An Objectivist Won't Vote for VOX Despite It Being the Least Unpleasant
An Objectivist profile argues that voting for VOX "is equivalent to voting for the PP." Reasons include mandatory military service, pandemic management, and free dental care.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The Objectivist Who Won't Vote for VOX Despite Preferring Them
A voter who considers VOX "the least unpleasant party in parliament" but still won't cast a ballot for them. This paradox isn't a reasoning error; it's the thesis a self-proclaimed Objectivist has defended in a thread. Their conclusion, stated plainly, is that voting for VOX is equivalent to voting for the PP, and a consistent liberal cannot accept conscription, pandemic management, or promises like free dental care.
The starting point is textbook: if the party closest to your ideas still advocates for forced conscription, health mandates, and arbitrary public spending, voting ceases to be a tool and becomes a blank check. The underlying question is uncomfortable: what's the point of voting if the vote is diluted in a coalition governing with those you opposed?
The Mandatory Military Service VOX Still Supports
The first criticism is specific and explicit. VOX's platform includes the "right and duty to defend Spain," a phrase this voter interprets as an open door for the state to reintroduce forced conscription. They mention the MILI (mandatory military service), its alleged 300 deaths per year, and the poorly designed rifles recruits were equipped with, according to their complaint. For an Objectivist, mandatory military service isn't a nuance; it's proof the party hasn't abandoned the right to control an individual's body.
Some may downplay the argument, recalling that modern military service is voluntary and unlike the 1990s version, and that the complaint is exaggerated. However, the core of the objection isn't nostalgia but principle. A party that boasts of individual freedom yet retains the duty to defend Spain by mandate clashes with its own rhetoric, this viewpoint argues.
Why They Can't Forgive Pandemic Management
Here the debate intensifies. The central complaint is that VOX voted in favor of the first extension of the State of Alarm in 2020. The most common defense clarifies that a state of alarm doesn't permit house arrest and that lockdowns were only declared illegal by the Constitutional Court, precisely after a challenge by the party itself. The two unconstitutionality appeals are the main argument for supporters.
Against this weighs personal narrative: those who denounce mandatory vaccination recall being told in 2021, "you have to get vaccinated for the pandemic to end," and in 2023, "you have to vote to end Sanchismo." They conclude you don't play games with tricksters. Regarding health matters, claims circulate about vaccines and alleged causes of diseases that lack scientific backing and should be read as what they are: hypotheses without evidence, not facts.
Is Abstention a Vote for Sánchez?
This is the crux of the matter. Some argue that not voting is legitimate but foolish, because right-wing abstention favors the government even more than a vote for the left. The logic is sound: an uncast vote doesn't subtract; it defaults to supporting the incumbent. Others retort that voting hasn't changed anything in thirty years, and those who stay home at least don't co-sign debt they didn't incur.
The discussion shifts to public debt: if you don't participate, can you consider debt incurred by others in your name "odious"? This current's answer is yes, non-participation is the only way to avoid legitimizing waste. The counter-argument is that regret doesn't exempt you from paying the credit card bill. Each person chooses what to believe.
From Free Dental Care to the PP's Stooges
The third front is spending. The voter is irritated that VOX's platform includes "free dental care" just like Sumar's, recalling that PP and PSOE already promised it in 2008. A sarcastic remark about cavities as infections—they aren't, it's a chemical process—caps a more serious argument: promising unlimited free healthcare isn't liberal; it's handing out candy with other people's money.
And then there's the original sin. For this profile, VOX is what Podemos was for the PSOE: stooges who end up propping up the main party. If VOX were a party rejected by the entire spectrum, they reason, one could vote for it; as it's a crutch for the PP, voting for it means voting for the PP. That, they say, ends the debate.
The Pending Trial for Gender Violence Law
The fourth criticism targets the gender violence law. This current's thesis is that its application led to convictions without sufficient evidence and that responsibilities should be investigated, with a large-scale trial akin to the 23-F coup attempt, involving politicians, judges, and prosecutors.
This is slippery territory and requires precision: accusations of unjust convictions are framed as suspicion, not proven fact, and affect a system, not identified individuals. Nevertheless, it's the piece that completes the argumentative puzzle: if the party doesn't repeal that either, the liberal vote has nowhere to go.
With these elements, the fundamental question remains unanswered. Can you prefer a party, celebrate its rise in the polls, and simultaneously deny it your vote out of pure coherence? Those who say yes have argued at length. Those who say no have electoral arithmetic on their side.
A voter who considers VOX "the least unpleasant party in parliament" but still won't cast a ballot for them. This paradox isn't a reasoning error; it's the thesis a self-proclaimed Objectivist has defended in a thread. Their conclusion, stated plainly, is that voting for VOX is equivalent to voting for the PP, and a consistent liberal cannot accept conscription, pandemic management, or promises like free dental care.
The starting point is textbook: if the party closest to your ideas still advocates for forced conscription, health mandates, and arbitrary public spending, voting ceases to be a tool and becomes a blank check. The underlying question is uncomfortable: what's the point of voting if the vote is diluted in a coalition governing with those you opposed?
The Mandatory Military Service VOX Still Supports
The first criticism is specific and explicit. VOX's platform includes the "right and duty to defend Spain," a phrase this voter interprets as an open door for the state to reintroduce forced conscription. They mention the MILI (mandatory military service), its alleged 300 deaths per year, and the poorly designed rifles recruits were equipped with, according to their complaint. For an Objectivist, mandatory military service isn't a nuance; it's proof the party hasn't abandoned the right to control an individual's body.
Some may downplay the argument, recalling that modern military service is voluntary and unlike the 1990s version, and that the complaint is exaggerated. However, the core of the objection isn't nostalgia but principle. A party that boasts of individual freedom yet retains the duty to defend Spain by mandate clashes with its own rhetoric, this viewpoint argues.
Why They Can't Forgive Pandemic Management
Here the debate intensifies. The central complaint is that VOX voted in favor of the first extension of the State of Alarm in 2020. The most common defense clarifies that a state of alarm doesn't permit house arrest and that lockdowns were only declared illegal by the Constitutional Court, precisely after a challenge by the party itself. The two unconstitutionality appeals are the main argument for supporters.
Against this weighs personal narrative: those who denounce mandatory vaccination recall being told in 2021, "you have to get vaccinated for the pandemic to end," and in 2023, "you have to vote to end Sanchismo." They conclude you don't play games with tricksters. Regarding health matters, claims circulate about vaccines and alleged causes of diseases that lack scientific backing and should be read as what they are: hypotheses without evidence, not facts.
Is Abstention a Vote for Sánchez?
This is the crux of the matter. Some argue that not voting is legitimate but foolish, because right-wing abstention favors the government even more than a vote for the left. The logic is sound: an uncast vote doesn't subtract; it defaults to supporting the incumbent. Others retort that voting hasn't changed anything in thirty years, and those who stay home at least don't co-sign debt they didn't incur.
The discussion shifts to public debt: if you don't participate, can you consider debt incurred by others in your name "odious"? This current's answer is yes, non-participation is the only way to avoid legitimizing waste. The counter-argument is that regret doesn't exempt you from paying the credit card bill. Each person chooses what to believe.
From Free Dental Care to the PP's Stooges
The third front is spending. The voter is irritated that VOX's platform includes "free dental care" just like Sumar's, recalling that PP and PSOE already promised it in 2008. A sarcastic remark about cavities as infections—they aren't, it's a chemical process—caps a more serious argument: promising unlimited free healthcare isn't liberal; it's handing out candy with other people's money.
And then there's the original sin. For this profile, VOX is what Podemos was for the PSOE: stooges who end up propping up the main party. If VOX were a party rejected by the entire spectrum, they reason, one could vote for it; as it's a crutch for the PP, voting for it means voting for the PP. That, they say, ends the debate.
The Pending Trial for Gender Violence Law
The fourth criticism targets the gender violence law. This current's thesis is that its application led to convictions without sufficient evidence and that responsibilities should be investigated, with a large-scale trial akin to the 23-F coup attempt, involving politicians, judges, and prosecutors.
This is slippery territory and requires precision: accusations of unjust convictions are framed as suspicion, not proven fact, and affect a system, not identified individuals. Nevertheless, it's the piece that completes the argumentative puzzle: if the party doesn't repeal that either, the liberal vote has nowhere to go.
With these elements, the fundamental question remains unanswered. Can you prefer a party, celebrate its rise in the polls, and simultaneously deny it your vote out of pure coherence? Those who say yes have argued at length. Those who say no have electoral arithmetic on their side.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (621 replies).
More summaries
-
State of Alarm across Spain? The Law That Makes It Impossible
The hypothesis of a state of alarm in Spain clashes with the Constitution: the Constitutional Court clarified this back in 2021. What can and cannot be done?
-
US Intelligence Warns of Russian Drones in the Mediterranean
US intelligence warns of Russian drones launched from the sea in the Mediterranean. The narrative deflates and the economic cost comes into play.
-
Euthanasia in Old Age: Autonomy vs. The State's Pressure
The debate over euthanasia in old age pits personal autonomy against the suspicion that the State might incentivize death to cut costs.
-
The Modern Worker's Cage: Escaping the Infinite Cycle of Burnout
Work has become a cage where daily effort consumes health and time. Discover why we push ourselves so hard and how to break the cycle.
-
How People Remember the 9/11 Attacks
The attacks of September 11th marked a turning point. Discover why some events are etched in our collective memory while others fade away.
-
Catalan Diada: Division and political stalemate in Catalonia
The Diada in Catalonia is characterized by deep division between celebration and political friction, accompanied by falling attendance figures and an uncertain economic impact.