"It's not my fault because I didn't do anything" vs "Even though what I can do is but little, I did what I could".
https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html
stay safe.
Your comments are getting better. Still off-base, but better.
Earlier, you used a version of responsibility as blame--conceiving responsibility as a device to blame or hold accountable. Meaning, your earlier concept that if a person doesn't vote he has no right to complain, is an enforced responsibility/acountability. Inverting responsibility/accountability, your concept had the central premise that failure to act was blameworthy/accountable and denied therefore his human right to complain. (Oh, I know you
later switched your argument to whether he had
standing to complain, but that is beside the point here.)
In the post quoted above, you reach higher. Now, you're giving an example of someone actively taking responsibility, doing what he could. This definitely a notch or two above using responsibility to blame someone. (We'll just ignore that you are once again changing your argument; its beside the point.) He's doing what he can. Definitely a step up as far as responsibility goes.
Where you fall short, Skidmark, is omitting the harm and destruction caused by government, and recognizing an individual can refuse to cause or contribute to afflicting others with such.
Its not hard to consider that politicians lie, pander, steal, etc. A fella can recognize the likelihood that the oh-so promising candidate will do the same, regardless of his "promises" on
some positions with which that fella might agree.
Maybe in 1800 when Thos. Jefferson* was candidate could one claim ignorance, but not today. At least not me. The alternative is to deny experience and observations about government and politicians. That is basically an unstated premise of your argument--that I must ignore experience about lying, pandering, destructive politicians. Otherwise, I did not do what I could.
I
will not cause nor contribute to the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction of my fellow human beings by voting. I have no power to coerce another equal without his express individual consent.
*Even the especially constitutional and rights-oriented Jefferson made the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase. Also, he damn near caused a rebellion with his unconstitutional embargo on the goods of certain European countries--people whose lives depended on those imports suffered quite a bit of economic destruction. My point being that even a candidate as promising as Jefferson is capable of unconstitutional or destructive, harmful policies.