Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

Person versus Property rightsPro dropped this point, but I think it's important so I want to raise it again. Person and property are not independent. The more resources and wealth a person has, the healthier they are and the longer they live (source 6, previous round). Therefore, if a person or group takes action that results in the poverty of another, then that action will directly and negatively affect that person's health and the health of their family.Such actions might include legitimate business dealings under voluntarism, such as the formation of monopolies. There is no reason why people shouldn't form monopolies to control essential supplies such as access to fresh water or food. Those people could demand extremely high prices for their essential commodities, thereby becoming very rich and forcing the people the majority of people into poverty and ill health, or even death from starvation or malnutrition. People are protected from such horrible outcomes under democracy by laws to protect people from extreme poverty (such as welfore laws) and having regulations in place to protect competition. Voluntarism would not do those things. Air pollutionPro argues that air pollution would be considered aggressive and not permitted under voluntarism. That means that cars, ships, trains, planes, electricity, and fertilizers would be banned, or their production greatly reduced (1), which means that they would become extremely expensive and most people wouldn't be able to use them any more.Cows, horses, sheep, goats and pigs also create methane which contributes to global warming (2), and so raising these animals would not be permitted under voluntarism. Without leather or emission-producing factories, it's hard to see where shoes would come from, and people will need a lot since they're going to be walking everywhere.Some humans also produce methane (3) and those humans would presumably be forbidden from farting under voluntarism and from producing children who might also have methane farts. It's hard to understand how such rules could possibly be enforced, though.Dispute ResolutionSuppose people insisted on continuing to drive their petrol-fuelled cars, or on keeping goats, or on getting pregnant with other methane-producing farters. Suppose they took diamond earrings from jewellry shops without paying and shamelessly wore them around in the streets - what would happen under voluntarism? Pro suggests "unarmed mediation and intervention teams, restorative justice, community patrols". Of course, according to NAP, those teams and patrols could do no more than talk and pursuade, or potentially bribe, I suppose. It seems likely that a lot of people would remain unpersuaded, and would prefer to keep their cars and diamonds. That would mean that the rules about respecting people and property would be largely voluntary.I agree that most people are decent and thoughtful, not to mention obedient, and would probably follow the rules anyway. However, a minority of murderers, rapists, thieves, and other types of criminals would be able to operate unchecked, especially if they are rich.When we consider the crime spree that would exist under voluntarism, as well as the abuses perpetrated by monopolists, the "aggressive theft" that Pro claims is taxation seems very benign in comparison.Children and educationPro argues that I am making the debate "frivolous" by asking about children and education, but i see these two issues as fundamental to the problem of voluntarism. Pro did not address these issues, but rather, "implored" me (and presumably any readers to this debate) to read about children's rights and anarchism on another web site. Linking to another web site does not count as an argument in a debate, and could even seen as a breach in conduct because it is a way around the word limit. I respectfully request that Pro summarizes her arguments here in the debate.The issue of children's rights is central to the idea of voluntarism because, as I showed in the previous round, parents of children do need to violate their physical rights in various ways for the children's own welfare, whether it be to strap them into a car seat against their will for safety reasons or to refuse to let them drink from the whisky bottle some drunkard in the street hands them. At some point, children become adults and these violations of rights cease to occur in most cases (although they would continue for adults with severe mental disabilities). Who gets to decide when children become adults? Under democracy, the way regulations are formed and passed by an elected government is well-known, but how regulations are put together under voluntarism is a mystery. Pro says that it would be "similar to the status quo with slight changes, eg. younger consent laws for specific acts" so presumably it wouldn't be up to individuals to decide when personal and property rights are to be respected and when they aren't. So who does make those decisions? Clearly, it wouldn't be elected representatives, because that would be a democracy. It really isn't obvious how those rules would be determined (or why anyone would adhere to them, as mentioned above).The other issue related to children's rights, of course, is to do with education. Education wouldn't be mandatory under voluntarism, and nor would it be free. That means that parents would be free not to have their children educated, and that many wouldn't be able to afford education anyway. This seems like a gross disadvantage to children from poor families.Public spaceThere would be no public space under voluntarism. Pro dropped this point.DemocracyPro complains that voters are both ignorant and selfish, but better an ignorant and selfish voter than an ignorant and selfish monopolist who abuses her situation to impoverish others for her own gain, which would be allowed under voluntarism. Pro argues that democracy encourages cronyism, and that politicians seek to be popular and not to achieve the "intended goals" (it's not clear who the goals are intended by). This may be so, but certainly it is better to be ruled by someone who is concerned about popular opinion and who can be removed from office rather than by some enormously rich person who is answerable to nobody and who cannot be stopped from exploiting the majority for his own gain.CoercionThere may be a moral difference between holding a gun to someone's head to make them do something and withholding water until they're about to die of thirst and then offering them a cup of water to do something. To me, they seem exactly the same morally.Personally, if I'm going to end up doing something either way, I'd rather have a gun to my head than get to the point of dying from thirst, because that would make me really thirsty and the gun wouldn't hurt.Similarly, the experience of being taxed is not as bad as the experience of being impoverished in an unequal society with no welfare or public space, and where education, access to beaches, and use of cars are prohibitively expensive. That is why the experience of democracy is superior to the experience of voluntarism.(1) http://opishposh.com...(2) https://www.gov.uk...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...