Voting as an act of self-defense makes no sense from a praxeological or NAP viewpoint. To justify self-defense, you must do so in a matter proportional to eliminating the threat. This includes not involving third parties.
Think of this way. Suppose you're in a crowded area of a city and someone tries to steal your wallet, so you whip out your gun and aim for them, but end up shooting and killing someone else in the crossfire. Should you be punished for murder as if you intended to kill the bystander? No. But you still will be held accountable for not taking proper due dilligence, which would mean a manslaughter charge instead. It's why Rothbard warned about not supporting either side during a war in The Ethics of Liberty.
If say you vote for Party X because you don't want Party Y to do forcefully inject you with poison, for example, and it comes at the expense of Party X hurting people in other ways, then you haven't taken the defense, you've taken offense. Look at what's going on in the middle east, for example.
A much more efficient and natural rights-respecting strategy is that of decentralization, especially localism such as covenant communities, as well as counter-economics. This is why despite my disagreements with them, I'm quite a fan of the LPNH and FSP. Are they perfect? No. But they go to show how focusing on the micro first instead of the macro is what's going to protect our liberties.
MoneRogue | Justice for Hayden Panettiere
npub1l7…gdtjt
2026-10-12 01:15:45 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…kcp3
Author Public Key
npub1l7a3c46glyl7fpmgkjfmgytmdfrhdh3552h83hanw0lg09z3q4sqzgdtjtSeen on
wss://nostr.momPublished at
2026-10-12 01:15:45 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "49bb5344dd674a91cc8743be2f62e28410b346c62defb2ed97fb6681a851ae0d",
"pubkey": "ffbb1c5748f93fe48768b493b4117b6a4776de34a2ae78dfb373fe8794510560",
"created_at": 1791767745,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d8c00707e7e59247237abad94672931477fe87daf5a78a14ab698f06c8e07c66",
"wss://nos.lol/",
"root",
"ffbb1c5748f93fe48768b493b4117b6a4776de34a2ae78dfb373fe8794510560"
],
[
"e",
"2fed94922de48dff7a5460415829f07deee558533d569ee34246c76bf6b49a47",
"wss://relay.primal.net/",
"reply",
"68ec7c6b669176bf76ece682d21e8bca7f78ec32578115256d988ab07a723b02"
],
[
"p",
"68ec7c6b669176bf76ece682d21e8bca7f78ec32578115256d988ab07a723b02"
]
],
"content": "Voting as an act of self-defense makes no sense from a praxeological or NAP viewpoint. To justify self-defense, you must do so in a matter proportional to eliminating the threat. This includes not involving third parties.\n\nThink of this way. Suppose you're in a crowded area of a city and someone tries to steal your wallet, so you whip out your gun and aim for them, but end up shooting and killing someone else in the crossfire. Should you be punished for murder as if you intended to kill the bystander? No. But you still will be held accountable for not taking proper due dilligence, which would mean a manslaughter charge instead. It's why Rothbard warned about not supporting either side during a war in The Ethics of Liberty.\n\nIf say you vote for Party X because you don't want Party Y to do forcefully inject you with poison, for example, and it comes at the expense of Party X hurting people in other ways, then you haven't taken the defense, you've taken offense. Look at what's going on in the middle east, for example.\n\nA much more efficient and natural rights-respecting strategy is that of decentralization, especially localism such as covenant communities, as well as counter-economics. This is why despite my disagreements with them, I'm quite a fan of the LPNH and FSP. Are they perfect? No. But they go to show how focusing on the micro first instead of the macro is what's going to protect our liberties.",
"sig": "c240afb02792e7fd2c6b527f83c97fbb004ad08eae54457da94d95f27a90e8b0217917889da600a5ebe967e936185fff08aacc4a682c79b086e26a790579ecce"
}