: 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'.
That is unfair because the Billionaire could vote for himself a billion times, in a way that would effect otehr people, and potentially harm them, my substantive point is that it is only fair to ask someone's opinion of something, before doing something that may efffect them, say building a lead smelting works near their home. A Billionaire could say 'Its my land, my factory, I can do what I want' and then vote a billion times, or a community could say 'its our lives you're effecting, stop 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?
No, its a decision not to take a positive action, a decision not to poison the water table. Generally those affected would be those in a geographical area, or those whose land (by dint of use) it is.
Are you honestly saying that a Farmer should be free to poison the water table?
: 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.
Its not 'stopping' them from doinjg it, its deciding not to do it, and the aim should always be consensus, maximising majorities, getting as full an agreement as possible- I don't expect it to run smooth, I expect rows, and fights and struggles, but hey, its fun.