Why I Still Am a Voluntaryist

BrainPolice2 has a video called "Why I am not a voluntaaryist"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUYw-s1XsUE

In it, I feel he makes the fallacy of the undistributed Middle -

If I am a voluntaryist, I take the use of coercive force off the table. So if Mr. Mann has a piece of property and wants to set up "The White's Only Diner" - excluding non-white people from his business, I will not use coercion or force to stop him from doing so.

That does NOT mean I approve of such behavior. That does NOT mean I find it "acceptable". It means that as a matter of my own ethical foundation, I eschew coercion or force, so I may not use those means to oppose him.

That leaves advocation, persuasion, ridicule, verbal abuse and certain forms of economic opposition and competition as tools I have to oppose Mister Mann and his racist, retarded business.

Just because I will not use coercion or force to oppose voluntary interactions between free individuals, that doesn't automatically mean I approve of annything they do.

I haven't listened to the responses or video responses to Brainpolice2's statement. Betcha it comes up and he covers the concepts more clearly than I do.