[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
(I)f the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure of this. If 65% of the people don't want a state, but you only "count" the votes of the other 35% then the rule of majority through representatives of the minority will still persist.

Now, you may say "but if 65% of the population doesn't want a government then they'll just use their collective force to overcome the power of the government". But in that case, you are still asserting yourself and forcing others to involuntarily disband their state. Taking the "high road" and not voting doesn't wash you clean of the necessity to coerce those that still want their state to give it up when the time comes.

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

I don't see the ethical dilemma with "voting anarchist". If the statists are willing to count your vote and have their powers limited by anarchist representatives, I don't see how the anarchists are forcing anyone to do anything (at least, not to a greater extent than they are by sitting on the sidelines).