The analogy was inappropriate considering the context of the article.

• My first question is, why do you make so many assumptions?
• Next, do you expect voluntarism to just be a switch in society with an overnight shift in personal and cultural philosophies?
• Do you make the assumption that the current 1% have managed to amass their wealth without doing any harm?
• Does 'no harm' mean as long as they didn't break any laws?
• The laws made by the same people who force an obligatory tax?

There are many ways to do harm in this world yet most only think something is harmful when it affects their group. Many corporations do harm all over the world as they crush supply chains and ptimise their workforces in order to squeeze a little more profit out. As long as it is in another country it is okay? Voluntarism only works when those who benefit from the community put into the community and the 1% have definitely benefited from the community, tax systems and the legal systems define by the state, no matter how one looks at it.

It is good that you edited your first comment considering on your profile you have claimed 'non-aggressive communication with statists'. Perhaps I am not a statist though.