Viewed from the perspective of an investment, yes somebody can always opt out if they don't like the group dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of an economy that people can live and work in (someday in the future), somebody does not really want to opt out. They are willingly entangled in it.
Why would you not adopt a system of voluntary behaviour if you could?
I have you just have chosen a perspective that denies you a choice and then concluded it isn't voluntary. Show me the gun. Show me the threat of violence...
I think the primary goal is that the currency of a society should not be subject to human printing presses or group decision making.
The challenge is figuring out how to distribute said currency and who gets the value from it. It seems like the only "fair" way to distribute a fixed supply currency is 1 unit per person, potentially awarded to them on their 18th birthday. It is of course no longer fixed supply.... and why would people initially value it for trade when they could use BitGold instead?
OK agree, so coercive is not the right word, more like involuntary. To put it into more tempered terms, there will stakeholders who feel they have had value involuntarily taken away, and others that feel they have received a windfall, depending on their evaluation of the capital infusion.
It seems to me that how one feels about the fairness of this depends on our different views about what bitShares is and what it could be.
1. When viewed as "like shares in a company", dilution happens all the time, you can always vote a new board or opt to sell up if you don't like management decisions.
2. When viewed as "like an economy in which to grow and participate", with BTS as the money, its a tax, arguably with value attached, but an involuntary tax nonetheless, and it is subject to printing press and group decision making, which you have said we would want to avoid.
I believe if we move hopefully move toward 2., then a voluntary basis maximises freedom for all participants. I am probably way too early and optimistic on this view. For now a voting system is familiar and easiest, but it would be good to not lock this into anything like a constitution in my view, and give us ways to evolve the approach.