Usually voluntaryists must explain how society can survive without state coercion. Let’s assume away this problem and see what others remain.
For us to interact voluntarily, we must agree on what “voluntary” means and what other basic assumptions everyone must share in order for our voluntary interaction to succeed.
For example, Ancaps base voluntary action on private property. The only NAP-approved coercion happens when I say, “Get off my property, or else.”
Ancoms reject private property, instead hoping to base society on possession. In property terms, this just means that when you stop using something, you abandon it.
Let’s assume, optimistically, that ancaps and ancoms wanted to live peacefully together somewhere. How could they create a shared framework that would allow them to interact voluntarily?
Intellectual property provides another example. Some persons consider enforcement of intellectual property to clash with the basic ideas of a free society, while others see it as a necessity. How might they work out their differences in a peaceful way?
Another way of putting this is, is it always alright for me to opt out? How can we resolve conflicts over such fundamental ideas?