Good article defending voting @ lewrockrell.com

[NoHero]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68879.html


You are not consenting to the system by voting. I can’t remember who it was who made this analogy (which I have modified slightly), but if you were in a concentration camp and you were allowed to vote on having either steak or human flesh for dinner, you would not be consenting to the system by voting for steak.

There was literally no one to vote for here in Arkansas though, and I found out I wasn't registered on election day so I didn't vote.

[revolutionary8]

I miss Truth Warrior :( We had our bumpy roads, but he was just a okay in my book. I know he isn't still band :D

[farrar]

I have seen voting as a matter of self defense. Morally, I can vote because I am not voting to cram programs down the throats of others. I would vote to stop others from cramming their crap down mine. Voting to institute anything that cannot be opt'd out of is immoral... because you are voting to use force. Voting to end force is not immoral. Its not abiding with the system, and at the worst it is using a forceful system to end itself. Voting to end force is self-defense. However... if there is even one single issue... no matter how minor... that is conceivably a matter of force, then morality is lost and you are contributing to the crimes of the system. This is not an ends justifies the means argument. I reject utilitarianism. Scoring a 99% on the no-force scale isn't enough. It is all or nothing with morality.

Hence I argue that anarchists can vote, just not for the lesser of two evils.
I also argue that anarchist do not need to just vote for "anarchists". For instance, Anarchists can vote for Ron Paul. Even though Ron Paul would not end government, he certainly would not expand it, or "take from here, and put some there."
He would cut many areas or do nothing in some. Here he is not using force. He may not be taking it to an Anarchist's level... but force is not being used.

also worth noting:
A CNN poll shows that most Americans are doing the same. Voting against something may seem like a "sad" thing... but it just means (at-least to me) that we are more concerned with protecting our rights than with taking them... at-least to some degree.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I miss Truth Warrior :(

hear, hear!

[Arion45]

Voting is a suggestion box for slaves. Why bother.

[FSP-Rebel]

I have seen voting as a matter of self defense. Morally, I can vote because I am not voting to cram programs down the throats of others. I would vote to stop others from cramming their crap down mine. Voting to institute anything that cannot be opt'd out of is immoral... because you are voting to use force. Voting to end force is not immoral. Its not abiding with the system, and at the worst it is using a forceful system to end itself. Voting to end force is self-defense. However... if there is even one single issue... no matter how minor... that is conceivably a matter of force, then morality is lost and you are contributing to the crimes of the system. This is not an ends justifies the means argument. I reject utilitarianism. Scoring a 99% on the no-force scale isn't enough. It is all or nothing with morality.

Hence I argue that anarchists can vote, just not for the lesser of two evils.
I also argue that anarchist do not need to just vote for "anarchists". For instance, Anarchists can vote for Ron Paul. Even though Ron Paul would not end government, he certainly would not expand it, or "take from here, and put some there."
He would cut many areas or do nothing in some. Here he is not using force. He may not be taking it to an Anarchist's level... but force is not being used.

also worth noting:
A CNN poll shows that most Americans are doing the same. Voting against something may seem like a "sad" thing... but it just means (at-least to me) that we are more concerned with protecting our rights than with taking them... at-least to some degree.
You'll like http://freeatlklive.com then
if u don;t already know about it.