I would have thought the OP quote was clear, STOP SIGNING VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING AGREEMENTS.

26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general.

An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. (b) Form and duration of agreement. (1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, and employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402 (p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.

[…]

(iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and an employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3402%28p%29-1

Emphasis added.

If people stop agreeing to be taxpayers there will not be any ObamaNoCare penalty.

I know that many people may have signed such documents in ignorance. It is time to learn what voluntary means:

vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr)

adj.

1. Done or undertaken of one’s own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.

2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.

3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.

4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.

5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.

6. Law

a. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of property.

Emphasis added.

And steps to live in Rightful Liberty.

Then stop the presumptions and assumptions!

“You, on the other hand, contend that if it were upheld as a commerce law it would be a strict mandate on ALL individuals, irregardless of their involvement in commerce.”

No, I don’t. I contend that this was Congress’ intention (hence, the whole reason for the term “individual mandate”). I agree with Roberts and the OP that this whole idea was unconstitutional, and the mandate was struck down.

Again, you’re incorrect. As you know, or should know, law affects the public generally, as the ACA Congressional “mandate” attempted to do. However when Roberts struck down this provision, as noted in the OP, the mandate was destroyed under law. When Roberts said the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, the character of the mandate became a special law affecting only volunteers. For those who truly want to volunteer, sign all the relevant documents, you’re good to go. Yet, if one doesn’t want such voluntary servitude, then one must take action to demonstrate they don’t want to volunteer. The Great IRS Hoax Book fully explains this. However, it is abundantly clear that you don’t have a working knowledge of the work, so you stumble around making uninformed statements. I would suggest that you become familiar with that body of work. Otherwise, it is becoming pointless to respond to you further.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398, 0-314-76271-X

special law.  One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally.  A private law.  A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation.  A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied.  Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d 751, 754.  A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality.  Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d 361, 362.  See also Private bill; Private law.  Compare General law; Public law.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398, 0-314-76271-X]

“Please do give me an example of a ‘proper’ commerce clause mandate then.”-stija. Why should I need to do this? I have never taken such a position that there IS a PROPER commerce clause MANDATE! In fact, I agree that such a mandate is improper. Did you miss that or something?

“Are mandates only allowed under the commerce clause?”-stija. NO. Why should they be allowed, I agree with Roberts on this subject. They are NOT allowed.

“Are you implying that an IRC employee is not mandated under this law to carry health insurance?”-stija. That’s what I am saying. However, you can feel free to show where the mandate exist within the IRC. Nonetheless, Roberts made it clear that the mandate has taken on the character of a tax. Thus, the mandate has failed as Congress envisioned it, and it’s character had been replaced as a tax falling under the IRC.
 

For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS. Because this country’s income tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment, rather than distraint, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176, 80 S.Ct. 630, 646-47, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960), the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures.”
Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).

Emphasis added.

The mandate is unconstitutional my hard of hearing, friend. Instead Roberts is characterizing it as a tax. However, once the mandate has fallen, we have a tax, that must behave as a TAX.

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility
payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application
of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax.

[…]

(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a
tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

The TAX takes on the character of an “indirect tax

Still, there is NO ACTUAL MANDATE.

Roberts destroyed the individual mandate when he failed to uphold it.

 
How would he have upheld it?

Please do explain.

Sure, he would have concluded that the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS A VALID EXERCISE of congress’s power under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause!
 

Again, are you suggesting that Congress possesses a power that can mandate one’s involuntary participation in one of the Article I subjects delegated to it so that one can be regulated?

Of course NOT! However, that is what a mandate does attempt to do. Yet Roberts said that the MANDATE IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POWER. END OF STORY, END OF THE MANDATE.