Skip to content


  1. Damian P Rudegeair
    November 8, 2018 @ 11:15 am

    This is a fascinating and valid viewpoint, indeed. I voted Logitarian, actually. Keep up the excellent posts!


  2. daniel anderson
    November 8, 2018 @ 12:01 pm

    Very interesting reading. makes some sense does it not.


  3. Logitarian
    November 8, 2018 @ 12:12 pm

    Your feedback is appreciated. More food for thought: voting creates dangerously false dichotomies. For example: “Vote for someone who will increase the education budget by 20%, or their opponent who will increase it by 30%.” As soon as the question is posed this way, we’re all now under two new assumptions: 1) a single person holds the key to solving education issues, and it’s one of these two candidates, and 2) regardless of the candidate, the solution to education is more money. All other ideas which would cost vastly less money (such as Montessori education) are instantly thrown out of the discussion, as voters’ selections are narrowed down to two simplistic options.


  4. Daft Durden
    November 13, 2018 @ 11:25 pm

    Thanks for the thought provoking read on the topic. You make a strong case for the morality of not voting. There is a lot of virtue-signaling in the ‘vote-shaming’ as you mentioned, which is generally sad to see.

    The act of voting may be just that, just enough action to feel like the individual is contributing to society. “I did my part.” I believe about half of the population of the US votes at this time. ~56% according to this source:

    Being a free individual requires many things, among them: thinking, responsibility, and imminent risk mitigation. It may be too much to ask of the average person to take this on when the alternative is to fill in a scan-tron once every two years in exchange for the current system.

    Playing Devil’s Advocate with a twisted question: Would you vote for the abolition of the democratic election system in exchange for individual autonomy?


  5. Logitarian
    November 13, 2018 @ 11:30 pm

    “Would you vote for the abolition of the democratic election system in exchange for individual autonomy?”
    This supposes that a majority-rule voting process would somehow allow full minority rule (which is an odd concept), but in that case it would make sense to vote for autonomy if such an objective, self-destructive voting opportunity were to exist.


    • Daft Durden
      November 13, 2018 @ 11:58 pm

      It was a twisted question. What it reveals is interesting to me. Given certain criteria, a vote could be warranted. And I believe it could be argued that in this case, voting for individual autonomy, is for the moral reason to reduce/eliminate the use of violence by a ruling mob.

      Much in the same way, if all voters stop voting, while different in logistics (no ballots), it would signify a vote of sorts. Perhaps a vote of no confidence?

      In a system where the majority rules, to dial back the government, would the majority of people be required to favor individual autonomy for it to become more of a reality?


  6. Logitarian
    November 14, 2018 @ 11:42 am

    These are good questions. For practical purposes, voting in certain circumstances may appear to be the correct move. Lysander Spooner put it best by likening the ballot to a bullet: if one was forced into a war and given a gun, any actions they took to defend themselves would be simply out of self-preservation, and could not be construed as an endorsement of the situation into which they were forced.

    In a powerful state, abstaining from a vote could signify such a vote of no confidence.
    In a largely powerless state, abstaining from a vote is further indictment of the state’s irrelevance.

    In an airplane facing a hijacking threat, a majority of armed passengers is not needed to prevent the attack; a small minority would be enough. Likewise a relatively small percentage of people in favor of individual autonomy would be sufficient to undermine the state.


Leave a Reply to Damian P Rudegeair Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.