So to recap, it appears voluntaryism can deviate as a person enters a social construct.
There exists the possibility of using the term in several ways.
-One is that a person enters/exits a social construct in a voluntary manner.
-Within the social construct one can in a voluntary sense agree to use mechanisms of aggression against a person and/or their property. (I will not at this time make a distinction that the person being aggressed against is within or outside the social construct or even consents to the aggression)
-As one enters a social construct one can in a voluntary sense agree to be aggressed against.
The fact that the meaning of the term can be obfuscated and often switched in debate, and declared completely resolved in definition by the user makes a case for the uselessness of the term.
Also it is unclear where the boundary conditions of the NAP should and should not apply. It is sketchy as to whether any statement can or should be confirmed to abide by the NAP.
With this observation, I no longer see individual anarchy and voluntaryism as compatible concepts.