RE: A Message From the Chief Anarchist For the Anarcho Capitalist Peasants.
Voluntarism is essentially the state of being able to freely choose to live in whichever way you prefer and change at will. Everything is done voluntarily.
The problems arise when someone tries to control others and limit their free will - at which point, for them, things are not voluntary. Did I voluntarily agree that x/y/z corporation can stop me walking on what they say is their property (that may once have been a forest that my grandparents played in?) - absolutely not - so from my pov, it is valid to say that such systems of control and ownership are not voluntary at all.
In fact, the moment anyone lays claim to land and says that others may not enter, they are forcing their will on others who may not agree. They are literally saying "No, you don't get to decide whether or not you want to live totally free on this planet, you must abide by my boundaries and rules, whether you like it or not". That is not anarchy!
In an ideal world, to my mind at least, we wouldn't need to worry about ownership because everybody would have enough respect to consider that others have the right to make use of everything too and curtail their own use to what is necessary instead of using in excess. Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world, so it's no surprise when people want to be able to keep what they've worked for, especially when the example they see is what it currently is.
In some ways it probably comes down to tolerance levels. Why begrudge ownership if that's what someone feels they need to survive, as long as it causes no harm or impact on others? The hard line to draw is where that starts to impact others. If someone had a belief that capitalism/communism/ socialism is the way for them, then who am I to judge as long as it doesn't impact me or others? My issue is when others feel that their way needs to be forced onto everyone else. I agree that voluntaryism is probably the closest description we do have to a live and let live situation.