Okay, I understand about the non-aggression principle question. I never found any questions that specifically asked what was wrong with it beyond the usual ancap trying to make it sound a superior and irrefutable position to take.
As for voting, as an advocate of direct action and to some degree agorism, I really just don't see the point of voting. To me the idea of legitimizing an elitist to boss people around or effect laws that amount ultimately to legitimizing the social construction of the government is just absurd to me.
Where it be either for leaders or laws. It's just to me a really outdated solution to effecting change. We need to start thinking outside the box I feel.
Personally I do feel that if you must vote, do it as a way to hold a genuine opinion about voting. In fact it's a really big eye opener about just how rigged and archaic the process is.
I mean I used to vote myself and did so myself which does grant some credibility in my favor in showing a dislike for the process.
I've voted as both an uninformed voter and an fully informed one before I unregistered to vote. I definitely do have a valid reason to dislike the idea of voting. When I do argue against voting from opponents who say I've no right to complain by not voting, I point out that having voted, I've every right to complain about it.
However, I, for the sake of fairness, remain pretty open minded. If I do hear an argument for voting for so and so, I do the math, then go "well, turns out doing that would actually help effect an anarchist society."
Whether its effect to that end is indirect or direct then I might feel it justified to swallow my pride and feel it help accomplishes an anarchist society.
But it would have to be a really, really, really damn good argument as would the thing being voted on.
