Many non-voters will claim that voting is an act of consent to the coercive state and is therefore a violation of the NAP. Several notable anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard positively wept at this logic. Allow them to break down the issue:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -Lysander Spooner, No Treason
"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action--the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people. Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing. I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote. The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us." -Murray Rothbard, Ethics of LibertyNow, you have heard the same thing from arguably the two most highly notable and influential anarcho capitalists in history. This is hardly worth scoffing at. Now if you'll allow me to break down the non-voter aargument myself: An argument you will often get from a non-voter is such that voting keeps the state in power. Let me counter that claim: the state could easily exist without voting, in fact the idea of democracy is only recent, so it is easy to dispel the claim that if everyone stopped voting, the state would somehow magically crumble. Our privilege to vote can be taken away at any time. Another argument is that it is a consent to be governed. This is also easy to dispel. The essential argument underlining the principled voter argument is that voting does not violate the NAP as it is a form of self defense. We are placed into a coercive situation in which we must be vote for a candidate or face a worse alternative. When non-voters claim that if you vote, you are violating the NAP, their argument is along the same lines as saying that if you pay taxes, you are violating the NAP. Why is it that non-voters are quick to say that voting is a violation, but paying taxes is not? Many in the AnCap movement pay all of their taxes, every month. If we use the principled non-voter argument against them, they have been consenting to the state for their entire lives and continue to do so. If this is the case, why do they pay taxes? For fear of punishment. They pay taxes out of self defense! The same argument non-voters use for taxation can be applied to voting and we can see that voting is, in fact, not a violation of the NAP.
Not only is it not a violation of the NAP, but I feel as if it is a good way to bring about anarchy. Those who claim that minarchy is not a good way to bring about anarchy suffer from Zeno's Paradox. Zeno’s Paradox may be rephrased as follows: Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance…and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room. What this actually does is to make all motion impossible, for before I can cover half the distance I must cover half of half the distance, and before I can do that I must cover half of half of half of the distance, and so on, so that in reality I can never move any distance at all, because doing so involves moving an infinite number of small intermediate distances first. Essentially, to achieve your destination you must cover half the distance, then cover half that distance, and then cover half that distance until you achieve your destination. Let me ask you: If you could press a red button that ended the state right this moment, would you do it? So many people have become dependent on the state for everything, that society would simply not function without the state. We would erupt into chaos. There would be riots on the streets, looting, mass murder, and other horrendous events. We must realize that the average American cannot live their life without the state and when the state is removed they will come for you, your family, and your property. It is a risk to you, a risk to me, and a risk to the well-being of society in general. Yes minarchy is like a surgeon only removing 80% of the tumor, but you do need to remove 80% of the tumor before you can remove all of it don't you? We need to achieve anarchy through localization or at least decentralization of the state. We must take baby steps if you will. We must first limit the state's powers before we can completely eliminate them. This is why I still participate in the political process and why Adam Kokesh will be running for President in 2020. We recognize that we cannot move across the room without walking halfway first.
So we have established that not only is voting not a violation of NAP, and that it is probably the best way to achieve anarchy as well. Perhaps if AnCaps ditched the non-voter position one and for all and started running for office themselves, we might actually have incredible candidates at the local, state, and federal level that can cripple the state and help bring about anarchy by way of localization. So, I encourage you my fellow AnCaps to vote and help weaken the beast so we can finally be rid of it!