I know nothing about voluntaryism so I've ready your first 3 or 4 posts plus this one. I find it fascinating.

When statists hear about voluntaryism, a typical response is "That's stupid. How do you think society can function without a government?"

Yep. I suppose I'm what you would call a statist.

A possible short response would be: "If we move closer to the principles of voluntaryism, the biggest change would be that people would no longer see any need to force peaceful people to do things against their will.

As a statist who doesn't understand voluntaryism and, in fact, only just found out that he's a statist (whatever that means), I don't think that response works for me. The statement assumes that I already agree that peaceful people are currently being forced to do things against their will and therefore moving closer to the principles of voluntaryism would be a good thing. But, I might not necessarily see anyone being forced to do anything. You know, statist mindset and everything.

Of course, I realize that I'm not the intended audience of your posts. I'm not a voluntaryist trying to learn how to convince statists to change their minds. On the other hand, what better way to teach other voluntaryists than to actually show how it's done by using me as an example? :)

In any case, I don't want to appear as a troll. I'm just truly curious. So if I'm not welcome, just say so. I'm not a sensitive statist. ;) Or, perhaps you can simply point me to other resources on the internet where I can learn more.

If I may make a suggestion though. When communicating with statists who are unfamiliar with voluntaryism, I recommend not using jargon. Or at least define them before you start using them. For example, I've never heard of the term "peaceful people" before. It sounds very specific and I don't know what it means exactly. So when you say "no longer see any need to force peaceful people" does that mean that it's still okay to force non-peaceful people? And what's the difference?