Voluntarism is the ideal that all human interactions should be voluntary and the non-aggression principle is the normal mode of voluntarism, since people shouldn't be forced. I suppose the alternative could cause trouble, but I think history has also shown that this principle works. Based on that, I would have to say I support it.
I think if you look at it from perspective of overall good for society, its fine. The theory behind voluntarism is out of skew though. It points to free will and less structure, I don't see how these concepts can actually be used for the good of the people,but they have to do it through non violence.
The non-aggression principle of voluntarism makes sense. If someone has entered into a deal with another person or organization, the repercussions or results of that deal are easier to accept. Adversely, if a person does not voluntarily agree to any such deal, but is expected to comply, aggression is much more likely.
I support nonaggression principles regardless of how we came to them. Of course, we should always try to talk it out, negotiate, and resolve our differences in a peaceful manner. Having said that, it is vital that we also recognize those times when words fail. Nonaggression does not mean becoming a passive doormat.
I do not agree with the Non-Aggression Principle of voluntarism. I think that the principles of Anarchy are something that does not benefit modern society or the people. I think that such things should never be supported. The only people who believe in such things are those who have issues with Democracy.