"voluntary is a state you impose on someone until they give their consent"

I get the quotes. Don't know who said that. It's still not aplicable.

Not really. By definition, voluntary cannot be imposed.

It's not about denouncing adjectives.

It should rather be about how voluntary is mishandled by politicians to mean "or else".

As a liberal, I hold the concept of voluntary to its utmost meaning, which definitely doesn't mean "until I consent".

Anyone who tries to warp the meaning of voluntary is either a propaganda pawn at best and a psychopath at worst. In any case, neither are deserving of attention.

@jestdotty I guess we have different definitions of liberal then, because for all I care, the state is necessary, but it should be kept to the bare minimum, and, of course, allow every law abiding citizen to develop their life project as they see fit.

Key distinction here being law =/= regulation.

Law should strictly limit itself to how not to infringe onto others' freedom.

@CoreFusionX you are what we would call a "classical liberal," generally the same as what we'd call a "libertarian" (though I loathe the word and would rather we just repurpose "liberal" for its original meaning instead of its blanket label for "left wing").

To me, what people who think the state necessary to protect freedom don't seem to get is that the state is the primary aggressor against freedom. No law can stop the state, the only entity that can lawfully infringe on the rights of peaceful people, from using that power.