do so.
Voluntaryists assert that nature is niggardly and that some goods and services of value are scarce. To illustrate this, they like to use the example of how a person cares for herself if she is left alone on an island. Voluntaryists emphasize that humans only survive by using their mind and body to provide themselves with food, shelter, and clothing. The presence of other people makes the division of labor and specialization in production possible, but it does not essentially change the nature of the world, except through technological progress, turning some previously scarce goods into free goods.
In the context of society, justice is a negative duty for the voluntaryist. It consists in respecting other people's bodies and property, and in doing them no physical harm. For the voluntaryist, justice does not imply any special obligation of altruism. Voluntaryists concede that people may have ethical duties towards helping others since they also expect help from others based on their abilities and needs, but that this do not imply a legal entitlement for help. According to Lysander Spooner, "Man, no doubt, owes many other ... duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, ... . But these are simply ... duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them." 
As for considering the justice of forced charity, Robert Ringer replied, "I do not believe that I or any other person has the right to force other men to be charitable. In other words, I am not against charity, but I am against the use of force."  According to voluntaryism, the fact that someone thinks others are not contributing enough to charity or to the poor is no justification for forcing them to contribute more. On the voluntaryist view, if a man has legitimately earned his property, it is theft to take it from him against his will for any purpose; and one man's honestly earned wealth is not another man's entitlement (nor the cause of another's impoverishment). Voluntaryists argue that although one might not like one person being rich and another being poor, nobody has the right to take from one and give to another. It is central to the voluntaryist perspective that people who think the poor are too poor may devote more of their own resources and property to them, and may also try to persuade others to do so. But they object to penalizing a person because of their refusal to abide by (what some consider) ethical duties, and to use the plight of the poor as a justification for transferring property from the rich to the poor, without the consent of the rich. These tenets are deeply held by almost all voluntaryists.
Although there has never been a true voluntaryist society, America from its colonial roots to the early 20th Century more closely approximated voluntaryist parameters than many other nations. The voluntaryist asks us to consider what we find happening in such circumstances.
In early America, private and community care for the poor often preceded government's assumption of those responsibilities. If Americans wanted a school, a library, an orphanage, or a hospital they simply built it for themselves. Voluntaryists take history to suggest that people living in free market economies produce many more goods and services than their counterparts in a centrally organized economy. Voluntaryists conclude that the poor there generally have a higher standard of living than the poor in a collectivist society, which voluntaryists see as coercive. For voluntaryists, this economic largess is largely the result of the investment in tools and individual saving which is promoted by the free market economy.
Voluntaryists stress that not only were there probably fewer poor in America than in the rest of the Western World, but those of the lower classes were able to better care for themselves and their poorer kin. Until the advent of state welfare in the early 20th Century, mutual aid societies, church and fraternal organizations flourished. By 1920, about 18 million Americans belonged to some type of mutual aid society or fraternal order, which often provided some form of health, disability, and death benefits to their members. With the advent of the Great Depression (which voluntaryists assert was caused by government financial policies), government welfare programs began crowding out private efforts.
Voluntaryists argue that the private sector in America has not only proved itself capable of producing and creating large amounts of wealth, but that it has also demonstrated its willingness to contribute to community causes and helping the poor. To voluntaryists, American history is an example of how the poor fare in a society of a high voluntaryist nature. As James Bryce wrote in 1888, "In works of active beneficence, no country has surpassed, perhaps none has equaled the United States." 
Voluntaryists might answer that citizens may obey their governments, but they are no more consenting to their 'voluntary' enslavement than a victim of a robbery consents to his victimization. The victim of a robbery 'voluntarily' hands over her wallet to prevent a worse occurrence (her own death), but her right of self-ownership is violated. They argue that if governments eliminated criminal penalties for failure to file and pay taxes, they would obtain little voluntary support.
In response, the voluntaryist would begin by arguing that criminals have taken over control of our society, and that it is only the fact that our criminal governors have so legitimated themselves in the eyes of most people that they are no longer considered criminal.
The existence of a peaceful society depends upon the large majority of people residing therein respecting other people and rules of co-existence. In the absence of coercive government to "protect" these peaceful people, voluntaryists contend, there would be private defense and mutual protection agencies, voluntarily funded, to protect people from would-be aggressors. Each patron would contract for the level of protection he or she desired and could afford. In such a society, voluntaryists argue that sureties and insurance companies would probably provide a great deal of protection, since they would have the most to lose from destruction and theft of property and life; and hence that sureties or bonding companies would ultimately be responsible for the good behavior of those they covered.
Voluntaryists might answer, "Those who use them and require their existence. Although roads have been a government monopoly throughout much of history, there is much historical evidence that roads could built and operated on a for-profit basis. Government monopolization and control of the roads has led to many inefficiencies, deaths, and environmental destruction." 
Voluntaryist agree that there is no such thing as a free lunch. However, they are not asking for government services in the first place. That is because they maintain that governments, by their coercive provision of certain services, eliminate the voluntaryist's range of choice among providers. The voluntaryist grants that he may need to know "what time it is," but he denies that the government has a right to eliminate all competitors and force the consumer to purchase from only a government agency. Voluntaryists might appeal to the following analogy: if a thief steals your watch, outlaws all other forms of telling time, tells you the time, and then demands that you pay him for providing you with this service, would you consider yourself obligated to pay him? Of course not. Similarly, the voluntaryist holds that the government should not be providing any services in the first place (any more than the thief should have stolen your watch or outlawed would-be competitors). Voluntaryists worry that when governments use coercion to enforce their will, many problematic situations arise. Voluntaryists try to resolve them by abandoning government, and using private services when available and affordable.
 Murray Rothbard, "Yes," REASON Magazine, May 1973, pp. 19, 23-25, and reprinted in Carl Watner (ed.), I MUST SPEAK OUT, San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes (1999), pp. 47-48.
 G. E. Aylmer (ed.), THE LEVELLERS IN THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION, Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1975), p. 68.
 Ibid., p. 80.
 Ibid., p. 68.
 George H. Smith, "Nineteenth-Century Opponents of State Education," in Robert B. Everhart (ed.), THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MONOPOLY, Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing (1982), pp. 109-144 at pp. 121-124.
 Henry David Thoreau, WALDEN, OR LIFE IN THE WOODS and ON THE DUTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, with an Afterword by Perry Miller, New York: New American Library (Twenty-first printing, 1960), p. 233.
 Ibid., pp. 222, 223, 232.
 Carl Watner (ed.), A VOLUNTARY POLITICAL GOVERNMENT: LETTERS FROM CHARLES LANE, St. Paul: Michael E. Coughlin, Publisher (1982), p. 52.
 Albert Jay Nock, MEMOIRS OF A SUPERFLUOUS MAN, New York: Harper and Brothers (1943), p. 307.
 Robert Ringer, RESTORING THE AMERICAN DREAM, New York: QED (1979), p. 135.
 Lysander Spooner, NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE (Section I), Boston: A. Williams & Co. (1882), p. 6 in Volume I, Charles Shively (ed.), THE COLLECTED WORKS OF LYSANDER SPOONER IN SIX VOLUMES, Weston: M & S Press (1971).
 Ringer, op. cit., p. 134.
 James Bryce, Volume II, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH (original publication date 1888), New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons (1959), p. 494. (This is found in the Capricorn Books edition, edited by Louis M. Hacker in Volume II, Part VI, Chapter 4, "The Influence of Religion," paragraph 15.) Also see Carl Watner, "The Most Generous Nation on Earth: Voluntaryism and American Philanthropy," Whole Number 61. THE VOLUNTARYIST (April 1993).
 See Gabriel Roth (ed.), STREET SMART: COMPETITION, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND THE FUTURE OF ROADS, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006 on both a discussion of for-profit roads and government inefficiencies in this area.
Etienne de la Boetie, THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE, New York: Free Life Press (1975) and Montreal: Black Rose Books (2007).
Brian Doherty, RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, New York: Public Affairs (2007).
Robert LeFevre, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF LIBERTY, Santa Anna: Rampart Institute (1988).
Eric Mack (ed.), THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF COMPULSION BY THE STATE AND OTHER ESSAYS BY AUBERON HERBERT, Indianapolis: Liberty Classics (1978).
Jim Payne (Count Nef), PRINCESS NAVINA VISITS VOLUNTARIA, Sandpoint: Lytton Publishing (2002).
Murray Rothbard, FOR A NEW LIBERTY, New York: The Macmillan Company (1973).
Mark Spangler (ed.), CLICHES OF POLITICS, (Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996). Earlier editions were titled "Cliches of Socialism." This anthology dispels many of the myths that justify the pleas for political solutions to our social problems.
Carl Watner with Wendy McElroy (eds.), NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS: ESSAYS IN OPPOSITION, Jefferson: McFarland & Company (2004).