The Voluntaryism wikipedia page doesn't mention property other than in reference to Frédéric Bastiat's book The Law which references what responsibilities the government should have (such as protecting property). You and I would probably agree that's not anarchy or voluntaryism as much as it's minarchy. My point in bringing that up is that no one person has a monopoly on the definitions of these words. Your definition of voluntaryist includes private property. I think others who do not violate the NAP may take a different approach on that point. Does that mean they aren't voluntaryists if the base meaning is "a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary"? To me, that's not even worth discussing. To me, the use of labels in this way is tribalistic.
There are many flavors of anarchy from ancap to ancom to a number of others. I don't try to police those labels or who uses them. To me, that's a waste of effort. In my opinion, it's more useful to build things to create a voluntary society than to argue. I've wasted too much time in ancom/ancap debates to see any real value in it.
I don't fault people for trying to defend what they care about. If I think the approach they are using hinders their stated goals, then I may comment on it, especially if I become a target of the approach. That's the beauty of voluntary interactions: we're all allowed our own opinions.
Every definition of voluntaryism is ultimately founded upon ISO (individual self-ownership) and by extension property. This is basic, elementary, libertarianism/voluntaryism. It matters not if “Wikipedia” specifically states it or not. Logic and concrete reality dictate it. Without self-ownership (the foundation of property) voluntary interaction cannot occur, as it takes free, self-owners to be able to voluntarily choose any action.
An opinion about a rock being an apple pie would be equally irrelevant.
The position that all human interaction should be voluntary requires ISO, otherwise—clearly—voluntary can have no meaning.
Kokesh’s campaign is incompatible with this, and thus, is not Voluntaryist by the common and accepted definition. Nor is such an interpretation of “voluntary” logically feasible as ISO is required for voluntary interaction to even occur.
Saying an apple is a fruit and a rock is not, is not claiming a monopoly on the concept of “apple” anymore than saying “a circle is round” is an “opinion” or “interpretation.”
I don't give a fuck about what a wiki page states. I don't care because it is not the truth simply because it is listed there. Do you automatically believe everything on Snopes and Google too? LOL
There is no way to avoid trampling on my individual rights if you do not believe in individual property rights. If you plan to try and take away what I have rightfully and fairly obtained, you are a wannabe tyrant.
My life is spent obtaining my property. It is not simply the time spent. I will defend it with deadly force if necessary too.