Is Voting Wrong?

The State wants thee to vote, in order to acquire thine approval. This is the essence of Voluntaryist argumentation against strolling into the voting booth and fulfilling your "civic" duty. The duty I and I,we, have is to end the system of endemic aggression perpetrated by the State. If this can be done by voting, then that is the moral imperative. If it can only be done by abstaining, then that is the moral imperative. It can be done by voting for measures or candidates that will put chinks in the armor of the State.

Daniel Sanchez disagrees. He is wrong, but puts forth the most lucid antiwar argument I have ever witnessed

Foreign policy is an economic matter in another way as well. Foreign interventionists are essentiallysecurity-production socialists. For far too many conservatives, the same federal government that is too inept and corrupt to run a television station is somehow miraculously competent and virtuous enough to make the whole world a safer place through centrally planned invasions, occupations, sanctions, regime changes, and CIA ops.

PeaceRequiresAnarchy's argument is here. Mark's, my twitter ally, argument can be found here. Ifeminist Wendy McElroy's argument is here. George Smith's argument is here. Compelling as they may be, I voted on Novemeber 6, 2012 Ano Domini.

To vote between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is unconscionable. To vote between a "citizens' approved" territorial submission to the State over a forcefully monopolized law producer's decision to designate territorial submission to the State is unconscionable (see 40 here). To vote between Howard Berman and Brad Sherman is unconscionable. However, voting can be conscionable.

Gary Johnson was the Libertarian, capital L, candidate for president. His positions on FEMA, the FCC and the State are questionable at best and morally destitute at worst. I say this after having voted for Gary Johnson, and not regretting it. He garnered roughly 1% of the total vote, but if he had reached 5% then federal funds would have to have been divided between three parties instead of two. In reality there is only one party, The War Party, but this division of federal funds would reduce their power to propagandize. It would startle the average voter that thought the libertarians were to be ignored in their obscurity. It would cause the 4th branch of the State, the media, to discuss libertarianism and its dissemination would be aided. Is this enough reason to punch a hole in a ballot?

In regards to measures offered up to the direct democracies of some states within the United States of America, voting can be an imperative. In cases where there is no chance of gouging the eyes of or slashing at the tentacles of Leviathan, the moral imperative is to abstain from voting or to uphold the purposive act of non-voting. If the passing of a measure will help to dismantle the State, then voting is the moral imperative. Abolishing State execution, legalizing marihuana, reducing invasions into insurance production and lessening sanctions of State violence against voluntary exchange all appeared on ballots this November. Any abstention of voting on these issues is morally reprehensible.

Vote!


Post Scriptum: The inspiration for this detailed look at voting, and for transparency on voting is Reason Magazine's Tim Cavanaugh. Earlier this year I voted in the primary, and his online proclamation of his votes was illuminating. Here it is.