TL;DR:

Voting, if nonsensical (at the national level), or even immediately "practical," (at the local level), always attempts to leverage state violence, and as such, is immoral.

At worst, it is an outright attempt to violate others. At best, it is a temporary, personal relief from violence, or an impotent and absurd act, which is a waste of time.

This article is not to condemn anyone who votes. Rather, its purpose is to point out that in view of Voluntaryist property ethic, voting in the current statist paradigm is always immoral, and by definition, never a Voluntaryist position.

1. There can be no act of government (statism) without aggression.

As modern government is always a forced association, financing itself solely through violent means, and depending on continued aggression in order to perpetuate its very existence, it can be said with no exaggeration, dishonesty, or falsehood that everything government does involves aggression against peaceful, self-owning individuals. Every piece of paper, every burning light in every public of government building has been paid for through immoral means. Every government employee's salary is loot stolen from hardworking individuals who have been forced to give it up or face violence. Every brick in the courthouse, every idling police cruiser in the restaurant parking lot, every teacher in every public school, is being funded illegitimately, paid with money literally stolen from others.

---

Example of "good voting" # 1: Voting for a "libertarian" president:

---

• This candidate, if somehow successful (those familiar with the election processes of modern nation states know that this is a naive hope), will make laws and decrees deciding how large swathes of non-violent individuals must live/not live and possess/not possess various properties, resources, etc. This is a violation of said individuals, and violent behavior, as the successful execution of these plans, no matter how "well-intentioned" or "temporary," would be dependent upon the initiation of force or the threat thereof being brought to fruition. Even if the only acts a president aimed to complete were to "dissolve" government and return all publicly owned land, resources, etc, to the private sector, this would still necessitate acts violating the self-ownership axiom and non-aggression principle. Self-ownership and the property norms and principles which extend from it are well-defined:

All political systems assign owners to resources according to some assignment rule. What sets libertarianism apart is its own unique property-assignment rule: the rule that specifies that individuals, not the state, are owners of their own bodies and property...The assignment must not, however, be random, arbitrary, or biased, if it is to actually be a property norm and possibly help conflict to be avoided. What this means is that title has to be assigned to one of the competing claimants based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the" resource claimed.

https://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves

In the case of our hypothetical "libertarian president" and his land redistribution--assigning previously Federally
"owned" lands to this or that party via new laws, decrees, and mandates--there is no such "objective, intersubjectively ascertainable" link to these properties miles and miles away now magically under the supposed jurisdiction of said president. The folks with those links would be the individual community members and property owners already living in a given area and using those lands and resources. It doesn't matter to libertarian property norms and Voluntaryist principle what a figurehead miles away says. What matters is the clear definition of property and not violating the immutable, biological and metaphysical reality of individual self-ownership. Should these individuals defy the "libertarian president" and his claims, they would be met with the initiation of force (violence).

• A second point is that this candidate, if successful, will by necessity use taxpayer money (extorted funds) to achieve his ends. It matters not if the goal is to legalize marijuana or to imprison anyone with an ounce of cannabis in their pockets, both initiatives, regardless of one's opinion of them, require the use of stolen funds to be enacted. The president will have to complete paperwork, set up teams of assistants, and set laws and rules determining how marijuana is to be legalized. This all takes money and time. Unless totally voluntarily financed, this is, of course, unethical, immoral, and a decidedly non-Voluntaryist position. Of course, if this "libertarian president" chooses to have an inaguration ceremony, use the water and power at the White House, or live there, that is even more money being stolen. This is not to mention secret service, Air Force One, or the millions of other costs paid for with money stolen from millions and millions of non-violent individuals in the country.

2. When you involve yourself in the decision making processes of the government, you attempt to use a violent tool.

Any time you use the government, for whatever purpose, even if it seems to be a positive one, you are using state power to bring about your will at the expense of the will of others, via the initiation of violent force.

This is not a purist position, or even necessarily an admonition against voting locally to bring about some immediate relief if necessary. This is simply a statement of logical fact: government is evil. Thus, when you leverage government, you leverage an evil tool.

---

Ex. #2: Voting for the legalization of cannabis.

• In voting for this seemingly noble and non-violent cause, your vote results in taxes (extortion) on the substance, traders on the free market continuing to be violated (because the "new dealer" threatens violence if clientele buy elsewhere), and potential interference with the quality of the product (look what the government has done to food via such regulations). Also, the drug war remains in full force even now, as Federal agents continue to raid dispensaries and arrest innocent people for marijuana even in states where it is "legal."

Ex. #3.: Voting for more lenient prison sentences for victimless crimes.

• This sounds great, right? I readily admit that if my wife or other friend or loved one was in jail, and I could vote to shorten the prison sentence, I might step into that dirty little box and submit to false "authority." Still, would this be a moral act? No. Simply because this is different than some one-on-one situation. If a terrorist or murderer were holding my wife with a gun to her head (God forbid) I would certainly do anything it might take to spare her her life. I would pay, beg, plead, give away my possessions--anything to pacify the killer and diffuse the threat. I would even give my own life.
  In voting, however, things are different. The results of my vote affect millions of people, in innumerable ways which I cannot know. I am potentiating and likely causing all kinds of violence should my vote tip the scale.

• Freeing my wife is good for me (and my wife!), but what does it do to others? Perhaps some new government program will be created to "rehabilitate" these early-release prisoners. Some fund to help them get back on their feet, paid for with stolen funds, taken from some other money resulting in more extortion for others. As I said. I might do it. The change it would bring about, however, would be a simple hacking at leaves, and not at the root, of the twisted tree of tyranny. Heavens yes! Personally I would stand to gain! And gain so much! My family back by my side! The net game however, still ends up with tyranny on top, and no real lasting changes being enacted. Just a rearranging of the furniture, in the big picture. AT THE VERY LEAST MY ACT POTENTIATES THE INITIATION OF VIOLENT FORCE ON OTHERS, RENDERING SAID ACT IMMORAL, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL OUTCOME.

3. It is not possible to get a net good by doing evil. The outcome of every vote always results in the application of force to some party who has not violated you personally.

---

Ex. 4: Voting to lower taxes.

---

Do you wish to repeal taxes? Great. You are going to vote for it and push the repeal through! Excellent! You've just taken away an elderly lady's pension that she paid into her whole life, because the government was already on the verge of declaring the pension fund bankrupt, and now with the tax cuts it certainly is. With government, an irrevocably evil entity, even doing "good" in the short term will always result in evil, as the very tree itself, the very thing and institution itself is evil. To be involved, in short, is to be part of the problem. It's a cowardly position, really. Instead of changing things ourselves, organizing, risking even death for what is right, we ask the immoral party to be "less immoral"..."pretty please?"

---

4. Voting on the national level is naive, impractical and an impotent attempt at violence.

If you've paid attention to the political process in national elections in the US, studied how the electoral college works, and witnessed/studied/researched the blatant and well-documented corruption and game-rigging which has transpired in every election since the very first one in America, you already understand that leaders are not selected according to the "votes of the people." One may as well still believe in Santa Claus. As such, voting at this level cannot truly be said to be violent, per se, but it is an attempt at violence, insofar as the voting party wishes to force his or her will on others via the leverage of state force. And if an individual is attempting to leverage this force, this is still a violent attempt. Voting on a national level can be said to be nonsensical, impractical (what a tremendous waste of time and resources to support a candidate), and meaningless.

---

---

---

I hope I have made some semblance of sense here. The issue really is black and white, though how each individual anarchist chooses to navigate the issue (we are living under constant threat, after all) certainly varies, and I do not personally judge, typically, any man in these areas with his back against the wall. It is not my place.

That said, voting in national elections is naive and meaningless, and if it weren't, would potentiate violence. Voting locally always potentiates and/or brings about violence on others.

Cheers to those who understand that the mafia NEVER, in the long game, CHANGES ITSELF "FROM THE INSIDE." This notion is the height of the retardation of basic logic.

---

So what can you do to make a change? Change yourself! and Google: "Voluntaryism."

~*~

---

THANKS FOR READING. I WAS INSPIRED TO WRITE THIS ARTICLE IN LARGE PART THANKS TO THIS FANTASTIC TWO-PART PODCAST RECENTLY POSTED BY BEN STONE, @badquakerdotcom, HERE.

~KafkA

!

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DTube and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)