Dear Anarchist or Similarly Pro-Freedom Nonvoter,

I have seen you, or heard you, before – talking about how voting is coercive or immoral or evil. You have waxed eloquent in that, and other contexts, about how principled freedom lovers do not choose to wield power over others. You spoke, or wrote, as if you truly understood that the free cannot win by adopting the methods of the state; that freedom does not flow from the barrel of a gun; that civilized people do not interfere in others’ lives. You had convinced me that you grokked liberty.

I see now that I was duped, along with the others who believed you meant what you were saying. Maybe you yourself count as one of the duped ... I cannot say. But I don’t know what else to call it when I see you proclaiming that you’ll vote in the coming presidential primary—some of you have already stated that you will, if necessary, cast a write-in ballot for the presidential election.

It doesn’t matter who you’re voting for. You can protest all you like, and declaim that “this time, it’s different”—but it isn’t. Each and every individual who announces that he or she is running for any elected office of the state has implicitly accepted the idea that it is okay for some individuals to control others. What else do elected officials do? They don’t create wealth. They don’t create things that people want to buy, or provide services that people would voluntarily choose to pay full price for in a free market. Elected officials play with the rules that others live under (to varying degrees), while often exempting themselves from them.

It is true that some individuals who seek office have higher character than others. It is likewise a truism that power corrupts; and that even those of high character can be corrupted by it. Some who have seemed untaintable have been tainted, once they’ve gotten power. That isn’t to say that every one will, but that is certainly the way to bet. And the office of president ostensibly holds the most power in this country.

But this isn’t about them—this is about you. If you genuinely believed all that you said before, then how can you turn your back on it? Do you really think you’re “sending a signal to the powers that be”? They don’t care!!! It’s their bat, their ball, their home field, their rules—and they have already shown they will gladly change those rules to suit their needs. What’s worse, you allowed yourself to get sucked back into their game. You, who previously wrote such ringing denouncements of voting. You, who said you wouldn’t initiate force against others. Do you really think it’ll be “fun”, to endure the gauntlet of admission to their home field, and then to pull a lever or touch a screen and thereby proclaim, “I think this person should rule over us all”—including those of us who just want to be let alone, who thought you were a fellow lover of liberty ... only to have Diebold et al. suck your ballot or electrons down the memory hole? Judas got a better deal than the one you’re taking.

“Do as I say, not as I do” has exposed many a person as not living up to the standards he or she has espoused. There are different reasons why that happens, some of which are understandable. But you appeared to grok the non-aggression principle; you have spoken of voting as a violation of it. Your betrayal hurts. It especially hurts the pro-freedom movement, because your example supports the idea that nobody sticks with principles any more. You just raised the bar for the rest of us.

Don’t bother trying to justify your actions to me. I want to hear nothing further from you. Please do make sure you vote early enough to get one of those patriotic stickers boasting of your act of aggression, though; it strikes me as a suitable reward for all your effort.