: As a basic idea, democracy should entail all who are effected by a specific action, preferably, as a principle, them as vote should carry out the messure (i.e. it should only be a positive thing, a vote to do, not a vote against, a vote to prohibit, or to force).
This is what an 'anarchist' (capitalist or not) would look like, it would be voting for your own actions and not against others actions. Thus a billionaire could only 'vote' a billion times for himself. Why is that 'unfair'.
: Now, imagine there is a field,a king wants to use fertilizers that may damage the water table, he has one vote, and uses it to do so, likewise a plutocrat uses their million votes to pass the idea. In a democracy, everyone who might be affected by poisoning the water tables can vote not to do it.
Oh, so democracy is control over others after all, it is a vote to prohibit. Who decices that these 'others' are actually affected by anothers decisions, and to what extent?
: Now, under a direct democracy, them as vote should carry the vote out, i.e. they are not voting for other people to do things,
But you have said that they can stop others from doing things, which is nearly as powerful a force as slavery if used without the strongest 'non aggression' principles. Most people accept that stopping someone from experimenting with explosives in a busy neighbourhood is a good idea, but real arguments brew up over less certain issues.