Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

I can understand that people are angry at being forced to obey laws that they may not agree with and even be responsible for - and paying for - wars that they are opposed to, and for those reasons they are looking for a different way of living. Voluntarism is not an adequate alternative, though. It is not superior to democracy for several reasons. coercionFirstly, it ignores the coercive element of unequal wealth and poverty. Pro agrees that wealthy people will tend to exploit the majority and says that it is "true in just about any society". In a democracy, the government is answerable to that poor majority, and can make laws to protect them, and establish welfare systems. Under voluntarism, there are no protections at all for poor people. Wealthy monopolists would be free to set any price on their goods that they choose, or offer any pay for employment, and people would have the choice of accepting or starving. The slums and shanty towns around the world are testament to what happens under weak government. Further, voluntarism would abolish public education, which would mean that children in families who could not afford private education would not have access to formal education. Pro argues that inequality is "fair and just". There is nothing fair and just about children who remain uneducated due to the poverty of their parents. regulationSecond, voluntarism would need to be enforced, and Pro has not explained adequately how that would happen. If violence cannot be used, how could a violent person be prevented from being violent or from taking others' property? Further, regulations would need to be established, for example in relation to children's rights. Presumably a parent can strap a toddler into a carseat against her will, but an adult cannot force another adult into the car. At what age does the difference occur, and who decides? Obviously some decision-making body must come up with a ruling that applies to everyone. Pro argues that under voluntarism, "similar standards" would exist as under democracy, but that's avoiding the question. Democracy has a system in place for establishing those standards, and voluntarism does not. Thus, we are left with a situation where SOME people have rights to personhood and property being respected and some people do not, and no clear way at all of deciding who is who. As the air pollution discussion illustrated, the boundaries between one property and another are not always clear cut. Disputes would arise, and again, it's not obvious how they would be resolved or how any rulings in relation to property rights be enforced. Probably the situation would end up as it does in many countries with weak governement - there are various police and private security forces available for hire, so that the rich can have their rights respected as they see fit. property rights and taxesPro argues that taxes are theft, but "theft" is just a word which implies that there's something sacred about ownership, which is indeed part of the basis of voluntarism. But ownership is sometimes arbitrary and often unfair. For example, if one person or company was to gain a monopoly on all fruit trees or all beaches in a country, is it fair that they could charge exhorbitant fees for fruit or beach access? Some things belong to everyone. Generations of humans worked to develop the different varieties of fruit trees, and to preserve the beaches. How could those things belong to individuals, and why do they have a right to them over all others? Obviously, Pro can't answer those questions because it's the last round. They were rhetorical anyway. Pro says inequality is "fair and just" and describes a system where a child could grow up without access to education or libraries, parks or beaches, where there would be no minimum wage and where monopolists could set any price on essential goods that they chose. A child born into a poor family under voluntarism would not be born into a fair and just world, but a world set back several centuries to the time of peasants and serfs. In short, voluntarism is a terrible idea.