This seems like a roundabout way of describing liberty (the freedom to do as one pleases so long as you do not infringe upon another's person, property or freedom). Would you consider this voluntaryism more operant as opposed to liberty being more of a passive opportunity? For many philosophical discussions you need to presuppose free-will. How does this philosophy hold up if it turns out that free will is nothing but a fairy tale we tell ourselves to help us sleep at night? Also this concept can be difficult to fully embrace on the social level. Our interactions should be voluntary. Okay. What about family. It's not always convenient to cut ties when coercion occurs. I personally feel a debt of due gratitude to my parents. Or how about employment. If you got a decent job and that your feel fortunate to have, but that there a certain people there that either coerce, are non-productive or just plain annoying, it may not necessarily be in my best interest to cut ties. I get that every day that you show up to work you are "voluntarily" accepting that situation. I've applied the concept myself at jobs before to my advantage. I remind the less desirable employee, "There's the door! Nobody is forcing you to be here." Needless to say we had a pretty high turnover rate. Another angle to be considered too. This isn't for everyone. Some people want to be sheep. They may not want to admit it, but they are comfortable being told what to do, and the more subtle the better. Some people want to coerce others. Why not? Some people are tools and should be used as such. I'm not here to cut you down. I'm trying to spark up some conversation. I liked the mention of non-violent communication. I never heard of that before.