system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that voluntarism is the only moral way to govern a people, and that the tyranny of the democratic majority victimizes the minority. CMV.

Let me start by saying I have not studied voluntarism theory but stumbled upon the concept while searching for an alternative to democracy that doesn't marginalize the losing voters. I will do my best to synthesize an explanation but this is not a highly researched opinion, so bear with me.

1. **A democracy or republic, or any form of government that relies on elected officials to represent a populous, marginalizes the losers.** When you vote to elect your representative, you run the risk of being in the losing portion of the vote. When this happens your interests are not fairly represented as they should have been and you are effectively being taxed without representation. As an extension of this, even a perfect democracy fails the minority vote. It is nothing short of violence to impose the will of a larger body of individuals onto a smaller body. 

2. **A majority's ability to impose its will on a minority is virtually limitless.** 
If all of "The 99%" wanted to impose a 99% tax rate on "The 1%" because they believe such a tax is justified, there would be little stopping them. This is probably the point most easily shown false, but the others stand without it.

3. **Representatives are incapable of representing others, and cannot be trusted to make decisions on their behalf.** 
Nobody represents a person's beliefs better than the individual himself. As an example, the Patriot Act is widely regarded as a failure to represent what is best for the people. This happens to be a failure that the vast majority of Americans agree on. How many would have voted in their senators knowing that this was the decision they would make? Democratic representation fails not only the losers, but the winners who were lied to on an official's campaign platform.

4. **An individual can only be fairly represented by himself/herself.**
Because the smallest minority voter is the individual, decisions should be made on an individual, voluntary basis. Government has as much a responsibility to protect the minority as to do anything else we've come to rely on government for. Those who do not want to support, for example, universal health care (please note I am NOT referring to anything such as ACA Obamacare), or the invasion of a foreign country should have the ability to represent themselves on that stance and not be violently coerced into it.

5. **Voluntarism is a peaceful solution to a violent practice.**
Someone who doesn't support involvement with Syria should not be forced to fund it. A government or people that uses force to exact their will on an individual a totalitarian government.

Please CMV. I've encountered a lot of people out there intent on doing so, but no good arguments.

Edit: Due to some misunderstanding I need to clarify that I'm not advocating the elimination of government at all, though I can see how that is being construed.  Government still has the responsibility to protect people and their property under voluntarism. The difference would be that nobody is coerced into acting on behalf of another.
gpt
The basic problem is that what we call "public goods" will not be provided under this system. Suppose that everyone will be better off if we put up a street light at a busy intersection. But if we simply ask everyone to chip in some money, what happens if someone refuses to pay? We can't very effectively stop him from using the street light. So no one has an incentive to pay, and the street light doesn't get built.