The anti-democratic anarchists are so dangerous. They want to maintain property rights for the rich (enforced by a minority onto a majority,) but seek to abolish anything that would allow the public to properly redistribute wealth.
Nobody truly owns anything. Ownership (ideally) is something the collective group temporarily allows for to make transactions and day-to-day affairs faster and easier. All ownership can be reassigned at the whim of the voting public.
Voluntaryists who seek to abolish democracy altogether seek to undo centuries of struggle, advocacy, and progress. The rich owning everything while everybody is disenfranchised will just result in feudal society again where the masses must toil labouriously for rich land-owners. Inevitably, people will start seeking democracy again only to discover that racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry have all crept back in to such a pervasive extent that rights people already suffered for have to be won a second time around.
Thus, people must nip these anti-democratic, pro-elitist movements in the bud. One problem is that representational democracy has proven itself to be a total failure, (at least, in my eyes.) Thus, direct democracy alongside things like freedom of speech is a must at this point to avoid descending into another dark age.
I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished. Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.
In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”
I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left. These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”
One problem I notice with voluntaryism is that it doesn’t take into account the natural elitist tendencies of human beings. Without true democracy, majorities often have a natural tendency to defer to a minority elite. (E.g. the popular clique in high school vs. the larger student body; the amount of attention models get from the general population etc.)
Voluntaryism that does not utilize democracy, requiring elites (of all fields) to make sure the general public is well-fed and educated, might result in the exact same problem it sought to eliminate.