I don't consider self-defense a 'flimsy justification' for voting...Spooner was damn right about it, to say that voting necessarily constitutes consent to the actions of the state is foolish. Likewise, to say that by not voting one abdicates any right to oppose the state's actions is equally foolish. The only analog that isn't cloaked in endless semantic jiggery-pokery to my mind is the highwayman; if you give the highwayman the money, do you consent? If he offers to steal less, and you jump at the chance, do you consent then? You're still getting robbed, aren't you? If it was possible to put an end to the robbery altogether, would you not?*

Or, as Smith himself put it, "When the statist tank rolls up over the hill and heads toward you, you can't get away, and your only weapon is a rusty .25 auto lying at your feet, will you sneer at this unreliable and possibly ineffective weapon, or will you pick it up and try to use it?"

*This is not, and never will be, a defense of the Cato institute or supporting Ron Paul, whom I hope loses for the very reasons his supporters want him to win. Szechuan Death's column on the subject explains my position more completely. Also, I have never, and never will, vote.