Voting is NOT expressing an opinion, as Brandon Roark states. If you hire a mechanic to fix your car, this is NOT “expressing an opinion”. Voting is a completely different thing and it is far beyond “expressing an opinion”.
It is assigning to a group of people to rule over the voter himself and – here’s the problem – over other innocent people in the voter’s name. It is assuming a right, that nobody can have: the right to rule over other innocent people. Voting equals passing this alleged right to politicians and their thugs.
Voting and advocating voting have several really bad consequences:
It gives others the impression that voting is something moral and necessary. It strengthens the impression that the immoral things that happen on the political level are right and good. The mechanism behind that is called peer pressure. What most people do, just can’t be immoral and wrong, just because most people do it.
It puts an end to the personal responsibility of those who carry out the immoral actions. It allows them to do all kind of evil things in the name of the voter or “democracy” or “government” whatever political rhetoric instead of acting on their own personal responsibility and their own understanding of morality. Whenever you allow personal responsibility to disappear, really bad things will happen.
Stripping it down to the core, there is no difference at all between a voter and a thug that puts a gun into your face and pulls the trigger when you don’t obey. Wait, only one difference: The thug knows exactly that he is doing evil while the voter thinks that he is doing good. From the victim’s perspective it doesn’t matter if the thug wears a uniform and a badge and calls himself “police officer”. Most voters would never do such evil. But whenever I discuss with one about voting, I will ask him precisely that. Would he take full personal responsibility for his actions and its consequences and shoot me in my face, looking into my eyes at the same time, when I do not obey the polticians and their thugs who act on his name and on his behalf?
Most voters do everything to avoid a straight “no” as an answer. Often they remain silent. On a personal level it is perfectly clear for them, that “no” is the only moral answer. But at the same time they do not act this way because they vote. Not answering this question shows that they have something to really think about: The big moral contradiction between what they think and do on a personal level compared to their opinions and actions on the political level.
When the answer to this question is a straight “yes” I give him a chance to think about his answer again. If he keeps answering “yes” after having thought about it and defending it by all means, I walk away and never look back. I do not want such people to be part of my life.
The mission of people who really believe in indvidual liberty should be to show clearly where the line between freedom and slavery actually is and act accordingly. If you vote and advocate, justify and trivialise voting, you are doing the exact opposite. Even and above all if you call yourself “libertarian”, “anarchist”, “voluntaryist” or “Murray Rothbard”.