I regularly say that democracy is tyrannical because it grants others the right to impose anything they want on you as long as there's enough of them to vote it into law. Sometimes statists have replied to me that anarchy doesn't stop my neighbors from getting together and oppressing me, but this rebuttal completely misses the point.
The difference between democracy and anarchy is not that democracy gives the majority the power to oppress a minority and anarchy doesn't, nor was that ever the argument being made. Obviously, regardless of social system it's advantageous to have a lot of people on your side, and so it's always more likely than not that a large group will have power over a small group. The difference is that democracy legitimizes it.
In anarchy, my neighbors might get together and oppress me, and I might not be able to successfully resist them, but might doesn't make right. In democracy, on the other hand, the very fact that enough of them vote for something makes it the law, not just in effect but in belief. If you believe that law, in the moral sense, is independent of what humans decide, then you can't also believe that a vote by a majority can create or repeal a law. Those statements are just direct opposites. And what's the meaning of voting if it doesn't actually matter what's in the lawbook?
The usual statist's instant reply here is to concede that the law has no bearing on what you should do, but to claim that the law is like a weapon; it can be used by either good or bad people to codify good or evil, and that this system possibly gives good a better chance than anarchy. But this is, in fact, a concession that anarchism is true.
If you acknowledge that making something law doesn't change whether it's right, then it doesn't change whether it's moral to enforce it. If it's not right for you to drag me out of my home and into a cell for having marijuana in a state where marijuana is legal, then it's no more right for the police to do it to me in a state where marijuana is illegal. And that means the ones who do it are no better than any other criminal, any mafia enforcer who extorts and exploits victims for a paycheck.
So that's why democracy is nihilism. All statism is.
Statism is incompatible with any ideology. All statist viewpoints aren't really ideologies because they can have no fixed beliefs; they assign an external force the right to change the law, and by the same token, if you really believe that state authority is legitimate, you can't also have any ideology of your own, unless even judgements like "you must not murder" are demoted to the status of "you shouldn't do it, but I don't have the right to stop you if you do".
That's really all there is to anarchism - that no one has the right to change the law, and therefore the decision of a legislature has no bearing on what you should do and you have every right to resist it, with violence if necessary. Anarchism is the logical conclusion of anything.
Do you see now why I have so little respect for statists, even minarchists? It's not that they're wrong about some moral belief or a bunch of them. It's that they fundamentally disbelieve in morality itself.