Friday, December 07, 2018

When v*ting is archation

It seems to me your "right to v*te", if there is any such thing, ends where the results of your v*te would be used to violate the life, liberty, or property of any other person.

This is why I don't think anyone has a right to v*te for a "tax increase", for anti-gun "laws", for criminalizing any substance, for zoning restrictions, for "national security", etc. You can't have the right to violate others.

If the results of their v*te would be more government power, greater government "authority", or any new government at all, then they have no right to cast that v*te. Doing so is archation.

I suppose this means you have the right to v*te to decrease (or abolish) a "tax", gun "law", prohibition, zoning "law", "national security" boondoggle, government power, government "authority", branch, or government position.

But it still feels to me that even playing their game by their rules means you are agreeing to abide by the results, no matter what they are. If not, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and hope you'll prove me wrong.


Reminder: I could really use some help, still.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. Indeed. Nobody has the right to apply offensive force. Everybody has the right to use defensive force. People will agree with that in conversation and then seconds later propose policy that directly contradicts it. Then when questioned about it, they'll call you a racist who should move to Somalia. This is known as an "argument" by the mob. Sigh.

  2. somewhat relevant: thought this was a decent article on your right to defend against archation:

    If they put NOTA on the ballot for each and every person and initiative, and it actually meant something -- if NOTA getting the most votes means none of the people on the ballot gets elected and the office is deemed to be an anarchist who casts a "no" vote on every piece of legislation except for repeals -- then sure, I'd vote, since NOTA doesn't violate anyone's rights.

    1. That's probably the best thing I've ever read on Reason, in spite of its flaws. Thanks for sharing that!