Unilateral Disarmament Against The State

http://georgedonnelly.com/asides/evolved-into-anarchist

It's a non sequitur to say that voting presupposes acceptance that the State should exist.  If there are two marked paths through the woods, taking the shortest one does not presuppose acceptance that a marked path should exist.

The anarchist argument against social contract theory is that acts like residency and voting cannot be taken as consent.  You just gave away a big chunk of that argument.

Yes, not voting can be an expression of denied consent.  But it's an elementary fallacy to think this necessarily implies that voting expresses consent.

My views on the authority of the state are at http://knowinghumans.net/2009/01/whence-authority-of-state.html.  My views on secession are at http://ecolibertarian.org/manifesto.

It must be nice to feel so secure in your liberty that you can practice this form of unilateral disarmament against the State. :-)  I wonder how many gay anarchists here in California declined to vote against Prop 8?  Public choice theory tells us voting -- or very loudly not voting -- can only be used as a self-expressive consumption good because the cost of voting irrationally (i.e. contrary to well-informed consideration of your goals) is so low. This is consistent with my theory that, more so even than most libertarians, anarcholibertarians tailor their activism more for purposes of self-expression than for effecting change.  I've said for years that this is the "fundamental problem of the Libertarian Party: its activists tend to care more about exhibiting their ideological purity than about influencing electoral politics in the direction of increased liberty."  I don't claim to strike this balance perfectly, but I think that trying to maximize the number of votes for more liberty is the best way to seek this balance.